From dmiloshevic at afilias.info Sun Jan 31 18:23:45 2010 From: dmiloshevic at afilias.info (Desiree Miloshevic) Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2010 23:23:45 +0000 Subject: [governance] < 24 hours remaining to vote YES + thematic working In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <34FDD643-6A96-4D85-8BBF-3ADD3A9EC6B7@afilias.info> Yes + thematic wg Desiree -- On 30 Jan 2010, at 20:26, e-cpsr wrote: > If i'm not too late, i vote "Yes + thematics". > > Thank you. > > -- > eden > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Jan 31 17:50:44 2010 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2010 20:50:44 -0200 Subject: [governance] Re: Preliminary results of consensus call on IGC In-Reply-To: <754E3BE7-2FF7-4F67-8350-2AE1659A8D81@ciroap.org> References: <575BB2F5-33E3-4D39-982F-AE38C7BC4D50@ciroap.org> <754E3BE7-2FF7-4F67-8350-2AE1659A8D81@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <4B660944.6050101@cafonso.ca> Congrats on the good work, Jeremy. --c.a. Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 31/01/2010, at 3:59 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > >> I am not calling a result yet, because I need to discuss with Ginger. However, as indication of participation, my count says that after removing duplicate votes and accounting for changed votes (mainly from YES to YES + thematic working groups), we have had 39 votes for YES + thematic working groups, 3 YES votes, 3 NO votes, and one abstention. > > The coordinators have decided that a rough consensus now exists in favour of the IGC statement in the form below (ie. YES + thematic working groups). To clarify Deirdre's question on list, this is not a case where a vote has been taken. The "voting" is just a means of establishing the degree of consensus that exists. > > Also thanks Deirdre for pulling me up on talking in the singular first person about announcing the result - whilst Ginger had left the settling of this statement for me, in the end it is certainly a joint endeavour (and more than that, an endeavour of the entire IGC). > > Thanks to Parminder for expounding on the question of whether the views of those who had joined the list since the last election would be taken into account in assessing the consensus. As it happens, there is a current proposal to investigate revising the IGC charter. This is a point on which such a revision would be beneficial. We will revisit this in the coming weeks. > > The statement below will be sent to the Secretariat shortly. > > Submission of the IGC in taking stock of the Sharm el Sheikh meeting of the IGF > > The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) strongly supports the continuation of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) as a multi-stakeholder forum for the discussion of Internet-related public policy issues. When, as we expect, the forum's mandate is extended for a further term, there are a number of adjustments that we believe should be taken into account, continuing the IGF's pattern of incremental improvement since its inauguration in 2006. > > None of these suggestions would fundamentally alter the IGF as an institution; for example, we are content that it remain formally convened by the UN Secretary General, with an independent budget and a Secretariat under contract with the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA). We do not see any benefit to the IGF in moving underneath a different UN body such as the ITU. > > One question on which the IGC is in clear agreement is that the composition of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) itself should be more evenly divided between the stakeholder groups. Many also believe that the stakeholders should have a more direct role in the selection of MAG members, and that MAG discussions should continue to be made more transparent. > > One particular aspect of the IGF's operations in which the participation of stakeholders could be improved is in setting the substantive agenda of IGF meetings. We understand that the MAG might not be rotated this year (though in our view the uncertainty about the IGF's future need not preclude that). If a rotation does not take place, care must be taken that this does not result in the programme for the Vilnius meeting being prematurely set in stone. > > The IGF should also consider how to improve its orientation towards the development of tangible outputs, even if these would amount to "messages" rather than to recommendations, declarations or statements (though many of our members would also support outputs of these stronger kinds). Whatever form its outputs take, efforts should be taken to ensure that they are transmitted to relevant external institutions through appropriate mechanisms. > > Similarly, attention must be given to the effectiveness of the IGF's intersessional work program, which is currently limited to open consultations, MAG meetings, dynamic coalition meetings, and loosely connected national and regional meetings. In particular, there should be a better mechanism than at present for these other groups and meetings to present their outputs to the IGF as a whole. This would require the IGF to set more stringent standards for such groups and meetings, including open membership, democratic processes, and perhaps multi-stakeholder composition. > > The MAG should also organize thematic working groups to develop background material, IGF discussion synthesis etc on major themes selected to be taken up by the IGF. > > We thank you for the opportunity to present you with these thoughts, which reflect a "rough consensus" of our several hundred members from civil society. We look forward to continuing to constructively engage with and participate in the IGF over the course of its renewed term. > > About the IGC > > The IGC is an association of individuals in civil society, with a wide spread of geographic and gender representation, who are actively engaged in internet governance and the IGF. Formed during the lead up to the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), our mission is to promote global public interest objectives in Internet governance policy making. It now comprises more than 400 individual subscribers to its mailing list, who have subscribed to its Charter. More about our coalition can be found at http://www.igcaucus.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 mazzone at ebu.ch Sun Jan 31 19:46:22 2010 From: mazzone at ebu.ch (Mazzone, Giacomo) Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2010 01:46:22 +0100 Subject: [governance] In-Reply-To: <4B646AB6.7000204@uni-graz.at> References: <4B645BC3.2090304@nic.br> <2118739643-1264871940-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-881310633-@bda017.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> <4B646AB6.7000204@uni-graz.at> Message-ID: <488E8B79032F7642949B28142651689CF437726678@GVAMAIL.gva.ebu.ch> I ABSTAIN MYSELF. There are part of the statement that I don't agree with. But because it seems that there is a majority that like, I prefer to abstain instead than to vote against. Best regards to everybody. Giacomo Mazzone On 30/01/2010 07:32, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: If you have not voted on the IGC statement for the next open consultation meeting, please vote now. At present the statement might not pass the consensus call - not because there has been a lot of opposition to it, but because the total number of responses is still relatively low. Please also remember that we have another thread in which to discuss the agenda for the Vilnius meeting: so far there has been no response to Parminder's suggestion of a theme on "Network Neutrality/Open Internet". Here once again is the statement on which we have a consensus call. Everyone who has voted YES so far has been contacted off-list to clarify their attitude towards thematic working groups - none have yet changed their vote. Please vote: YES + thematic working groups to accept the statement as shown here YES to accept the statement without the [underlined passage] NO to reject the statement Submission of the IGC in taking stock of the Sharm el Sheikh meeting of the IGF The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) strongly supports the continuation of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) as a multi-stakeholder forum for the discussion of Internet-related public policy issues. When, as we expect, the forum's mandate is extended for a further term, there are a number of adjustments that we believe should be taken into account, continuing the IGF's pattern of incremental improvement since its inauguration in 2006. None of these suggestions would fundamentally alter the IGF as an institution; for example, we are content that it remain formally convened by the UN Secretary General, with an independent budget and a Secretariat under contract with the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA). We do not see any benefit to the IGF in moving underneath a different UN body such as the ITU. One question on which the IGC is in clear agreement is that the composition of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) itself should be more evenly divided between the stakeholder groups. Many also believe that the stakeholders should have a more direct role in the selection of MAG members, and that MAG discussions should continue to be made more transparent. One particular aspect of the IGF's operations in which the participation of stakeholders could be improved is in setting the substantive agenda of IGF meetings. We understand that the MAG might not be rotated this year (though in our view the uncertainty about the IGF's future need not preclude that). If a rotation does not take place, care must be taken that this does not result in the programme for the Vilnius meeting being prematurely set in stone. [[The IGC is ready to make innovative contributions to enhance the present "Secretariat-MAG-Open Consultation" mechanism for the preparation of IGF meetings.]] The IGF should also consider how to improve its orientation towards the development of tangible outputs, even if these would amount to "messages" rather than to recommendations, declarations or statements (though many of our members would also support outputs of these stronger kinds). Whatever form its outputs take, efforts should be taken to ensure that they are transmitted to relevant external institutions through appropriate mechanisms. Similarly, attention must be given to the effectiveness of the IGF's intersessional work program, which is currently limited to open consultations, MAG meetings, dynamic coalition meetings, and loosely connected national and regional meetings. In particular, there should be a better mechanism than at present for these other groups and meetings to present their outputs to the IGF as a whole. This would require the IGF to set more stringent standards for such groups and meetings, including open membership, democratic processes, and perhaps multi-stakeholder composition. [The MAG should also organize thematic working groups to develop background material, IGF discussion synthesis etc on major themes selected to be taken up by the IGF.] We thank you for the opportunity to present you with these thoughts, which reflect a "rough consensus" of our several hundred members from civil society. We look forward to continuing to constructively engage with and participate in the IGF over the course of its renewed term. About the IGC The IGC is an association of individuals in civil society, with a wide spread of geographic and gender representation, who are actively engaged in internet governance and the IGF. Formed during the lead up to the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), our mission is to promote global public interest objectives in Internet governance policy making. It now comprises more than 400 individual subscribers to its mailing list, who have subscribed to its Charter. More about our coalition can be found at http://www.igcaucus.org. -- 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. -- Este mensaje ha sido analizado por MailScanner en busca de virus y otros contenidos peligrosos, y se considera que está limpio. MailScanner agradece a transtec Computers por su apoyo. ________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- Matthias C. Kettemann Harvard Law School LL.M. Class of 2010 29 Garden St, Apt # 604 Cambridge, MA 02138, USA M | +1 617 229 9015 E | mkettemann at llm10.law.harvard.edu Skype | matthiaskettemann FlickR | http://www.flickr.com/photos/mckettemann Facebook | http://www.facebook.com/matthias.kettemann -- Mag. iur. Matthias C. Kettemann Teaching and Research Fellow | Wissenschaftlicher Mitarbeiter Institute of International Law and International Relations University of Graz Institut für Völkerrecht und Internationale Beziehungen Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz Universitätsstraße 15/A4, 8010 Graz, Austria T | +43 316 380 6711 (office) M | +43 676 701 7175 (mobile) F | +43 316 380 9455 (fax) E | matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Sun Jan 31 19:57:54 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2010 08:57:54 +0800 Subject: [governance] Preliminary results of consensus call on IGC In-Reply-To: <76f819dd1001310707t19c81594g78496860d585597a@mail.gmail.com> References: <575BB2F5-33E3-4D39-982F-AE38C7BC4D50@ciroap.org> <808a83f61001310519k74dcbe1eq2f0737a3a818823a@mail.gmail.com> <4B658BA7.2000807@itforchange.net> <76f819dd1001310707t19c81594g78496860d585597a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2D83123A-8455-4CFD-BDE0-CB1FB56B4382@ciroap.org> Thank you Paul for this excellent work. > CHARTER: > "All voting will be open," [unless a secret ballot is adopted.] I suggest that to maintain this openness but to reduce complaints about the volume of votes on the list, we will experiment with an optional Web-based vote next time, with registration and open archives of votes cast. If anyone lacks Web access, they could still vote here. > The actual text being voted on recites at the bottom what appears to > be the full number of listserv participants (about 400) to enhance the > credibility of IGC consensus statements (one assumes) and yet the IGC > does not allow a substantial section of the 400 to vote on the > consensus. The larger the number of people from whom a concensus is > reached the stronger the resulting statement of consensus is, so there > appears to be a result here that is not in the best interests of the > IGC. Well, I do agree and I can only say that I (and at least certain others too) were under a misapprehension about what was required. Hopefully the future revised Charter can be clearer on this. -- Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 CI is 50 Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010. Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer rights around the world. http://www.consumersinternational.org/50 Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Sun Jan 31 20:06:50 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2010 09:06:50 +0800 Subject: [governance] Process issues for future consensus calls In-Reply-To: References: <7048891E-4BE3-4FCB-9E9C-FD7DCEE19FEF@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <1B158610-7A6C-4B49-A331-73B957CCB0FB@ciroap.org> 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 From ias_pk at yahoo.com Sun Jan 31 22:01:11 2010 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2010 19:01:11 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Process issues for future consensus calls In-Reply-To: <1B158610-7A6C-4B49-A331-73B957CCB0FB@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <377027.93849.qm@web33004.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Dear Jeremy Malcolm We can arrange to maintain web development, website management and hosting service for IGC on behalf of Urdu Internet Society. We offer to provide following features: Membership login areas: Members Discussion Forum (for each topic/thread as it is being managed in the email) Email Distribution List Easy to conduct Online Survey and Survey Analysis/statistics News and announcements. Tutorials and downloadables etc. We offer these contribution for IGC, IGF at our own cost. Thanking you and Best Regards Imran Ahmed Shah 0092 300 4130617 Advisor to Urdu Internet Council 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 parminder at itforchange.net Sun Jan 31 22:14:22 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Mon, 01 Feb 2010 08:44:22 +0530 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: <4B66470E.4090007@itforchange.net> 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 lmcknigh at syr.edu Sun Jan 31 22:47:13 2010 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2010 22:47:13 -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: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015463CBDC@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> ok parminder, as long you assure me net neutrality doesn't mean what some thought it meant in IGF context I will be flexible : ) But just to clarify, the phrase 'open internet' is not a new fcc invention, it has been around as a core design principle from beginning. ________________________________________ From: Parminder [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 cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Fri Jan 1 11:51:22 2010 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Fri, 1 Jan 2010 08:51:22 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] IGF Workshop reports Message-ID: <833206.65654.qm@web83915.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Adam,   This seems like a very minimal requirement. Your link was quite concise and a nice snapshot of what was done.  Why a delay or perhaps recalcitrance to file a full report?   I want to know what great progress was made in this essential area.   What I most like about the concept of the merger and "attitude" of the "outline" and the participant list was that I got a sense that models and monitoring and therefor a system for accountability seems to be in the works. This is a good backbone for Internet Governance.   (I note also a good blend of nonconfrontational Technical with Policy, highly desireable) --- On Thu, 12/31/09, Adam Peake wrote: From: Adam Peake Subject: Re: [governance] IGF Workshop reports To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Cc: :@npogroups.org Date: Thursday, December 31, 2009, 1:47 PM > In message <4B3C8AC9.8000401 at wzb.eu>, at 11:28:09 on Thu, 31 Dec 2009, Jeanette Hofmann writes >> such things are always subject to negotiation. If you ask me, Alice should be able to convince the secretariat that she wasn't in a position to write a report. So should be your guy who dropped out. Co-organizers, on the other hand, should be grown up enough to share the responsibility to deliver a report. But there are just my personal thoughts. > > I'm primarily concerned about the multitude of people mentioned as co-organisers, who may not realise that their future prospects could depend upon a report being filed. There's a section in each workshop proposal "The Workshop is proposed on behalf of"  and it's the organizations listed there that are responsible for the report.  They should know who they are as the organized and held a workshop in Sharm. The requirement to file was part of the call for workshops, this isn't a surprise request (was also a condition last year.) I submitted a workshop proposal, had supporters from various stakeholders, but I led the organizing.  We eventually merged with a workshop proposed by Bill Woodcock (he also had support from various stakeholders). Bill and I, for GLOCOM and PCH, are responsible for the report.  Not the other stakeholders who supported the workshop.  If we don't submit a report (haven't yet...) we'll not be eligible to organize a workshop next year. Adam > Maybe one way out is to differentiate between Joint Proposers, and "Co-organisers to be approached" (to use the language of the website). > > Roland. > >> Roland Perry wrote: >>> In message <4B3B872A.4010908 at wzb.eu>, at 17:00:26 on Wed, 30 Dec 2009,  Jeanette Hofmann quotes Marcus Kummer: >>> >>>> We all agreed to make submission of a workshop report a prerequisite for accepting a workshop proposal for the Vilnius meeting. The new deadline will give us a clearer picture of how many potential organizers we may have next year by the time we meet in February. >>>  There's an aspect of this which puzzles me slightly: Several workshops  were merged, which has left the definition of "organizer" unclear. >>>  Let's say that Tom, Dick and Harry all proposed workshops on similar topics, and merged. From then on, Tom did all the administrative work, Dick helped him, but Harry dropped out after he'd passed the contact details for his proposed speakers to Tom. >>>  Harry had also originally said in his proposal that he was co-organising  his workshop with Alice, but in fact had never contacted Alice to  confirm this, and she knows nothing about it. >>>  Tom failed to file a workshop report on time, does that also disqualify  Dick or Harry (and Alice?) from proposing a workshop in their original  individual capacities for Vilnius? >> ______________________________________________________ > > -- > Roland Perry > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Fri Jan 1 12:35:10 2010 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Fri, 1 Jan 2010 09:35:10 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Online survey on reform of the IGF In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <205184.29229.qm@web83915.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Clearly the questions tell us more than the answers ever will.  Hence in a court of law they are disfavored as "leading" - (with exceptions for disabilities, experts and hostiles{funny they lump those 3 together})   So for discussion and debate the questions are well framed. For collection of raw insightful(not inciteful) data they are skewed.  So do we want a survey that reflects existing consensus or one that leads us into debate that will ultimately show a future overview?   I suggest we shorten it. Make it more concise. Label each question #  and ask for that for future discussion subject lines and compile as we go. Anticipate a late february date for a new survey to crystalize consensus with a new "just the fact of opinion" then circulate and poll. Good to remember that it should not be for us but for others to understand us.   Perhaps the coolest thing of this would be that next time a "paper" position is asked for on a given area -- we do not rush to provide a paper but rather coalate our already existing data.  I think Gingers' forsight in this regard is invaluable. --- On Thu, 12/31/09, Michael Gurstein wrote: From: Michael Gurstein Subject: RE: [governance] Online survey on reform of the IGF To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Date: Thursday, December 31, 2009, 5:10 AM To be "nerdy" about this...   I think that the q'aire is a well-intentioned idea but really quite misleading except as a possible means for sensitizing the non-informed concerning IGF issues and even there it has some serious flaws.   The problem with the q'aire is that it isn't clear what it's purpose is. The q'aire states that "this survey is intended to gauge the position of members of the Internet Governance Caucus regarding possible structural reforms for the Internet " however, virtually all of the questions are structured in a format so as to elicit the opinions of the responder as to what the current situation within the IGF IS rather than what it OUGHT TO BE in the opinion of the responder.    Unless one is doing a survey of the current level of knowledge of the responder the results really aren't of much value at all (and its hard to know why the level of knowledge concerning the IGF among the responders from the IGC would be of anything other than peripheral academic interest..). It wouldn't take that much to change the questions around so as to elicit opinions (which might be interesting) but otherwise...   Best,   Mike (whose basic training was as a sociologist... -----Original Message-----From: Eric Dierker [mailto:cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net] Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 2009 9:54 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Lee W McKnight; Fouad Bajwa; Jeremy Malcolm; Ginger Paque Subject: RE: [governance] Online survey on reform of the IGF I can see all the points made, but I quite liked the survey. I hope that this advice is taken and the survey resubmitted to us masses. --- On Mon, 12/28/09, Lee W McKnight wrote: From: Lee W McKnight Subject: RE: [governance] Online survey on reform of the IGF To: "governance at lists.cpsr.org" , "Fouad Bajwa" , "Jeremy Malcolm" , "Ginger Paque" Date: Monday, December 28, 2009, 1:16 PM Jeremy, Not to get all nerdy on you, but generally a survey like this would go through a ´pre-test´phase where little (or big) errors/ambiguities in the survey design, ie the precise wording of questions, is tested before  you ask lots of people to complete it. My suggestion: compile and tweak the survey in response to the early feedback, then post again. Lee ________________________________________ From: Fouad Bajwa [fouadbajwa at gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, December 24, 2009 5:46 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeremy Malcolm; Ginger Paque Subject: Re: [governance] Online survey on reform of the IGF Hi Jeremy, Welcome to office :o) Good effort with the survey but I just had a run through of the survey and I had a few thoughts or concerns as you may say to share.: 1. My initial suggestion is that the answers should not be restricted to a drop down list, there should be a text box to allow the surveyed to fill in their thoughts and reflections instead of being bound to a specific set of answers, freedom to express thoughts shouldn't be restricted to pre-defined answers. 2. Next, there are absolute un-referenced statements following a ? sign at the bottom of the answers for each question. I can't seem to find direct sources of these statements and their authenticity in general apart from the IGF structure. Is it possible to clarify these with the reference so when members answer these, they can also read the background of this statement? 3. Finally, some statements need to be reviewed again. The issue of MAG is one of the major issues but a whole statement isn't representative of all the issues that IGC needs to raise with mutual consensus to the IGF secretariat. Also regarding the MAG selection process, my understanding and the process that I witnessed was that the Secretariat issues a call for renewal of the MAG in accordance with the IGF mandate to all three member bodies of the multistakeholders. The multistakeholder groups than run a nomination process through their own determined procedures after which the names are forwarded to the secretariat that then forwards those names to the UN headquarters for the Secretary General to select, is this understanding correct, if yes, then the questions have to be reviewed again, if not, then the process has to be clarified and the IGC website has the outcome of the process clearly detailed with the names of the nominated. Also the MAG from my perspective should represent its nominating multistakeholder group and deliberate and intervene with the interests of that multistakeholder group. For example, the understanding that I practice as MAG member nominated and selected from IGC is that I am a representative of the IGC and I have to voice the concern and intervene on issues of importance to the IGC. In this regard, the employer or the organization behind you should be secondary and IGC should be first. Thus IGC/Civil Society MAG members intervene with IGC interests. If you agree to this, then the questions again need more improvement. These are just initial thoughts and I also suggest that we should first float the idea to the IGC list and with consensus build a survey to reflect our thoughts for devising statements.  In the last few weeks we had several threads on the issue of IGF improvement and IGC statements and those should be brought forward as they had a detailed amount of input from IGC members and my initial understanding was that we would devise the IGC statement based on those discussions to which you had also extensively contributed. Please take those into account as a priority since we have spent considerable thought and time into them. I hope these suggestions are helpful. Best Regards and Season's Greetings Fouad On Fri, Dec 25, 2009 at 1:31 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > Hello all, and Merry Christmas to those who celebrate it! > > As foreshadowed by Ginger, I have created an online version of the survey > that I posted to the list some time ago about reforms to the IGF that we > might choose to put forward as a caucus. > You can find the online version > at http://igf-online.net/limesurvey/index.php?sid=17855 (I aimed to put it > up at igcaucus.org, but technical constraints prohibited it).  Participation > is voluntary and anonymous. > I have simplified it from the original version that I sent by email in that > you no longer need to list "ideal" and "pragmatic" responses.  Be as > pragmatic as you wish to be.  Even so, for some questions, there may be more > than one answer you would be satisfied with - in that case just choose the > best answer.  If no answers are satisfactory, choose "Other" and write in > your response. > Please complete your response by 10 January 2010.  Following that, I will > work with Ginger to produce a draft statement based on any consensus that > emerges from the survey.  I will post this to the list, and after a > discussion period we will aim for a consensus call on it. > Many thanks in anticipation of your responses! > > -- > > 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 > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -----Inline Attachment Follows----- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From correia.rui at gmail.com Fri Jan 1 13:55:32 2010 From: correia.rui at gmail.com (Rui Correia) Date: Fri, 1 Jan 2010 20:55:32 +0200 Subject: [governance] Online survey on reform of the IGF In-Reply-To: <205184.29229.qm@web83915.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> References: <205184.29229.qm@web83915.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: I like "coalate" - halfway between "coalesce" and "collate". Which is what we do most of the time ... Rui 2010/1/1 Eric Dierker > Clearly the questions tell us more than the answers ever will. Hence in a > court of law they are disfavored as "leading" - (with exceptions for > disabilities, experts and hostiles{funny they lump those 3 together}) > > So for discussion and debate the questions are well framed. For collection > of raw insightful(not inciteful) data they are skewed. So do we want a > survey that reflects existing consensus or one that leads us into debate > that will ultimately show a future overview? > > I suggest we shorten it. Make it more concise. Label each question # and > ask for that for future discussion subject lines and compile as we go. > Anticipate a late february date for a new survey to crystalize consensus > with a new "just the fact of opinion" then circulate and poll. Good to > remember that it should not be for us but for others to understand us. > > Perhaps the coolest thing of this would be that next time a "paper" > position is asked for on a given area -- we do not rush to provide a paper > but rather coalate our already existing data. I think Gingers' forsight in > this regard is invaluable. > > --- On *Thu, 12/31/09, Michael Gurstein * wrote: > > > From: Michael Gurstein > > Subject: RE: [governance] Online survey on reform of the IGF > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Date: Thursday, December 31, 2009, 5:10 AM > > > To be "nerdy" about this... > > I think that the q'aire is a well-intentioned idea but really quite > misleading except as a possible means for sensitizing the non-informed > concerning IGF issues and even there it has some serious flaws. > > The problem with the q'aire is that it isn't clear what it's purpose is. > The q'aire states that "this survey is intended to gauge the position of > members of the Internet Governance Caucus regarding > possible structural reforms for the Internet " > however, virtually all of the questions are structured in a format so as to > elicit the opinions of the responder as to what the current situation within > the IGF I*S *rather than what it *OUGHT TO BE* in the opinion of the > responder. > > Unless one is doing a survey of the current level of knowledge of the > responder the results really aren't of much value at all (and its hard to > know why the level of knowledge concerning the IGF among the responders from > the IGC would be of anything other than peripheral academic interest..). It > wouldn't take that much to change the questions around so as to elicit > opinions (which might be interesting) but otherwise... > > Best, > > Mike (whose basic training was as a sociologist... > > -----Original Message-----*From:* Eric Dierker [mailto: > cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net] > *Sent:* Tuesday, December 29, 2009 9:54 PM > *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org; Lee W McKnight; Fouad Bajwa; Jeremy > Malcolm; Ginger Paque > *Subject:* RE: [governance] Online survey on reform of the IGF > > I can see all the points made, but I quite liked the survey. I hope that > this advice is taken and the survey resubmitted to us masses. > > --- On *Mon, 12/28/09, Lee W McKnight * wrote: > > > From: Lee W McKnight > Subject: RE: [governance] Online survey on reform of the IGF > To: "governance at lists.cpsr.org" , "Fouad Bajwa" > , "Jeremy Malcolm" , "Ginger > Paque" > Date: Monday, December 28, 2009, 1:16 PM > > Jeremy, > > Not to get all nerdy on you, but generally a survey like this would go > through a ´pre-test´phase where little (or big) errors/ambiguities in the > survey design, ie the precise wording of questions, is tested before you > ask lots of people to complete it. > > My suggestion: compile and tweak the survey in response to the early > feedback, then post again. > > Lee > > ________________________________________ > From: Fouad Bajwa [fouadbajwa at gmail.com > ] > Sent: Thursday, December 24, 2009 5:46 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; > Jeremy Malcolm; Ginger Paque > Subject: Re: [governance] Online survey on reform of the IGF > > Hi Jeremy, > > Welcome to office :o) Good effort with the survey but I just had a run > through of the survey and I had a few thoughts or concerns as you may > say to share.: > > 1. My initial suggestion is that the answers should not be restricted > to a drop down list, there should be a text box to allow the surveyed > to fill in their thoughts and reflections instead of being bound to a > specific set of answers, freedom to express thoughts shouldn't be > restricted to pre-defined answers. > > 2. Next, there are absolute un-referenced statements following a ? > sign at the bottom of the answers for each question. I can't seem to > find direct sources of these statements and their authenticity in > general apart from the IGF structure. Is it possible to clarify these > with the reference so when members answer these, they can also read > the background of this statement? > > 3. Finally, some statements need to be reviewed again. The issue of > MAG is one of the major issues but a whole statement isn't > representative of all the issues that IGC needs to raise with mutual > consensus to the IGF secretariat. > > Also regarding the MAG selection process, my understanding and the > process that I witnessed was that the Secretariat issues a call for > renewal of the MAG in accordance with the IGF mandate to all three > member bodies of the multistakeholders. The multistakeholder groups > than run a nomination process through their own determined procedures > after which the names are forwarded to the secretariat that then > forwards those names to the UN headquarters for the Secretary General > to select, is this understanding correct, if yes, then the questions > have to be reviewed again, if not, then the process has to be > clarified and the IGC website has the outcome of the process clearly > detailed with the names of the nominated. > > Also the MAG from my perspective should represent its nominating > multistakeholder group and deliberate and intervene with the interests > of that multistakeholder group. For example, the understanding that I > practice as MAG member nominated and selected from IGC is that I am a > representative of the IGC and I have to voice the concern and > intervene on issues of importance to the IGC. In this regard, the > employer or the organization behind you should be secondary and IGC > should be first. Thus IGC/Civil Society MAG members intervene with IGC > interests. If you agree to this, then the questions again need more > improvement. > > These are just initial thoughts and I also suggest that we should > first float the idea to the IGC list and with consensus build a survey > to reflect our thoughts for devising statements. In the last few > weeks we had several threads on the issue of IGF improvement and IGC > statements and those should be brought forward as they had a detailed > amount of input from IGC members and my initial understanding was that > we would devise the IGC statement based on those discussions to which > you had also extensively contributed. Please take those into account > as a priority since we have spent considerable thought and time into > them. > > I hope these suggestions are helpful. > > Best Regards and Season's Greetings > > Fouad > > On Fri, Dec 25, 2009 at 1:31 AM, Jeremy Malcolm > > wrote: > > Hello all, and Merry Christmas to those who celebrate it! > > > > As foreshadowed by Ginger, I have created an online version of the survey > > that I posted to the list some time ago about reforms to the IGF that we > > might choose to put forward as a caucus. > > You can find the online version > > at http://igf-online.net/limesurvey/index.php?sid=17855 (I aimed to put > it > > up at igcaucus.org, but technical constraints prohibited it). > Participation > > is voluntary and anonymous. > > I have simplified it from the original version that I sent by email in > that > > you no longer need to list "ideal" and "pragmatic" responses. Be as > > pragmatic as you wish to be. Even so, for some questions, there may be > more > > than one answer you would be satisfied with - in that case just choose > the > > best answer. If no answers are satisfactory, choose "Other" and write in > > your response. > > Please complete your response by 10 January 2010. Following that, I will > > work with Ginger to produce a draft statement based on any consensus that > > emerges from the survey. I will post this to the list, and after a > > discussion period we will aim for a consensus call on it. > > Many thanks in anticipation of your responses! > > > > -- > > > > 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 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > -----Inline Attachment Follows----- > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -- ________________________________________________ Rui Correia Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant Angola Liaison Consultant 2 Cutten St Horison Roodepoort-Johannesburg, South Africa Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 _______________ áâãçéêíóôõúç -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Fri Jan 1 16:11:56 2010 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Fri, 1 Jan 2010 13:11:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Online survey on reform of the IGF Message-ID: <457229.33947.qm@web83902.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Gentlemen,   Thank you for this frank exchange of factoids and opines. Jean your admiration of Parminders clarity is well reflected in your own.   Could either of you please link us to, or provide yourself, some further illumination of this ITU move into governance that is apart from standard setting in technical matters.   I have studied the checks and balance notion used by many prosperous current governments and have found that in Internet governance a very natural one has occured.  It would be my hope that it remains. That would be what I believe has kept ICANN in its' semblance of working order. (never intended - but eluded to by Postel, USC'96) The bicameral yin and yang nature of the Technical versus the political social. Ease of use or efficiency or domination should not be justification for the weakening of one or the other -- the conflict is natural and maintains balance.   As for GAID. We should never forget that while "aid" itself seems all good and innocuous, it is in fact and historically a tool for directing the aided in the direction desired by the aider and abettor.  It is important that we view this honestly and maintain vigilance and transparency and debate over appropriate attaching of strings. I am sure Mr. Khan would agree. --- On Thu, 12/31/09, Jean-Louis FULLSACK wrote: From: Jean-Louis FULLSACK Subject: Re: [governance] Online survey on reform of the IGF To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Parminder" Date: Thursday, December 31, 2009, 12:48 PM Dear Parminder As usually your message clearifies the debate ; therefore all my thanks. > concrete suggestion for IGF reform, which may be taken up when the resolution/ > discussion on IGF continuation finally comes up at the UN general > assembly or at the CSTD (there is a confusion at this stage how the > process will go forward). Isn't there another confusing situation with GAID as far as IG is dealing with Developing Countriers issues are concerned ? If this is the opinion of a majority among us, our relation with -and/or position on- GAID should be laid down accordingly.  > many among us are focusing on just one thing - the > danger that ITU may take over the IGF Right. That is just another point of concern for me. not only because I was working in the (far) past with this Un Agency. I do think that IG needs a strong framework as to be able to apply in any country. Per se ITU isn't qualified for "governance" matters, but it happens to be an intergovernmental body that has a world-wide competence and standardization authority in the ICT/telecom domain, whose circuitry the Internet relies on. That's why I wonder if CS shouldn't rather put its efforts to gain both its place and respect inside this agency. The IGC should also remember that a large part of the CS orgs committed in the WSIS follow-up -especially those working in or with DCs- are struggling for CS being given a plain "ITU member" status.      > there could also be new > options. Thematic working groups, inter-sessional programs, some > possibilities of clear advisory outcomes etc may be some things we have > earlier alluded to. Among these thematic working groups one should deal with some issues related to technical matters such as critical Internet resources, network architecture, network neutrality, etc With my best wishes for a happy and fruitful New Year Jean-Louis Fullsack > Message du 31/12/09 10:20 > De : "Parminder" > A : governance at lists.cpsr.org > Copie à : > Objet : Re: [governance] Online survey on reform of the IGF > > > > Hi All > > While the survey may or may not provide useful inputs for IGC's position > on IGF reform, we should in any case discuss the issue here on the list > so that the coordinators can attempt a consensus position. > > I do think that, in the formal consultation process at Sharm, IGC failed > to provide a comprehensive set of suggestions, even the ones which we > have often discussed in past and adopted by consensus. We may still have > a chance of putting our views forward, now through the channel of > government reps that may be on the lookout for possible good concrete > suggestion for IGF reform, which may be taken up when the resolution/ > discussion on IGF continuation finally comes up at the UN general > assembly or at the CSTD (there is a confusion at this stage how the > process will go forward). > > While seeking to trigger a discussion on this subject after Sharm I had > pointed to fact that many among us are focusing on just one thing - the > danger that ITU may take over the IGF, (or even that the IGF may be > closed down), and consequently not engaging as much as we should to > propose real improvements in the IGF. Apparently, the view is that if we > breathe but one word on possible improvements, it may be taken as > statement of failure of the IGF and be used by those keen on shutting > down the IGF, or seeking an ITU take over of it. > > One proof that these fears are hugely exaggerated, and even > diversionary, can be found in the fact that recently a UN general > assembly resolution for more stable public/ UN funding for the IGF > (which some groups tend to equate with possible ITU takeover) was shot > down, and another one calling for more voluntary contributions to the > trust fund (status quoist) was adopted. One can clearly see here who > calls the shots and which way the wind is blowing. > > So lets relax our exaggerated caution, and boldly seek IGF reform of the > kind we have asked for over the years, while there could also be new > options. Thematic working groups, inter-sessional programs, some > possibilities of clear advisory outcomes etc may be some things we have > earlier alluded to. I personally think that we should also seek a > clearer role for the MAG, and more agenda setting power for it, > including of developing recommendations and advices as per the IGF > mandate based on the proceedings of the IGF and other WGs etc. There > could be other possibilities, but we need to discuss them, and maybe > speak out at Feb meeting (even if thats not the agenda) to catch the ear > of some gov reps, and also pass our views on directly to interested gov > reps. > > Have a great last day of 2009, and wake up to a hopeful and fruitful 2010! > > Parminder > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -----Inline Attachment Follows----- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Jan 2 01:48:56 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sat, 02 Jan 2010 12:18:56 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGF and GAID In-Reply-To: <13638835.69716.1262263722087.JavaMail.www@wwinf1j09> References: <4B3C6C79.6020209@itforchange.net> <13638835.69716.1262263722087.JavaMail.www@wwinf1j09> Message-ID: <4B3EEC58.7090307@itforchange.net> Jean-Louis FULLSACK wrote: > Dear Parminder > > As usually your message clearifies the debate ; therefore all my thanks. > > > concrete suggestion for IGF reform, which may be taken up when the > resolution/ > > discussion on IGF continuation finally comes up at the UN general > > assembly or at the CSTD (there is a confusion at this stage how the > > process will go forward). > > Isn't there another confusing situation with GAID as far as IG is > dealing with Developing Countriers issues are concerned ? > If this is the opinion of a majority among us, our relation with > -and/or position on- GAID should be laid down accordingly. Dear Jean-Louis, Development has never been a serious political issue at WSIS, and has been even less so post-WSIS. It is for this reason that the levels of interest of major actors and therefore the trajectories of the IGF and GAID have been very different. (It is a different manner that the subject of development is treated as a red herring with such regularity, and often deviousness, in the IGF that it would make a very interesting study/ story.) IG is very political because it concerns the governance, and thus the possibilities of shaping, of the Internet. Development in post-WSIS structures has been seen in largely in the normal 'charity view' of development, plus as new possibilities of political alliances for transnational businesses to expand their markets in developing countries. The fact is that, at present, no major actor of any significant power has really much interest in ICTD at the global level. (UNDP for some strange reasons has mostly withdrawn from this area.) So while IGF seems to be headed towards even keener political contests, GAID, post-Sarbuland, may be headed towards getting folded up into a regular UN department, doing mundane work (thats what I fear). The way GAID was run as a new age network had many huge problems - and we kept pointed them out at all GAID meetings - but it will be a mistake to forgo its open new-age network structure for a bureaucratic UN department. What we need instead is a set of more focussed and clearer objectives and work plans, and a better network structure focussed on public interest actors, chiefly those involved with development issues. Parminder > > > many among us are focusing on just one thing - the > > danger that ITU may take over the IGF > > Right. That is just another point of concern for me. not only because > I was working in the (far) past with this Un Agency. I do think that > IG needs a strong framework as to be able to apply in any country. > /Per se/ ITU isn't qualified for "governance" matters, but it happens > to be an intergovernmental body that has a world-wide competence and > standardization authority in the ICT/telecom domain, whose circuitry > the Internet relies on. That's why I wonder if CS shouldn't rather put > its efforts to gain both its place and respect inside this agency. The > IGC should also remember that a large part of the CS orgs committed in > the WSIS follow-up -especially those working in or with DCs- are > struggling for CS being given a plain "ITU member" status. > > > there could also be new > > options. Thematic working groups, inter-sessional programs, some > > possibilities of clear advisory outcomes etc may be some things we have > > earlier alluded to. > > Among these thematic working groups one should deal with some issues > related to technical matters such as critical Internet resources, > network architecture, network neutrality, etc > > With my best wishes for a happy and fruitful New Year > Jean-Louis Fullsack > > > > > Message du 31/12/09 10:20 > > De : "Parminder" > > A : governance at lists.cpsr.org > > Copie à : > > Objet : Re: [governance] Online survey on reform of the IGF > > > > > > > > Hi All > > > > While the survey may or may not provide useful inputs for IGC's > position > > on IGF reform, we should in any case discuss the issue here on > the list > > so that the coordinators can attempt a consensus position. > > > > I do think that, in the formal consultation process at Sharm, > IGC failed > > to provide a comprehensive set of suggestions, even the ones > which we > > have often discussed in past and adopted by consensus. We may > still have > > a chance of putting our views forward, now through the channel of > > government reps that may be on the lookout for possible good > concrete > > suggestion for IGF reform, which may be taken up when the > resolution/ > > discussion on IGF continuation finally comes up at the UN general > > assembly or at the CSTD (there is a confusion at this stage how the > > process will go forward). > > > > While seeking to trigger a discussion on this subject after > Sharm I had > > pointed to fact that many among us are focusing on just one > thing - the > > danger that ITU may take over the IGF, (or even that the IGF may be > > closed down), and consequently not engaging as much as we should to > > propose real improvements in the IGF. Apparently, the view is > that if we > > breathe but one word on possible improvements, it may be taken as > > statement of failure of the IGF and be used by those keen on > shutting > > down the IGF, or seeking an ITU take over of it. > > > > One proof that these fears are hugely exaggerated, and even > > diversionary, can be found in the fact that recently a UN general > > assembly resolution for more stable public/ UN funding for the IGF > > (which some groups tend to equate with possible ITU takeover) > was shot > > down, and another one calling for more voluntary contributions > to the > > trust fund (status quoist) was adopted. One can clearly see here > who > > calls the shots and which way the wind is blowing. > > > > So lets relax our exaggerated caution, and boldly seek IGF > reform of the > > kind we have asked for over the years, while there could also be > new > > options. Thematic working groups, inter-sessional programs, some > > possibilities of clear advisory outcomes etc may be some things > we have > > earlier alluded to. I personally think that we should also seek a > > clearer role for the MAG, and more agenda setting power for it, > > including of developing recommendations and advices as per the IGF > > mandate based on the proceedings of the IGF and other WGs etc. > There > > could be other possibilities, but we need to discuss them, and > maybe > > speak out at Feb meeting (even if thats not the agenda) to catch > the ear > > of some gov reps, and also pass our views on directly to > interested gov > > reps. > > > > Have a great last day of 2009, and wake up to a hopeful and > fruitful 2010! > > > > Parminder > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From email at hakik.org Sat Jan 2 15:49:08 2010 From: email at hakik.org (Hakikur Rahman) Date: Sat, 02 Jan 2010 20:49:08 +0000 Subject: [governance] IGF and GAID In-Reply-To: <4B3EEC58.7090307@itforchange.net> References: <4B3C6C79.6020209@itforchange.net> <13638835.69716.1262263722087.JavaMail.www@wwinf1j09> <4B3EEC58.7090307@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <20100102204944.56A4A90884@npogroups.org> Dear Parminder, I agree with you cent percent, but wish I could have knew those strange reasons that you have mentioned. Not only UNDP, but seems majority of development partners are no more interested in ICTD. For many years, it has become stalled somewhere, when the field was really going to launch in many lagging nations. Hope GAID, as it has been expected could come up with something in this aspect. Best regards, Hakikur At 06:48 02-01-2010, Parminder wrote: >Jean-Louis FULLSACK wrote: >>Dear Parminder >> >>As usually your message clearifies the debate ; therefore all my thanks. >> >> > concrete suggestion for IGF reform, which >> may be taken up when the resolution/ >> > discussion on IGF continuation finally comes up at the UN general >> > assembly or at the CSTD (there is a confusion at this stage how the >> > process will go forward). >> >>Isn't there another confusing situation with >>GAID as far as IG is dealing with Developing Countriers issues are concerned ? >>If this is the opinion of a majority among us, >>our relation with -and/or position on- GAID should be laid down accordingly. >Dear Jean-Louis, > >Development has never been a serious political >issue at WSIS, and has been even less so >post-WSIS. It is for this reason that the levels >of interest of major actors and therefore the >trajectories of the IGF and GAID have been very >different. (It is a different manner that the >subject of development is treated as a red >herring with such regularity, and often >deviousness, in the IGF that it would make a very interesting study/ story.) > >IG is very political because it concerns the >governance, and thus the possibilities of >shaping, of the Internet. Development in >post-WSIS structures has been seen in largely in >the normal 'charity view' of development, plus >as new possibilities of political alliances for >transnational businesses to expand their markets >in developing countries. The fact is that, at >present, no major actor of any significant power >has really much interest in ICTD at the global >level. (UNDP for some strange reasons has mostly withdrawn from this area.) > >So while IGF seems to be headed towards even >keener political contests, GAID, post-Sarbuland, >may be headed towards getting folded up into a >regular UN department, doing mundane work (thats >what I fear). The way GAID was run as a new age >network had many huge problems - and we kept >pointed them out at all GAID meetings - but it >will be a mistake to forgo its open new-age >network structure for a bureaucratic UN >department. What we need instead is a set of >more focussed and clearer objectives and work >plans, and a better network structure focussed >on public interest actors, chiefly those involved with development issues. > >Parminder > >> >> > many among us are focusing on just one thing - the >> > danger that ITU may take over the IGF >> >>Right. That is just another point of concern >>for me. not only because I was working in the >>(far) past with this Un Agency. I do think that >>IG needs a strong framework as to be able to >>apply in any country. Per se ITU isn't >>qualified for "governance" matters, but it >>happens to be an intergovernmental body that >>has a world-wide competence and standardization >>authority in the ICT/telecom domain, whose >>circuitry the Internet relies on. That's why I >>wonder if CS shouldn't rather put its efforts >>to gain both its place and respect inside this >>agency. The IGC should also remember that a >>large part of the CS orgs committed in the WSIS >>follow-up -especially those working in or with >>DCs- are struggling for CS being given a plain "ITU member" status. >> >> > there could also be new >> > options. Thematic working groups, inter-sessional programs, some >> > possibilities of clear advisory outcomes etc may be some things we have >> > earlier alluded to. >> >>Among these thematic working groups one should >>deal with some issues related to technical >>matters such as critical Internet resources, >>network architecture, network neutrality, etc >> >>With my best wishes for a happy and fruitful New Year >>Jean-Louis Fullsack >> >> >> >> > Message du 31/12/09 10:20 >> > De : "Parminder" >> > A : governance at lists.cpsr.org >> > Copie à : >> > Objet : Re: [governance] Online survey on reform of the IGF >> > >> > >> > >> > Hi All >> > >> > While the survey may or may not provide useful inputs for IGC's position >> > on IGF reform, we should in any case discuss the issue here on the list >> > so that the coordinators can attempt a consensus position. >> > >> > I do think that, in the formal consultation process at Sharm, IGC failed >> > to provide a comprehensive set of suggestions, even the ones which we >> > have often discussed in past and adopted by consensus. We may still have >> > a chance of putting our views forward, now through the channel of >> > government reps that may be on the lookout for possible good concrete >> > suggestion for IGF reform, which may be taken up when the resolution/ >> > discussion on IGF continuation finally comes up at the UN general >> > assembly or at the CSTD (there is a confusion at this stage how the >> > process will go forward). >> > >> > While seeking to trigger a discussion on this subject after Sharm I had >> > pointed to fact that many among us are focusing on just one thing - the >> > danger that ITU may take over the IGF, (or even that the IGF may be >> > closed down), and consequently not engaging as much as we should to >> > propose real improvements in the IGF. Apparently, the view is that if we >> > breathe but one word on possible improvements, it may be taken as >> > statement of failure of the IGF and be used by those keen on shutting >> > down the IGF, or seeking an ITU take over of it. >> > >> > One proof that these fears are hugely exaggerated, and even >> > diversionary, can be found in the fact that recently a UN general >> > assembly resolution for more stable public/ UN funding for the IGF >> > (which some groups tend to equate with possible ITU takeover) was shot >> > down, and another one calling for more voluntary contributions to the >> > trust fund (status quoist) was adopted. One can clearly see here who >> > calls the shots and which way the wind is blowing. >> > >> > So lets relax our exaggerated caution, and boldly seek IGF reform of the >> > kind we have asked for over the years, while there could also be new >> > options. Thematic working groups, inter-sessional programs, some >> > possibilities of clear advisory outcomes etc may be some things we have >> > earlier alluded to. I personally think that we should also seek a >> > clearer role for the MAG, and more agenda setting power for it, >> > including of developing recommendations and advices as per the IGF >> > mandate based on the proceedings of the IGF and other WGs etc. There >> > could be other possibilities, but we need to discuss them, and maybe >> > speak out at Feb meeting (even if thats not the agenda) to catch the ear >> > of some gov reps, and also pass our views on directly to interested gov >> > reps. >> > >> > Have a great last day of 2009, and wake up to a hopeful and fruitful 2010! >> > >> > Parminder >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > governance at lists.cpsr.org >> > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> > >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> > >> > For all list information and functions, see: >> > >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> > >> > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ronda.netizen at gmail.com Sat Jan 2 16:23:29 2010 From: ronda.netizen at gmail.com (Ronda Hauben) Date: Sat, 2 Jan 2010 16:23:29 -0500 Subject: [governance] IGF and GAID In-Reply-To: <20100102204948.A22B59091E@npogroups.org> References: <4B3C6C79.6020209@itforchange.net> <13638835.69716.1262263722087.JavaMail.www@wwinf1j09> <4B3EEC58.7090307@itforchange.net> <20100102204948.A22B59091E@npogroups.org> Message-ID: Does anyone know what are the actual plans for the future of GAID? It is good to see there is some discussion of it on these lists, but I am wondering what is the actual plan for it, if there is one being planned or in the process of being implemented? I have proposed that those interested in integrating Internet development in the development process have much to learn from studying and discussing the actual development process that built the Internet. When I returned home from the WSIS meeting in Tunis in 2005, I had some discussion with someone who described the struggle in his country in Africa, over how to spread the Internet. The experience he described was about how commercial entities wanted to limit how the Internet was used. Meanwhile there some in government who recognized that there was a need to spread the Internet at a low cost, especially in the education sector. He described the government idea of wiring a government building and then using that to offer low cost or free Internet education to the school systems nearby. Instead those interested in commercial development claimed the wiring of the government building should only serve the government site. The struggle between these two visions of Internet development was not unique to that country, as I had experienced a similar struggle in the US. It seemed reviewing both the vision guiding early networking development and the history of how the Internet was developed and spread in its early phases, would be of value in general, and in particular to the developing world. Unfortunately, those drafting the millennium development goals didn't find a way to build in this kind of focus into the goals themselves. Happy New Year to all. with best wishes Ronda On Sat, Jan 2, 2010 at 3:49 PM, Hakikur Rahman wrote: > Dear Parminder, > > I agree with you cent percent, but wish I could have knew those strange > reasons that you have mentioned. Not only UNDP, but seems majority of > development partners are no more interested in ICTD. For many years, it has > become stalled somewhere, when the field was really going to launch in many > lagging nations. Hope GAID, as it has been expected could come up with > something in this aspect. > > Best regards, > Hakikur > > At 06:48 02-01-2010, Parminder wrote: > > > Jean-Louis FULLSACK wrote: > > Dear Parminder > > As usually your message clearifies the debate ; therefore all my thanks. > > > concrete suggestion for IGF reform, which may be taken up when the > resolution/ > > discussion on IGF continuation finally comes up at the UN general > > assembly or at the CSTD (there is a confusion at this stage how the > > process will go forward). > > Isn't there another confusing situation with GAID as far as IG is dealing > with Developing Countriers issues are concerned ? > If this is the opinion of a majority among us, our relation with -and/or > position on- GAID should be laid down accordingly. > > Dear Jean-Louis, > > Development has never been a serious political issue at WSIS, and has been > even less so post-WSIS. It is for this reason that the levels of interest of > major actors and therefore the trajectories of the IGF and GAID have been > very different. (It is a different manner that the subject of development is > treated as a red herring with such regularity, and often deviousness, in the > IGF that it would make a very interesting study/ story.) > > IG is very political because it concerns the governance, and thus the > possibilities of shaping, of the Internet. Development in post-WSIS > structures has been seen in largely in the normal 'charity view' of > development, plus as new possibilities of political alliances for > transnational businesses to expand their markets in developing countries. > The fact is that, at present, no major actor of any significant power has > really much interest in ICTD at the global level. (UNDP for some strange > reasons has mostly withdrawn from this area.) > > So while IGF seems to be headed towards even keener political contests, > GAID, post-Sarbuland, may be headed towards getting folded up into a regular > UN department, doing mundane work (thats what I fear). The way GAID was run > as a new age network had many huge problems - and we kept pointed them out > at all GAID meetings - but it will be a mistake to forgo its open new-age > network structure for a bureaucratic UN department. What we need instead is > a set of more focussed and clearer objectives and work plans, and a better > network structure focussed on public interest actors, chiefly those involved > with development issues. > > Parminder > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -- Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de Sat Jan 2 20:47:38 2010 From: bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de (Ralf Bendrath) Date: Sun, 03 Jan 2010 02:47:38 +0100 Subject: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality In-Reply-To: References: <4B399461.6010702@itforchange.net> <4B3A2A59.7000106@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4B3FF73A.2010401@zedat.fu-berlin.de> McTim schrieb: > On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 11:12 AM, Parminder > wrote: > Secondly, I will move away only if I knew what logic/ algorithm > Google used, and so I can decide if it works for me or not. > > Either it works or it doesn't. If PageRank doesn't give you what you > need, then try Yahoo or Bing. We, as IGC (or even CS asa whole) can't > expect to seriously ask Google to show us their patented IP, can we? > While we are at it, why don't we insist that coca-cola publish their > recipe for Coke or that KFC tell us exactly what their secret recipe is? While I agree with McTim that "search engine neutrality" and NN are two different things, I would like to add that Google can provide the services it does also because of network effects. Once you are socially "forced" to use google wave or other collaborative tools, it's much more difficult to just ignore it. The same argument has been made about Facebook and the likes before, and Google may be moving into this direction. And if you use it, they can use it for persoalized search results, which may be better for each person than the competitors can offer. So: There is a diference between networked technologies and simple consumption goods such as KFC or Cola. > So can we at least ask it to publish its logic of arranging search > results so the consumers can make a choice. It is a wrong thing to ask? > > yes I would say "no" at least if it involves personaly identifyable data. If thiey use data about me, they should tell me what they know about me and how they treat me based on that. But the underlying conflict here seems to be that McTim and Lauren see TCP/IP networks as "the network" to be subject to NN regulations. Others see platforms/networks based on TCP/IP - such as Facebook, Google, but also OpenID and related functional providers - as a new and emerging network. Just like umpty years ago, people would see the copper wire network as "the network", and not yet understand that TCP/IP on top of it was "the network" to be regulated in the future. Bottom line: Don't under-estimate the emergence of networks at layer 7. Open quuestion: Is this a case for "internet governance", or just for "network governance"? Best, Ralf ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Sat Jan 2 21:04:22 2010 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Sun, 3 Jan 2010 07:04:22 +0500 Subject: [governance] Online survey on reform of the IGF and projects In-Reply-To: <4B3CD211.3010602@gmail.com> References: <4B3C6C79.6020209@itforchange.net> <4B3CD211.3010602@gmail.com> Message-ID: <701af9f71001021804n28dff8a5ge3fdb197316f6a80@mail.gmail.com> > A statement of input to the IGF Secretariat before the Jan. 15 deadline and/or for the OC (Jeremy, Fouad?) Hi Ginger and all, please read this because this a very important understanding we have to develop if I am to take upon a responsibility for my group: I'm already in on this and we need more input of our members because the IGC is because of its membership unless we understand why we need our statements in the first place and for which occasion we need statements as well as how can we structure a dynamic response group within the MAG and how our statements can make an impact from the OC to the MAG and then finally at the IGF. WHO DO WE REPRESENT AND HOW As you have seen how the Open Consultations and the MAG meetings take place, participants and members of a particular stakeholder group take active stand over issues together and they struggle to ensure that they push it through. Let's say that we take the private sector for example, an XYZ company says that they think this and that and a particular issues about abc should be brought into the main program of the IGF. You would immediately see the parent body/group/caucus declare a statement that the IIMNOP supports XYZ company's statement and would like to re-emphasize issues about abc should be brought into the main program of the IGF. They protect, they back, they coordinate and they construct effective response and backing papers in light of their member's statements. WE DO NOT AND THIS MUST BE FIXED The above is what I noted that probably Kati (when she shared that we should produce working policy papers, documents to help us during the meetings, show our members interests and back those interests) and other new IGC MAG members were feeling in the open consultations/MAG meeting that IGC despite having a good amount of its representatives there in both has no strong active live procedure to take this into account. Each IGC member group/community/organization/representative after giving its stance does not get the backing statement from IGC like the private sector and governments get from that group that leads them. If we don't learn from this and mend our approach, we will never be in a position to counter the pressure that builds up and we cannot even shake it. WE NEED TO KNOW OUR RESPONSE AND COUNTERING METHODOLOGY IS What is right has to be adopted and has to be done in the right manner. First of all before I attempt to run through the lists and pick up concerns of the members of IGC, I want us to read a primary structural agreement that IGC's participating members in Open Consultations and MAG meetings are to be allowed to present that IGC as being present in both OC's and MAG meetings and that whenever one member group/organization/representative from the IGC multistakeholder group makes a statement, a representative or a group of representatives (so that we can balance the response when a member is out of the room for a water/coffee/rest break) can continue to press and strengthen IGCs position as a stakeholder and counter negative propaganda. WE HAVE TO SHOW WE ARE THERE AND WE BACK OUR MEMBERS AND WE KNOW WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT I appreciate what Jeremy is trying to do in his profound role but we have to realize that co-ordinators help reach a decision, not construct the decision or encourage construction of the decision unless they want to develop a rough consensus based decision when the membership can't reach any decision. This survey can be just that but it is a time-waster for those that will be in the OCs and MAG meetings in February because in the OCs you can only give a 2-3 minutes (otherwise you are cut short by the Chair to facilitate other stakeholders as well) to share statements from IGC on this issue but in the MAG we cannot discuss this unless the Chair particularly asks for comments on such an issue because the MAG plans the proposed program of the IGF and that is why I felt that the survey wasn't reflecting what the MAG actually is doing and secondly for any change two other stakeholders will also be consulted that is the Governments and the Private sector. WE HAVE TO REALIZE WHAT ROLE WE ARE PLAYING AND STRENGTHEN THE WEAK SPOTS AND STOP COUNTERING OURSELVES IN THE PROCESS INSTEAD OF COUNTERING WHAT REALLY HAS TO BE I would also like to emphasize here that if the IGC doesn't utilize both its OC participation and MAG representatives in the MAG to their fullest or at at least at an equal counter level to the other stakeholder groups of the multistakeholdership that have been countering us on the issues of Human Rights and the Development Agenda and numerous other areas, we are doing something wrong and we are trying to grab the same from either side without realizing that we are not strengthening ourselves as the key member of the multistakeholdership within our position. Our statements go in vain when all our members and representatives aren't on the same page where as the private sector or government sector makes one statement and every member and parent association backs their statement because it serves their common good and they lobby too. CIVIL SOCIETY MORNING MEETING IS A GOOD IDEA BUT WITH ONLY ONE PERSON WITH THE BACKGROUND INFORMATION DOESN'T EMPOWER THE REST OF THE GROUP FOR BACKUP - WE HAVE TO BE OPEN ABOUT OUR AGENDAS Let me show you where we bring a certain amount of change. The issue about Youth and Gender Balance got some great deal of support from everyone combined. A great deal of member stakeholders of the multistakeholdership encouraged the secretariat to look into this and there was less resistance. Interestingly, during lunch break or maybe it was tea break we tried to meet with each of our member/representative and request them to share their views on this and then the next two hours, almost each one of our member/representative present backed each other. The message was simple, the IGC came in strong and we got a strong level of backing from our members/reps present. That was the IGC. SOMETHING WORKED REALLY GOOD IN BETWEEN US - WE HAVE A WONDERFUL CHEMISTRY, IT SHOULDN'T BE CONTROLLED - WE SHOULD ADOPT THE STARFISH MODEL NOT THE SPIDER MODEL - WE CAN FEEL EACHOTHER Now during the IGF, apart from Ginger's address as a speaker, there were hardly any statements from the IGC nor did many members of the IGC on the floor make a statement that "The IGC Feels" whereas the transcripts are full of the governments groups (EU, Commonwealth etc.) and the private sector (ICC, ICANN, CISCO, etc....) making continuous statements and countering the debate. I for one moment stood up and started by saying we from the developing world. Who was we? See that's what happens when we operate in a controlled environment but which is neither actually controlled or has no controllers. We have to work together as IGC members and representatives and protect the interests of the IGC be that a ten-pointer, fifty-pointer, 100-pointer or whatever we can build consensus upon and take that forward from the OC's to the MAG and to the IGF and show our stakeholders. We should be free to make IGC background material and take statements and make statements at the Open Consultations from IGC for IGC, protecting its members interests and concerns and defining the way forward given by its members. LETS FIX WHAT WE NEED TO FIX FROM WITHIN AND THEN TELL THE WORLD WHAT THEY NEED TO FIX Our, APC's and the IRP statements would be very similar I feel because those statements are all going in separate statements but we can put them together in one too if they feel that the IGC is their representative group and will be able to voice and protect their interests and concerns. So our statement has a strong foundation for our OC and MAG participants and we can continuously reference that and keep raising our already accepted statements. LETS WORK ON THIS AND IMPROVE OUR ENGAGEMENT IN THE IGF THE IGC APPEALS TEAM (according to the IGC charter): In the end, as a member of the IGC Appeals Team, I would like to share with members that you have democracy to voice your concerns. As the Appeals team, we are a team of five (5) IGC members Appeals Team (selected in 2009) Jeanette Hofmann (Europe), Adam Peake (Asia), Carlos Afonso (LAC), Ken Lohento (Africa) and Myself (Mid East/South Asia) and the Coordinators are not qualified to be members of the appeals team. Our IGC duties: Any time 4 individual members of the IGC co-sign a statement on the main IGC mailing list they can appeal any decision of the coordinators. When a decision is appealed, the appeals team will review any discussions that occurred and will request comments from the IGC membership. Based on the information they collect and discussion, they will decide on the merit of the appeal. Decisions by the appeals team are based on a majority vote of the appeal team, i.e., three (3) or more votes, except in the case of coordinator recall which requires full consensus. The decision of the appeals team will be final on every decision reviewed. Will all the Appeals Team members please share their email addresses with me if I haven't gotten in touch with anyone in order to be able to communicate where needed and required? Mine is displayed in the from of this message. -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 9:32 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > I agree with Jean-Louis, Parminder and others that we must see "Jeremy's" > online survey as an informal tool to get a feel for the ideas to be > expressed in an IGC statement. Writing a statistically valid survey is a lot > of work and a long process, in my opinion, not necessary in this case. I > again suggest that those who want to opine take the survey and use the text > boxes or the email list to express opinions not clearly stated in the > survey, or to ask questions if clarifications are needed. > > Jeremy, thanks for taking on this project. I look forward to your first > proposal for discussion on the topic. > > As soon the new year starts (tomorrow and on!!!) we can get moving on other > proposals, such as reviewing the membership (Parminder, Rui, Antonio Medina, > myself ) > > The Web Page (Jeremy?) > > Voting and charter reviews (Paul? Craig? Fearghas?) others > > A statement of input to the IGF Secretariat before the Jan. 15 deadline > and/or for the OC (Jeremy, Fouad?) > > GAID discussion (Michael G and others) > > Other topics to continue, such as improving the IGC working format. > > I look forward to an exciting and productive 2010 working with all of you. > Please do join the discussion to make sure we hear all voices. > > Best wishes, > Ginger > > > > Parminder wrote: > > Hi All > > While the survey may or may not provide useful inputs for IGC's position on > IGF reform, we should in any case discuss the issue here on the list so that > the coordinators can attempt a consensus position. > > I do think that, in the formal consultation process at Sharm, IGC failed to > provide a comprehensive set of suggestions, even the ones which we have > often discussed in past and adopted by consensus. We may still have a chance > of putting our views forward, now through the channel of government reps > that may be on the lookout for possible good concrete suggestion for IGF > reform, which may be taken up when the resolution/ discussion on IGF > continuation  finally comes up at the UN general assembly or at the CSTD > (there is a confusion at this stage how the process will go forward). > > While seeking to trigger a discussion on this subject after Sharm I had > pointed to fact that many among us are focusing on just one thing  - the > danger that ITU may take over the IGF, (or even that the IGF may be closed > down), and consequently not engaging as much as we should to propose real > improvements in the IGF. Apparently, the view is that if we breathe but one > word on possible improvements, it may be taken as statement of failure of > the IGF and be used by those keen on shutting down the IGF, or seeking an > ITU take over of it. > > One proof that these fears are hugely exaggerated, and even diversionary, > can be found in the fact that recently a UN general assembly resolution > for  more stable public/ UN funding  for the IGF  (which some groups tend to > equate with possible ITU takeover) was shot down, and another one calling > for more voluntary contributions to the trust fund  (status quoist)  was > adopted. One can clearly see here who calls the shots and which way the wind > is blowing. > > So lets relax our exaggerated caution, and boldly seek IGF reform of the > kind we have asked for over the years, while there could also be new > options. Thematic working groups, inter-sessional programs, some > possibilities of clear advisory outcomes etc may be some things we have > earlier alluded to. I personally think that we should also seek a clearer > role for the MAG, and more agenda setting power for it, including of > developing recommendations and advices as per the IGF mandate based on the > proceedings of the IGF and other WGs etc. There could be other > possibilities, but we need to discuss them, and maybe speak out at Feb > meeting (even if thats not the agenda) to catch the ear of some gov reps, > and also pass our views on directly to interested gov reps. > > Have a great last day of 2009, and wake up to a hopeful and fruitful 2010! > > Parminder > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From toml at communisphere.com Sun Jan 3 01:47:28 2010 From: toml at communisphere.com (Thomas Lowenhaupt) Date: Sun, 3 Jan 2010 01:47:28 -0500 Subject: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality References: <4B399461.6010702@itforchange.net> <4B3A2A59.7000106@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <00ff01ca8c40$9f09b6d0$6400a8c0@powuseren2ihcx> McTim, I disagree with two points you made in your 12-29-09 comments on search neutrality. First, you said: "Either it works or it doesn't. If PageRank doesn't give you what you need, then try Yahoo or Bing." I look at search and its impact on local governance and worry about an instance like this. Google seeks to build an intellectually stimulating office facility for its growing staff in New York City and feels that privatizing a park is the best way to accomplish this - following the example the New York Yankees set with their new stadium. Some park neighbors get riled up, go to the Net, and do a search for "opponents to the Google variance." What lists first is a milquetoast advocacy group that opposes certain aspects of the development but sees overall advantage from the construction jobs and to the economy. Perhaps there are other listings and a Google ad or two that point to materials supportive of this viewpoint. And perhaps Milquetoast has an agreement with Google to meliorate neighborhood impacts. Here's my concern and the problem: How are the neighbors to know what's not there? If Google hand-wires the results to suite its needs, overriding its secret proprietary sauce, how are the atomized neighbors to know there are others opposed to the development? How are they to know to go to Bing? I suspect many would conclude, "Gee, no one else cares. Maybe I'm wrong?" And Google wins. Of course education is the answer. And we've plans to develop curriculum that begins in the 3rd grade and to educates the public at all levels as to civic ills that might arise by putting too much trust in one search engine. But this is likely to take a decade or so to permeate society. (Before I move to my second point of disagreement let me slip in another example. Imagine we're a few years down the road and Google "winner$" begin running for public office. How are we to trust its opaque search algorithm during the rough and tumble of an election campaign? Then we'll clearly see the relationship between link and ballot voting! And even if Google didn't hand-wire, opponents would surely charge that it did, poisoning the system.) Second, when you say, "We, as IGC (or even CS as a whole) can't expect to seriously ask Google to show us their patented IP, can we?" I disagree. Given the importance of search in the development of civic attitudes - like the newspapers and TV of old - I think it's vital that we address the issue. Here's a path. Initially we make the importance of "search transparency" known to Google and encourage them to provide their secret sauce's recipe. (I prefer "search transparency" to "search neutrality" as it is a somewhat easier to devise a metric.) Google has capitalized their search lead and integrated it into a plethora of other services and should be able to keep their lead for the foreseeable future, and might be prescient to see the poisoning possibility and be agreeable to the need to move toward transparency. Perhaps they might initially agree to a trusted outsider initially, a Moody's-like entity to judge all search engines. And if Google doesn't see the light, perhaps Bing might take a lead in offering transparent search. And if the search industry doesn't see the necessity - no one steps in - it's incumbent on civil society to educate the public and decision makers about the impact of search opacity and encourage the development of a transparent search engine. Tom Lowenhaupt, Founder and Chair Connecting.nyc Inc. connectingnyc.org ----- Original Message ----- From: McTim To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 2009 12:43 PM Subject: Re: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 11:12 AM, Parminder wrote: McTim So you agree with Lauren that urgent regulatory action is needed to ensure network neutrality, Urgent, no, action, well if the FCC principles, are a form of "action", then yes. and that efforts to confuse this issue should be resisted. yes Efforts at confusion like the arguments " that Internet content edge-caching (like that used by Akamai, Amazon, Google, and many other Web services) somehow violates net neutrality principles -- clearly a false assertion." (quoting the article you forwarded.) That to me is a great improvement on whatever I have ever heard you speak on network neutrality on this list :). (And i remember the precise 'confusing argument' of edge catching got discussed during NN discussions on this list.) So congrats to us, we are in a rare agreement. This is entirely in line with what I have argued in the past. I am abig fan of NN, always have been, I think we just used a different definition of NN. However, what goes past me is that while i agree that when FCC is discussing NN, it is of no avail, and even reprehensible, for the implicated parties to point fingers at Google alleging another kind of anti-competitive practice, I cant see how Adam Raff's article can be criticized on this account. He mentions NN only in the passing in the opening para just to show that Google itself is not all smelling of roses. Also there is definitely a connection between NN practices and allegations about Google, both being anti-competitive activities. What connection is that? Rest of the article has to be dealt on its own merit, not only in terms of muddying waters in the NN debate. That is unfair. Adam clearly supports NN regulation, but he has a right to go ahead and make his case against Google. And it is not an ordinary article - it is a NYT op-ed, and so if Google has something to say or refute it must issue a rejoinder. http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2009/12/meaning-of-open.html Just addressing one main points of Lauren's blog in defense of Google which seems so shallow. It is roughly the assertion, I have often earlier also heard, that with one click one can switch search engines. A powerful actor telling weaker dependent groups that they always have the option to move away is a old trick, and mostly a cruel one. I wont expand on this but I think everyone can understand this. I certainly don't. I have moved away from lots of search engines/homepages/and other web services over the decades. Secondly, I will move away only if I knew what logic/ algorithm Google used, and so I can decide if it works for me or not. Either it works or it doesn't. If PageRank doesn't give you what you need, then try Yahoo or Bing. We, as IGC (or even CS asa whole) can't expect to seriously ask Google to show us their patented IP, can we? While we are at it, why don't we insist that coca-cola publish their recipe for Coke or that KFC tell us exactly what their secret recipe is? \ So can we at least ask it to publish its logic of arranging search results so the consumers can make a choice. It is a wrong thing to ask? yes So what really is Lauren's blog trying to do by being so defensive about Google and what exactly you are agreeing with is not clear to me. I agree with the below paragraph. "Fundamentally, Google has simply provided better products, that more people want to use. And anyone else is free to do the same thing, at least as long as ISPs aren't permitted to strangle the Internet playing field via their total hold over Internet access to all sites!" (From Luaran's blog) Happy New Year, McTim ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From correia.rui at gmail.com Sun Jan 3 07:17:49 2010 From: correia.rui at gmail.com (Rui Correia) Date: Sun, 3 Jan 2010 14:17:49 +0200 Subject: [governance] Where do we want to go with this discussion on search neutrality? Message-ID: The discussion started off as a posting on interesting reading on the subject and we are now already on thought control and what we are allowed to read, which I believe is an extreme exaggeration of anything that Google might be capable of or would want to do! What exactly is the issue with Google's personal data policy? Google cannot have any information on you that you or an institution allowed to have your data does not put out there. So, if your paycheck all of a sudden becomes public knowledge, don't blame google - blame your employer, your social security institutions or your government. If you social security details are out there, as happened in the UK not too long ago, don't blame google. Blame inept network and server management and poor security. And what exactly is Germany up to with its ELENA System, retaining Germans' payroll data in one central government controlled server? In a networked world there will be a leak before they even get it fully operational. If Peter Schaar, who heads Germany's Data Protection and Freedom of Information Commission is concerned, then we should too. What does google have to do with that? There is legislation out on access to personal data, so if there have been violations, we have recourse. What is the issue if google favours products of xyz comany? Is that not the norm at the supermarket? Don't they get paid to place Avis Chocolates in a more visible position that Siva Chocolates? When you get your supermarket flier in your newspaper do you find any of the lesser known products or do you find the big sellers? Why can I use my frequent flier card on some airlines and not others? Whatever you are looking for is there. However, business pay a lot of money to ensure that their products come up first. Other pay for prominence. Brand promotion and advertising are integral elements of business. Now, if Google is deliberately concealing or omitting results, that would be a case for concern. Is there any evidence that this occurs? What about all this talk about competitors going out because of the google onslaught? That is the market, isn't it? Besides for genuine dominant player abuse and monopoly concerns, if a business goes belly up because it can't compete with the competition, that it means it wasn't good enough or they lost touch with the users. Where is AltaVista? It was bigger then Google. Same with browsers, where is NetScape? We have businesses going under all the time. Where are all the sweets, biscuits and drinks your used to enjoy as a kid? Most o them are gone. And we have NEW ones coming up all the time. Netscape is gone, but we now have Opera, Firefox, Safari etc. There are a hundred search engines out there. And there is nothing to stop a small player from becoming a giant. The world is full of such examples. And Google, with all the acquisitions, NEVER bought out a search competitor to corner the market - yes, it bought out other operators that enabled its system to deploy the various add-ons, but it does not buy search engine users. Which is not what we can say for Coca-Cola, SABMiller and others that grow not out of conquering customers one by one, but by buying up or merging with competitors. So before talking of regulations and whatever else, should we as civil society not be looking at self-regulation? If there is enough concern, then why can't we work with the search engines for a code of conduct for the industry? A consumer ombud for each search engine and a council for the industry with wide representation as is the case (for example) with the German public broadcaster? Best regards, and a great 2010 for everybody. -- ________________________________________________ Rui Correia Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant Angola Liaison Consultant 2 Cutten St Horison Roodepoort-Johannesburg, South Africa Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 _______________ áâãçéêíóôõúç ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From correia.rui at gmail.com Sun Jan 3 07:45:28 2010 From: correia.rui at gmail.com (Rui Correia) Date: Sun, 3 Jan 2010 14:45:28 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: Where do we want to go with this discussion on search neutrality? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: PS: Here, a list of more than 150 search engines or search applications: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_search_engines 2010/1/3 Rui Correia : > The discussion started off as a posting on interesting reading on the > subject and we are now already on thought control and what we are > allowed to read, which I believe is an extreme exaggeration of > anything that Google might be capable of or would want to do! > > What exactly is the issue with Google's personal data policy? > > Google cannot have any information on you that you or an institution > allowed to have your data does not put out there. So, if your paycheck > all of a sudden becomes public knowledge, don't blame google - blame > your employer, your social security institutions or your government. > If you social security details are out there, as happened in the UK > not too long ago, don't blame google. Blame inept network and server > management and poor security. And what exactly is Germany up to with > its ELENA System, retaining Germans' payroll data in one central > government controlled server? In a networked world there will be a > leak before they even get it fully operational. If Peter Schaar, who > heads Germany's Data Protection and Freedom of Information Commission > is concerned, then we should too. What does google have to do with > that? > > There is legislation out on access to personal data, so if there have > been violations, we have recourse. > > What is the issue if google favours products of xyz comany? > > Is that not the norm at the supermarket? Don't they get paid to place > Avis Chocolates in a more visible position that Siva Chocolates? When > you get your supermarket flier in your newspaper do you find any of > the lesser known products or do you find the big sellers? Why can I > use my frequent flier card on some airlines and not others? > > Whatever you are looking for is there. However, business pay a lot of > money to ensure that their products come up first. Other pay for > prominence. Brand promotion and advertising are integral elements of > business. > > Now, if Google is deliberately concealing or omitting results, that > would be a case for concern. Is there any evidence that this occurs? > > What about all this talk about competitors going out because of the > google onslaught? > > That is the market, isn't it? Besides for genuine dominant player > abuse and monopoly concerns, if a business goes belly up because it > can't compete with the competition, that it means it wasn't good > enough or they lost touch with the users. Where is AltaVista? It was > bigger then Google. Same with browsers, where is NetScape? We have > businesses going under all the time. Where are all the sweets, > biscuits and drinks your used to enjoy as a kid? Most o them are gone. > And we have NEW ones coming up all the time. Netscape is gone, but we > now have Opera, Firefox, Safari etc. There are a hundred search > engines out there. And there is nothing to stop a small player from > becoming a giant. The world is full of such examples. > > And Google, with all the acquisitions, NEVER bought out a search > competitor to corner the market - yes, it bought out other operators > that enabled its system to deploy the various add-ons, but it does not > buy search engine users. Which is not what we can say for Coca-Cola, > SABMiller and others that grow not out of conquering customers one by > one, but by buying up or merging with competitors. > > So before talking of regulations and whatever else, should we as civil > society not be looking at self-regulation? If there is enough concern, > then why can't we work with the search engines for a code of conduct > for the industry? A consumer ombud for each search engine and a > council for the industry with wide representation as is the case (for > example) with the German public broadcaster? > > Best regards, > > and a great 2010 for everybody. > > -- > ________________________________________________ > > > Rui Correia > Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant > Angola Liaison Consultant > 2 Cutten St > Horison > Roodepoort-Johannesburg, > South Africa > Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 > Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 > _______________ > áâãçéêíóôõúç > -- ________________________________________________ Rui Correia Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant Angola Liaison Consultant 2 Cutten St Horison Roodepoort-Johannesburg, South Africa Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 _______________ áâãçéêíóôõúç ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Sun Jan 3 11:08:34 2010 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Sun, 3 Jan 2010 08:08:34 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Online survey on reform of the IGF and projects II Message-ID: <552663.39790.qm@web83911.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Fouad thank you for your lengthy discourse -- some clarification first.  If my post seems antagonistic or critical - deal with it. --- On Sun, 1/3/10, Fouad Bajwa wrote: WHO DO WE REPRESENT AND HOW I am unaware of any representatives be elected aroung this list????  They protect, they back, they coordinate and they construct effective response and backing papers in light of their member's statements. WE DO NOT AND THIS MUST BE FIXED Do we have the same mandate as they do - are we adversarial or advocates??? we will never be in a position to counter the pressure that builds up and we cannot even shake it. WE NEED TO KNOW OUR RESPONSE AND COUNTERING METHODOLOGY IS I understood us to be in a mode of logic and persuasion and discourse and enlightenment not debate.  Are we to be in a position of power? . WE HAVE TO SHOW WE ARE THERE AND WE BACK OUR MEMBERS AND WE KNOW WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT I do not think so,,, I think we have to show the genuineness and propriety of our input not support for individuals or a particular political agenda WE HAVE TO REALIZE WHAT ROLE WE ARE PLAYING AND STRENGTHEN THE WEAK SPOTS AND STOP COUNTERING OURSELVES IN THE PROCESS INSTEAD OF COUNTERING WHAT REALLY HAS TO BE I think that maybe we should be about listening and suggesting and lending critical thinking - not countering and winning.  aren't on the same page where as the private sector or government sector makes one statement and every member and parent association backs their statement because it serves their common good and they lobby too. CIVIL SOCIETY MORNING MEETING IS A GOOD IDEA BUT WITH ONLY ONE PERSON WITH THE BACKGROUND INFORMATION DOESN'T EMPOWER THE REST OF THE GROUP FOR BACKUP - WE HAVE TO BE OPEN ABOUT OUR AGENDAS We should not have that type of "agenda" - a subject outline but not a strategy. SOMETHING WORKED REALLY GOOD IN BETWEEN US - WE HAVE A WONDERFUL CHEMISTRY, IT SHOULDN'T BE CONTROLLED - WE SHOULD ADOPT THE STARFISH MODEL NOT THE SPIDER MODEL - WE CAN FEEL EACHOTHER Synergy is good - but what you outline is a governance of people and not laws -- troublesome. Now during the IGF, apart from Ginger's address as a speaker, there were hardly any statements from the IGC nor did many members of the IGC on the floor make a statement that "The IGC Feels" whereas the transcripts are full of the governments groups (EU, Commonwealth etc.) and the private sector (ICC, ICANN, CISCO, etc....) making continuous statements and countering the debate. I for one moment stood up and started by saying we from the developing world. Who was we? See that's what happens when we operate in a controlled environment but which is neither actually controlled or has no controllers. We have to work together as IGC members and representatives and protect the interests of the IGC be that a ten-pointer, fifty-pointer, 100-pointer or whatever we can build consensus upon and take that forward from the OC's to the MAG and to the IGF and show our stakeholders. We should be free to make IGC background material and take statements and make statements at the Open Consultations from IGC for IGC, protecting its members interests and concerns and defining the way forward given by its members. LETS FIX WHAT WE NEED TO FIX FROM WITHIN AND THEN TELL THE WORLD WHAT THEY NEED TO FIX We are not rulers,,, we are not elected, our only important governance within is the promotion of intellectual participation and debate along with freedom of thought and expression Our, APC's and the IRP statements would be very similar I feel because those statements are all going in separate statements but we can put them together in one too if they feel that the IGC is their representative group and will be able to voice and protect their interests and concerns. So our statement has a strong foundation for our OC and MAG participants and we can continuously reference that and keep raising our already accepted statements. LETS WORK ON THIS AND IMPROVE OUR ENGAGEMENT IN THE IGF Perhaps you mean "interface". THE IGC APPEALS TEAM (according to the IGC charter): In the end, as a member of the IGC Appeals Team, I would like to share with members that you have democracy to voice your concerns. As the Appeals team, we are a team of five (5) IGC members Appeals Team (selected in 2009) Jeanette Hofmann (Europe), Adam Peake (Asia), Carlos Afonso (LAC), Ken Lohento (Africa) and Myself (Mid East/South Asia) and the Coordinators are not qualified to be members of the appeals team. Our IGC duties:  Any time 4 individual members of the IGC co-sign a statement on the main IGC mailing list they can appeal any decision of the coordinators. When a decision is appealed, the appeals team will review any discussions that occurred and will request comments from the IGC membership. Based on the information they collect and discussion, they will decide on the merit of the appeal. Decisions by the appeals team are based on a majority vote of the appeal team, i.e., three (3) or more votes, except in the case of coordinator recall which requires full consensus. The decision of the appeals team will be final on every decision reviewed. Sounds so ominous and formal - are folks entitled to a court appointed attorney ;-) Will all the Appeals Team members please share their email addresses with me if I haven't gotten in touch with anyone in order to be able to communicate where needed and required? Mine is displayed in the from of this message. -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Sun Jan 3 11:09:57 2010 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Sun, 3 Jan 2010 08:09:57 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Online survey on reform of the IGF and projects I Message-ID: <160114.42528.qm@web83908.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Fouad,   I suggest that this type of ultimatum language be considered very thoroughly before being used.  You are being given a privilege to muddle through the torture of organizing intellectuals.  You are faced with very aggravating circumstances that thwart doing what you want. Brutal indeed. But personal. Perhaps best to save histrionics for substantive issues like life and death and health and wealth.   You probably could have made all these points much easier had you just given one line recommendations for each paragraph. Over the past 15 years or so we have found it useful to confide in another and vent frustrations off list. Then come to the list with solutions,, proposed that is.   (however do not go too far) Democratic notions require that the Tea breaks and such "back room" decisions not be made. That agreements and debates be on the record and open and transparent.  What you have chronicled is not optimum -- maybe more collegiate and social but not in keeping with good governance.   I read every word you wrote - twice. I think you are right where you are supposed to be and I think good progress is being made because of very good people like you.   --- On Sun, 1/3/10, Fouad Bajwa fouadbajwa at gmail.com> wrote: > A statement of input to the IGF Secretariat before the Jan. 15 deadline and/or for the OC (Jeremy, Fouad?) Hi Ginger and all, please read this because this a very important understanding we have to develop if I am to take upon a responsibility for my group: I'm already in on this and we need more input of our members because the IGC is because of its membership unless we understand why we need our statements in the first place and for which occasion we need statements as well as how can we structure a dynamic response group within the MAG and how our statements can make an impact from the OC to the MAG and then finally at the IGF. WHO DO WE REPRESENT AND HOW -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Sun Jan 3 11:28:10 2010 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Sun, 3 Jan 2010 08:28:10 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality In-Reply-To: <00ff01ca8c40$9f09b6d0$6400a8c0@powuseren2ihcx> Message-ID: <4786.49402.qm@web83911.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Still sounds like you want to "eminant domain" Google's enterprise to make it say what you want it to.  Got to go -- Orwells' police are at the door -- I was thinking about my Chargers beating the Federal Capital Redskins.   (for what it is worth -- I would like to have you have more say over search engine results--Then again I like my gov. owned parks) --- On Sun, 1/3/10, Thomas Lowenhaupt wrote: From: Thomas Lowenhaupt Subject: Re: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "McTim" Date: Sunday, January 3, 2010, 6:47 AM McTim,   I disagree with two points you made in your 12-29-09 comments on search neutrality.   First, you said:   "Either it works or it doesn't. If PageRank doesn't give you what you need, then try Yahoo or Bing."    I look at search and its impact on local governance and worry about an instance like this. Google seeks to build an intellectually stimulating office facility for its growing staff in New York City and feels that privatizing a park is the best way to accomplish this - following the example the New York Yankees set with their new stadium.   Some park neighbors get riled up, go to the Net, and do a search for "opponents to the Google variance." What lists first is a milquetoast advocacy group that opposes certain aspects of the development but sees overall advantage from the construction jobs and to the economy. Perhaps there are other listings and a Google ad or two that point to materials supportive of this viewpoint. And perhaps Milquetoast has an agreement with Google to meliorate neighborhood impacts.   Here’s my concern and the problem: How are the neighbors to know what's not there?   If Google hand-wires the results to suite its needs, overriding its secret proprietary sauce, how are the atomized neighbors to know there are others opposed to the development? How are they to know to go to Bing? I suspect many would conclude, “Gee, no one else cares. Maybe I’m wrong?” And Google wins.   Of course education is the answer. And we've plans to develop curriculum that begins in the 3rd grade and to educates the public at all levels as to civic ills that might arise by putting too much trust in one search engine. But this is likely to take a decade or so to permeate society.   (Before I move to my second point of disagreement let me slip in another example. Imagine we’re a few years down the road and Google “winner$” begin running for public office. How are we to trust its opaque search algorithm during the rough and tumble of an election campaign? Then we’ll clearly see the relationship between link and ballot voting! And even if Google didn’t hand-wire, opponents would surely charge that it did, poisoning the system.)   Second, when you say,   "We, as IGC (or even CS as a whole) can't expect to seriously ask Google to show us their patented IP, can we?"   I disagree. Given the importance of search in the development of civic attitudes - like the newspapers and TV of old - I think it’s vital that we address the issue.   Here’s a path. Initially we make the importance of “search transparency” known to Google and encourage them to provide their secret sauce’s recipe. (I prefer “search transparency” to “search neutrality” as it is a somewhat easier to devise a metric.)   Google has capitalized their search lead and integrated it into a plethora of other services and should be able to keep their lead for the foreseeable future, and might be prescient to see the poisoning possibility and be agreeable to the need to move toward transparency.  Perhaps they might initially agree to a trusted outsider initially, a Moody’s-like entity to judge all search engines. And if Google doesn’t see the light, perhaps Bing might take a lead in offering transparent search.   And if the search industry doesn’t see the necessity – no one steps in - it’s incumbent on civil society to educate the public and decision makers about the impact of search opacity and encourage the development of a transparent search engine.   Tom Lowenhaupt, Founder and Chair Connecting.nyc Inc. connectingnyc.org   ----- Original Message ----- From: McTim To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 2009 12:43 PM Subject: Re: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 11:12 AM, Parminder wrote: McTim So you agree with Lauren that urgent regulatory action is needed to ensure network neutrality,   Urgent, no, action, well if the FCC principles, are a form of "action", then yes.   and that efforts to confuse this issue should be resisted.   yes   Efforts at confusion like the arguments " that Internet content edge-caching (like that used by Akamai, Amazon, Google, and many other Web services) somehow violates net neutrality principles -- clearly a false assertion." (quoting the article you forwarded.) That to me is a great improvement on whatever I have ever heard you speak on network neutrality on this list :). (And i remember the precise 'confusing argument' of edge catching got discussed during NN discussions on this list.) So congrats to us, we are in a rare agreement.       This is entirely in line with what I have argued in the past.  I am abig fan of NN, always have been, I think we just used a different definition of NN.   However, what goes past me is that while i agree that when FCC is discussing NN, it is of no avail, and even reprehensible, for the implicated parties to point fingers at Google alleging another kind of anti-competitive practice, I cant see how Adam Raff's article can be criticized on this account. He mentions NN only in the passing in the opening para just to show that Google itself is not all smelling of roses. Also there is definitely a connection between NN practices and allegations about Google, both being anti-competitive activities.     What connection is that?   Rest of the article has to be dealt on its own merit, not only in terms of muddying waters in the NN debate. That is unfair. Adam clearly supports NN regulation, but he has a right to go ahead and make his case against Google. And it is not an ordinary article - it is a NYT op-ed, and so if Google has something to say or refute it must issue a rejoinder.      http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2009/12/meaning-of-open.html       Just addressing one main points of Lauren's blog in defense of Google which seems so shallow. It is roughly the assertion, I have often earlier also heard, that with one click one can switch search engines.  A powerful actor telling weaker dependent groups that they always have the option to move away is a old trick, and mostly a cruel one. I wont expand on this but I think everyone can understand this.     I certainly don't.  I have moved away from lots of search engines/homepages/and other web services over the decades.   Secondly, I will move away only if I knew what logic/ algorithm Google used, and so I can decide if it works for me or not.   Either it works or it doesn't.  If PageRank doesn't give you what you need, then try Yahoo or Bing.  We, as IGC (or even CS asa whole) can't expect to seriously ask Google to show us their patented IP, can we?  While we are at it, why don't we insist that coca-cola publish their recipe for Coke or that KFC tell us exactly what their secret recipe is? \   So can we at least ask it to publish its logic of arranging search results so the consumers can make a choice. It is a wrong thing to ask?   yes     So what really is Lauren's blog trying to do by being so defensive about Google and what exactly you are agreeing  with is not clear to me.       I agree with the below paragraph. "Fundamentally, Google has simply provided better products, that more people want to use. And anyone else is free to do the same thing, at least as long as ISPs aren't permitted to strangle the Internet playing field via their total hold over Internet access to all sites!" (From Luaran's blog)     Happy New Year,   McTim ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -----Inline Attachment Follows----- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From sylvia.caras at gmail.com Sun Jan 3 14:38:13 2010 From: sylvia.caras at gmail.com (Sylvia Caras) Date: Sun, 3 Jan 2010 11:38:13 -0800 Subject: [governance] Re: [IRP] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality In-Reply-To: <4B399461.6010702@itforchange.net> References: <4B399461.6010702@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Raff's article raises important big questions as do others in this conversation. On the micro/personal level, I am wondering if Google search may have become unwieldy. The hits I now get are diffuse and I have to be more and more careful to narrow search terms. For me, search is much less effective than, say, a year ago. Partly because the universe searched keeps getting larger, but also partly because sites are wrongly tagged, wrongly included. I find too many aggregated sites as hits and also some that have no hit term at all on their first page. On the other hand, Google alerts seem to be working better and better for me, finding citations in articles and books that I'm guessing are newly online. Sylvia ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Sun Jan 3 17:26:38 2010 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sun, 3 Jan 2010 17:26:38 -0500 Subject: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality In-Reply-To: <00ff01ca8c40$9f09b6d0$6400a8c0@powuseren2ihcx> References: <4B399461.6010702@itforchange.net> <4B3A2A59.7000106@itforchange.net> <00ff01ca8c40$9f09b6d0$6400a8c0@powuseren2ihcx> Message-ID: On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 1:47 AM, Thomas Lowenhaupt wrote: > > McTim,   > > Here’s my concern and the problem: How are the neighbors to know what's not there? > > > > If Google hand-wires the results to suite its needs, overriding its secret proprietary sauce, how are the atomized neighbors to know there are others opposed to the development? How are they to know to go to Bing? I suspect many would conclude, “Gee, no one else cares. Maybe I’m wrong?” And Google wins. Why would Google "hand-wire" their results in a case like that?  They make money showing ads next to search results.  If such an intervention became public, the resulting negative publicity would be not worth whatever gain they would get from NOT listing Google haters in search results. Try googling "google haters", there are millions of results. If you were in a struggle vs Google re: a local real estate deal, would you really use Google Search to find allies?? Whats missing in all this is this (easily found using Google "how does pagerank work" I might add): PR(A) = (1-d) + d(PR(t1)/C(t1) + ... + PR(tn)/C(tn)) While this may not be the current algorithm, it was the early version of it. In other words, with a few seconds effort, one can easily find out the information asked for in this thread. > > > > Of course education is the answer. And we've plans to develop curriculum that begins in the 3rd grade and to educates the public at all levels as to civic ills that might arise by putting too much trust in one search engine. But this is likely to take a decade or so to permeate society. key phrase there is "might arise". Its brand loyalty, that's all. I would hope that we as a group have far bigger fish to fry than this. > > > > (Before I move to my second point of disagreement let me slip in another example. Imagine we’re a few years down the road and Google “winner$” begin running for public office. How are we to trust its opaque search algorithm during the rough and tumble of an election campaign? same as during a non election year. If it is useful to you, use it. if not, then find something that is useful. >Then we’ll clearly see the relationship between link and ballot voting! I cant parse this. > And even if Google didn’t hand-wire, opponents would surely charge that it did, poisoning the system.) What you are doing is putting any search engine into a no win system. I, for one, appreciate what google has done around US election information. > > > > Second, when you say, > > > > "We, as IGC (or even CS as a whole) can't expect to seriously ask Google to show us their patented IP, can we?" > > > > I disagree. Given the importance of search in the development of civic attitudes - like the newspapers and TV of old - I think it’s vital that we address the issue. > > > > Here’s a path. Initially we make the importance of “search transparency” known to Google and encourage them to provide their secret sauce’s recipe. (I prefer “search transparency” to “search neutrality” as it is a somewhat easier to devise a metric.) > > I think they already know that people want to know how they know what they know. > > Google has capitalized their search lead and integrated it into a plethora of other services and should be able to keep their lead for the foreseeable future, and might be prescient to see the poisoning possibility and be agreeable to the need to move toward transparency.  Perhaps they might initially agree to a trusted outsider initially, a Moody’s-like entity to judge all search engines. And if Google doesn’t see the light, perhaps Bing might take a lead in offering transparent search. perhaps, but i wouldn't bet on it. > > > > And if the search industry doesn’t see the necessity – no one steps in - it’s incumbent on civil society to educate the public and decision makers about the impact of search opacity and encourage the development of a transparent search engine. > That has been tried, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikia_Search You are welcome to do it again if you feel the need. -- 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 From lmcknigh at syr.edu Sun Jan 3 21:53:16 2010 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Sun, 3 Jan 2010 21:53:16 -0500 Subject: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality In-Reply-To: References: <4B399461.6010702@itforchange.net> <4B3A2A59.7000106@itforchange.net> <00ff01ca8c40$9f09b6d0$6400a8c0@powuseren2ihcx>, Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0141ABF3A7@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> McTim, everyone, 1st a nit: Google's patents are a matter of public record, like everyone's (when issued). Of course really people including Parminder and Thomas are more curious/concerned about Google's latest 'secret sauce' tweaked algorithms which are trade secrets and McTim is right they have no obligation nor motivation to share secrets. As has also been noted, the whole idea is not to be neutral but to bias search in one way or another ie, either for financial reasons of Google or for usability of their customers. Fine. They're a business, we would assume they are trying to make money from their customers. So forget search neutrality, ain't happening. Next, and main point: as Ralf pointed out, 'networks' exist at all levels of the stack and of human society (and amongst consenting devices). So 'net neutrality' is....amongst ISPs and their customers. But wait, not including mobile ISPs. Or them too? But not amongst IAPs (application providers) like Google right. So if you're operating in the cloud providing applications as a service across the Internet...what are you exactly from a neutral net point of view? Anyway, I don't mean to confuse folks, except to point out that if search neutrality is an oxymoron....well draw your own conclusions re net neutrality. IMHO. Lee ________________________________________ From: McTim [dogwallah at gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, January 03, 2010 5:26 PM To: Thomas Lowenhaupt Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 1:47 AM, Thomas Lowenhaupt wrote: > > McTim, > > Here’s my concern and the problem: How are the neighbors to know what's not there? > > > > If Google hand-wires the results to suite its needs, overriding its secret proprietary sauce, how are the atomized neighbors to know there are others opposed to the development? How are they to know to go to Bing? I suspect many would conclude, “Gee, no one else cares. Maybe I’m wrong?” And Google wins. Why would Google "hand-wire" their results in a case like that? They make money showing ads next to search results. If such an intervention became public, the resulting negative publicity would be not worth whatever gain they would get from NOT listing Google haters in search results. Try googling "google haters", there are millions of results. If you were in a struggle vs Google re: a local real estate deal, would you really use Google Search to find allies?? Whats missing in all this is this (easily found using Google "how does pagerank work" I might add): PR(A) = (1-d) + d(PR(t1)/C(t1) + ... + PR(tn)/C(tn)) While this may not be the current algorithm, it was the early version of it. In other words, with a few seconds effort, one can easily find out the information asked for in this thread. > > > > Of course education is the answer. And we've plans to develop curriculum that begins in the 3rd grade and to educates the public at all levels as to civic ills that might arise by putting too much trust in one search engine. But this is likely to take a decade or so to permeate society. key phrase there is "might arise". Its brand loyalty, that's all. I would hope that we as a group have far bigger fish to fry than this. > > > > (Before I move to my second point of disagreement let me slip in another example. Imagine we’re a few years down the road and Google “winner$” begin running for public office. How are we to trust its opaque search algorithm during the rough and tumble of an election campaign? same as during a non election year. If it is useful to you, use it. if not, then find something that is useful. >Then we’ll clearly see the relationship between link and ballot voting! I cant parse this. > And even if Google didn’t hand-wire, opponents would surely charge that it did, poisoning the system.) What you are doing is putting any search engine into a no win system. I, for one, appreciate what google has done around US election information. > > > > Second, when you say, > > > > "We, as IGC (or even CS as a whole) can't expect to seriously ask Google to show us their patented IP, can we?" > > > > I disagree. Given the importance of search in the development of civic attitudes - like the newspapers and TV of old - I think it’s vital that we address the issue. > > > > Here’s a path. Initially we make the importance of “search transparency” known to Google and encourage them to provide their secret sauce’s recipe. (I prefer “search transparency” to “search neutrality” as it is a somewhat easier to devise a metric.) > > I think they already know that people want to know how they know what they know. > > Google has capitalized their search lead and integrated it into a plethora of other services and should be able to keep their lead for the foreseeable future, and might be prescient to see the poisoning possibility and be agreeable to the need to move toward transparency. Perhaps they might initially agree to a trusted outsider initially, a Moody’s-like entity to judge all search engines. And if Google doesn’t see the light, perhaps Bing might take a lead in offering transparent search. perhaps, but i wouldn't bet on it. > > > > And if the search industry doesn’t see the necessity – no one steps in - it’s incumbent on civil society to educate the public and decision makers about the impact of search opacity and encourage the development of a transparent search engine. > That has been tried, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikia_Search You are welcome to do it again if you feel the need. -- 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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From lmcknigh at syr.edu Sun Jan 3 22:19:24 2010 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Sun, 3 Jan 2010 22:19:24 -0500 Subject: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0141ABF3A7@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <4B399461.6010702@itforchange.net> <4B3A2A59.7000106@itforchange.net> <00ff01ca8c40$9f09b6d0$6400a8c0@powuseren2ihcx>,,<93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0141ABF3A7@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0141ABF3A8@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> And to be a bit more blunt and to keep it real simple: Google is the largest Internet operator in the US now, and largest source of Internet traffic worldwide. Traditional 'telcos' like AT & T & Verizon are still in top 10, but just barely. But never mind the real world, we'll ignore Google's network and focus lots of effort developing net neutrality regs focused on....someone else. Brilliant. Lee Source: see Arbor Networks study Oct. 2009; or readwriteweb article excerpted below. Google Accounts for 6% of All Internet Traffic Written by Sarah Perez / October 13, 2009 6:38 AM / 8 Comments « Prior Post Next Post » Five years ago, Internet traffic was, for the most part, managed by tier 1 providers like AT&T, Verizon, Level 3 Communications and Global Crossing, all of which connected to thousands of tier 2 networks and regional providers. Today, that has changed. Now, instead of traffic being distributed among tens of thousands of networks, only 150 networks control some 50% of all online traffic. Among these new Internet superpowers, it's no surprise to find Google listed. In fact, the search giant accounts for the largest source (6%) of all Internet traffic worldwide. This data comes from a new report put out by Arbor Networks, who has just completed a two-year study of 256 exabytes of Internet traffic data, the largest study of global traffic since the start of the commercial Internet in the mid-1990's. "Hyper Giants" Rule Today's Internet The biggest trend to come out of Arbor Networks' report is clearly that of the Internet's consolidation. Today's Internet is "flatter" and "more densely connected" than ever before, reveals Arbor Networks' Chief Research Officer Danny McPherson. Not only is Google the largest traffic source, there are only 30 large companies in addition to Google and including sites like Facebook, Microsoft and YouTube which now account for a disproportionate 30% of all Internet traffic. According to Craig Labovitz, chief scientist at Arbor Networks, this shift represents the Internet's move into a second phase where it's no longer "all about contacting websites." Rather, "over the past two years larger organizations have been buying up the smaller websites and by July 2009, 30 per cent of the internet was owned by a few large sites." The acquisitions, the result of billions of dollars spent by large companies snapping up smaller ones, has created a new Internet core of "hyper giants," a coin termed by the report. The other companies making the list of Internet giants include names like Akamai, Limelight, BitGravity, Highwinds, and Gravity - hardly household names, and certainly not big telco providers. Instead, these content delivery networks (CDNs), are the new Internet backbone that help move large amounts of data across the web. ________________________________________ From: Lee W McKnight [lmcknigh at syr.edu] Sent: Sunday, January 03, 2010 9:53 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; McTim; Thomas Lowenhaupt Subject: RE: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality McTim, everyone, 1st a nit: Google's patents are a matter of public record, like everyone's (when issued). Of course really people including Parminder and Thomas are more curious/concerned about Google's latest 'secret sauce' tweaked algorithms which are trade secrets and McTim is right they have no obligation nor motivation to share secrets. As has also been noted, the whole idea is not to be neutral but to bias search in one way or another ie, either for financial reasons of Google or for usability of their customers. Fine. They're a business, we would assume they are trying to make money from their customers. So forget search neutrality, ain't happening. Next, and main point: as Ralf pointed out, 'networks' exist at all levels of the stack and of human society (and amongst consenting devices). So 'net neutrality' is....amongst ISPs and their customers. But wait, not including mobile ISPs. Or them too? But not amongst IAPs (application providers) like Google right. So if you're operating in the cloud providing applications as a service across the Internet...what are you exactly from a neutral net point of view? Anyway, I don't mean to confuse folks, except to point out that if search neutrality is an oxymoron....well draw your own conclusions re net neutrality. IMHO. Lee ________________________________________ From: McTim [dogwallah at gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, January 03, 2010 5:26 PM To: Thomas Lowenhaupt Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 1:47 AM, Thomas Lowenhaupt wrote: > > McTim, > > Here’s my concern and the problem: How are the neighbors to know what's not there? > > > > If Google hand-wires the results to suite its needs, overriding its secret proprietary sauce, how are the atomized neighbors to know there are others opposed to the development? How are they to know to go to Bing? I suspect many would conclude, “Gee, no one else cares. Maybe I’m wrong?” And Google wins. Why would Google "hand-wire" their results in a case like that? They make money showing ads next to search results. If such an intervention became public, the resulting negative publicity would be not worth whatever gain they would get from NOT listing Google haters in search results. Try googling "google haters", there are millions of results. If you were in a struggle vs Google re: a local real estate deal, would you really use Google Search to find allies?? Whats missing in all this is this (easily found using Google "how does pagerank work" I might add): PR(A) = (1-d) + d(PR(t1)/C(t1) + ... + PR(tn)/C(tn)) While this may not be the current algorithm, it was the early version of it. In other words, with a few seconds effort, one can easily find out the information asked for in this thread. > > > > Of course education is the answer. And we've plans to develop curriculum that begins in the 3rd grade and to educates the public at all levels as to civic ills that might arise by putting too much trust in one search engine. But this is likely to take a decade or so to permeate society. key phrase there is "might arise". Its brand loyalty, that's all. I would hope that we as a group have far bigger fish to fry than this. > > > > (Before I move to my second point of disagreement let me slip in another example. Imagine we’re a few years down the road and Google “winner$” begin running for public office. How are we to trust its opaque search algorithm during the rough and tumble of an election campaign? same as during a non election year. If it is useful to you, use it. if not, then find something that is useful. >Then we’ll clearly see the relationship between link and ballot voting! I cant parse this. > And even if Google didn’t hand-wire, opponents would surely charge that it did, poisoning the system.) What you are doing is putting any search engine into a no win system. I, for one, appreciate what google has done around US election information. > > > > Second, when you say, > > > > "We, as IGC (or even CS as a whole) can't expect to seriously ask Google to show us their patented IP, can we?" > > > > I disagree. Given the importance of search in the development of civic attitudes - like the newspapers and TV of old - I think it’s vital that we address the issue. > > > > Here’s a path. Initially we make the importance of “search transparency” known to Google and encourage them to provide their secret sauce’s recipe. (I prefer “search transparency” to “search neutrality” as it is a somewhat easier to devise a metric.) > > I think they already know that people want to know how they know what they know. > > Google has capitalized their search lead and integrated it into a plethora of other services and should be able to keep their lead for the foreseeable future, and might be prescient to see the poisoning possibility and be agreeable to the need to move toward transparency. Perhaps they might initially agree to a trusted outsider initially, a Moody’s-like entity to judge all search engines. And if Google doesn’t see the light, perhaps Bing might take a lead in offering transparent search. perhaps, but i wouldn't bet on it. > > > > And if the search industry doesn’t see the necessity – no one steps in - it’s incumbent on civil society to educate the public and decision makers about the impact of search opacity and encourage the development of a transparent search engine. > That has been tried, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikia_Search You are welcome to do it again if you feel the need. -- 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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Jan 4 01:35:39 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Mon, 04 Jan 2010 12:05:39 +0530 Subject: [gaid-discuss] [governance] IGF and GAID In-Reply-To: <4B417D06.9050502@rwi.uzh.ch> References: <4B3C6C79.6020209@itforchange.net> <13638835.69716.1262263722087.JavaMail.www@wwinf1j09> <4B3EEC58.7090307@itforchange.net> <20100102204948.A22B59091E@npogroups.org> <001801ca8c47$ec3b8210$c4b28630$@lu> <004c01ca8c4e$e24dfce0$a6e9f6a0$@lu> <4B417D06.9050502@rwi.uzh.ch> Message-ID: <4B418C3B.5080301@itforchange.net> Yes, a number of developed countries are moving in the direction of a rights based approach to Internet connectivity. Pity is, they still push ICTD models for developing countries that resist any public goods framework for basic ICT enablements including, but not limited to, connectivity. Whether this anomaly is just a time-lag between different government departments dealing respectively with internal social policy and external development support, or is related to the fact that ICTs as the means of knowledge flows and controls underlie the principal new geo-political comparative advantage which is too precious to be compromised in charity-mindedness, is a moot question - but a very important one. Parminder Lehrstuhl Weber wrote: > Just for your information: Two years ago Switzerland already > introduced a law gauaranteeing every home fast broadband acces. > Happy New Year > Rolf H. Weber > > Latif LADID ("The New Internet based on IPv6") schrieb: >> >> >> UK - Ministers consider new law guaranteeing fast broadband for >> every home >> >> >> All householders would have a legal right to a high speed >> broadband connection under new plans being considered by the >> Government. >> >> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/broadband/6920942/Ministers-consider-new-law-guaranteeing-fast-broadband-for-every-home.html >> >> >> Published: 8:00AM GMT 02 Jan 2010 >> >> >> >> *The Government is considering making broadband access a legal right.* >> >> The proposals would place high-speed internet access on a par with >> utilities like water and gas, which are already covered by >> legislation guaranteeing their supply to every home in the country. >> >> The legal broadband obligation has been proposed by council leaders >> in response to concerns that rural communities are being left behind >> by the digital revolution, with residents and businesses in much of >> the countryside forced to endure sluggish internet connections. >> >> >> >> Local authorities say that the Goverment's existing "commitment" to >> provide 2 Mbps broadband access to all homes by 2012 is insufficent, >> and are calling for faster minimum speeds to be enshrined in law. >> >> While many city dwellers will soon enjoy super-fast 40 Mbps >> connections, _around 42 per cent of rural households are still unable >> to access the internet at 2 Mbps_, because of the distance between >> homes and telephone exchanges. >> >> Keith Mitchell of the Local Government Association (LGA), which has >> forwarded the proposals to ministers, said that fast internet was now >> "essential to everyday life" and should be viewed as a necessity >> rather than a luxury. >> >> He said: "From doing business, to banking online, accessing >> information or just downloading music, high speed broadband would >> change the lives of people and boost businesses in rural areas across >> the country." >> >> If the proposals are accepted by John Denham, the secretary of state >> for communities and local government, and ministers at the Department >> of Innovation and Business, Britain would become one of the first >> countries in the world to oblige internet service providers to >> deliver fast broadband. Finland passed a law guaranteeing 1Mps >> connections in October last year. >> >> The plans were shortlisted by the LGA for consideration by ministers >> after being selected from more than 300 ideas to improve local life >> drawn up by councils across the country. >> >> Christopher Snowling, cabinet member for health and community at Mid >> Sussex District Council which originally proposed the new law, said >> that guaranteed broadband speeds would help close the digital divide >> between rural and urban areas. >> >> "People living in rural areas deserve the same quality of internet >> connection as those living in major towns and cities. _Better >> broadband internet would encourage commuters to work from home which >> would cut traffic and CO2 emissions," he said._ >> >> "Faster internet speeds will allow rural businesses to compete on a >> more level playing field with businesses in urban areas and make sure >> school children in rural areas are not disadvantaged by not being >> able to access information online." >> >> The Telegraph has launched a campaign for a better deal for broadband >> users in rural areas to ensure they do not miss out on vital services >> and business opportunities. >> >> But the Government has been reluctant to make firm commitments to >> minimum broadband speeds because of the costs of improving networks >> in rural areas. The cost of installing the fibre optic lines required >> for super-fast broadband to all homes has been estimated at up to £30 >> billion. >> >> But last June Gordon Brown conceded that more must be done to help >> rural businesses cut off from the benefits of the web, acknowledging >> that "a fast internet connection is now seen by most of the public as >> an essential service, as indispensable as electricity, gas and water". >> >> A Government spokesman said: "The Government remains absolutely >> committed to improving the lives of people in both urban and rural >> communities. We will carefully consider the full shortlist of >> proposals when it is received from the LGA. >> >> _"We don't want rural Britain to miss out on the social and economic >> benefits of quality broadband_, which is why the Universal Service >> Commitment of 2Mbps set out in the Digital Britain White Paper aims >> to provide good quality broadband to all parts of the UK. >> >> "We believe this commitment achieves the best possible balance >> between faster services and affordability. Our plans foresee a fast >> roll-out of 2Mbps by 2012, after which our efforts and resources will >> focus on enabling Next Generation Access to most of the UK by 2017, >> providing much higher speeds of 40Mbps or more." >> >> >> >> >> >> *From:* discuss-bounces at mx.un-gaid.org >> [mailto:discuss-bounces at mx.un-gaid.org] *On Behalf Of *Latif LADID >> ("The New Internet based on IPv6") >> *Sent:* 03 January 2010 08:40 >> *To:* 'Ronda Hauben'; governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'GAID Discussion' >> *Cc:* 'Parminder'; email at hakik.org >> *Subject:* Re: [gaid-discuss] [governance] IGF and GAID >> >> >> >> Internet has become a utility like water and electricity. If some >> commercial freaks decide on who gets water and electricity then their >> government should be fired for obvious corruption or plain incompetence. >> >> >> >> Cheers >> >> Latif >> >> >> >> *From:* discuss-bounces at mx.un-gaid.org >> [mailto:discuss-bounces at mx.un-gaid.org] *On Behalf Of *Ronda Hauben >> *Sent:* 02 January 2010 22:23 >> *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org; GAID Discussion >> *Cc:* Parminder; email at hakik.org >> *Subject:* Re: [gaid-discuss] [governance] IGF and GAID >> >> >> >> Does anyone know what are the actual plans for the future of GAID? >> >> >> It is good to see there is some discussion of it on these lists, but >> I am wondering what is the actual plan for it, if there is one being >> planned or in the process of being implemented? >> >> I have proposed that those interested in integrating Internet >> development in the development process have much to learn from >> studying and discussing the actual development process that built the >> Internet. >> >> When I returned home from the WSIS meeting in Tunis in 2005, I had >> some discussion with someone who described the struggle in his >> country in Africa, over how to spread the Internet. >> >> The experience he described was about how commercial entities wanted >> to limit how the Internet was used. Meanwhile there some in >> government who recognized that there was a need to spread the >> Internet at a low cost, especially in the education sector. He >> described the government idea of wiring a government building and >> then using that to offer low cost or free Internet education to the >> school systems nearby. Instead those interested in commercial >> development claimed the wiring of the government building should only >> serve the government site. The struggle between these two visions of >> Internet development was not unique to that country, as I had >> experienced a similar struggle in the US. >> >> It seemed reviewing both the vision guiding early networking >> development and the history of how the Internet was developed and >> spread in its early phases, would be of value in general, and in >> particular to the developing world. >> >> Unfortunately, those drafting the millennium development goals didn't >> find a way to build in this kind of focus into the goals themselves. >> >> >> >> Happy New Year to all. >> >> >> >> with best wishes >> >> >> >> Ronda >> >> On Sat, Jan 2, 2010 at 3:49 PM, Hakikur Rahman > > wrote: >> >> Dear Parminder, >> >> I agree with you cent percent, but wish I could have knew those >> strange reasons that you have mentioned. Not only UNDP, but seems >> majority of development partners are no more interested in ICTD. For >> many years, it has become stalled somewhere, when the field was >> really going to launch in many lagging nations. Hope GAID, as it has >> been expected could come up with something in this aspect. >> >> Best regards, >> Hakikur >> >> At 06:48 02-01-2010, Parminder wrote: >> >> Jean-Louis FULLSACK wrote: >> >> Dear Parminder >> >> As usually your message clearifies the debate ; therefore all my >> thanks. >> >> > concrete suggestion for IGF reform, which may be taken up when >> the resolution/ >> > discussion on IGF continuation finally comes up at the UN general >> > assembly or at the CSTD (there is a confusion at this stage how >> the >> > process will go forward). >> >> Isn't there another confusing situation with GAID as far as IG is >> dealing with Developing Countriers issues are concerned ? >> If this is the opinion of a majority among us, our relation with >> -and/or position on- GAID should be laid down accordingly. >> >> Dear Jean-Louis, >> >> Development has never been a serious political issue at WSIS, and >> has been even less so post-WSIS. It is for this reason that the >> levels of interest of major actors and therefore the trajectories >> of the IGF and GAID have been very different. (It is a different >> manner that the subject of development is treated as a red >> herring with such regularity, and often deviousness, in the IGF >> that it would make a very interesting study/ story.) >> >> IG is very political because it concerns the governance, and thus >> the possibilities of shaping, of the Internet. Development in >> post-WSIS structures has been seen in largely in the normal >> 'charity view' of development, plus as new possibilities of >> political alliances for transnational businesses to expand their >> markets in developing countries. The fact is that, at present, no >> major actor of any significant power has really much interest in >> ICTD at the global level. (UNDP for some strange reasons has >> mostly withdrawn from this area.) >> >> So while IGF seems to be headed towards even keener political >> contests, GAID, post-Sarbuland, may be headed towards getting >> folded up into a regular UN department, doing mundane work (thats >> what I fear). The way GAID was run as a new age network had many >> huge problems - and we kept pointed them out at all GAID meetings >> - but it will be a mistake to forgo its open new-age network >> structure for a bureaucratic UN department. What we need instead >> is a set of more focussed and clearer objectives and work plans, >> and a better network structure focussed on public interest >> actors, chiefly those involved with development issues. >> >> Parminder >> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet >> >> http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> ______________________________________________________ >> Mailing list for GAID members >> Replies go to the sender by default. To respond to the >> list, please address to discuss at un-gaid.org >> http://mx.un-gaid.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss >> http://www.un-gaid.org >> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > ______________________________________________________ > Mailing list for GAID members > Replies go to the sender by default. To respond to the > list, please address to discuss at un-gaid.org > http://mx.un-gaid.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss > http://www.un-gaid.org > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Jan 4 03:33:20 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Mon, 04 Jan 2010 14:03:20 +0530 Subject: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality In-Reply-To: References: <4B399461.6010702@itforchange.net> <4B3A2A59.7000106@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4B41A7D0.5070807@itforchange.net> >>Secondly, I will move away only if I knew what logic/ algorithm Google used, and so I can decide if it works for me or not. >Either it works or it doesn't. If PageRank doesn't give you what you need, then try Yahoo or Bing. We, as IGC (or >even CS asa whole) can't expect to seriously ask Google to show us their patented IP, can we? While we are at it, >why don't we insist that coca-cola publish their recipe for Coke or that KFC tell us exactly what their secret recipe >is? McTim Treating everything, in this case a company's (self-declared) aim of organizing the world's information, as akin to buying coke or KFC chicken is behind many problems of the modern world. And since you have, in the past, declared your innocence regarding this socio-political term, I may say that this is more or less what neoliberalism means. You may however know that all drug manufacturers, for instance, are obliged to disclose all ingredients of the drugs, whether it effects their competitiveness or not. This is because someone sensible decided that drugs are not the same as KFC chicken. Media companies are obliged to clearly demarcate editorial content from advertisement, once again some policy makers were a bit nuanced, with public interest in mind. And you spoke about patents, as Lee points out, all patents are to be publicly available information. In fact patents were initially devised so that innovative ideas could be widely shared. But coming back to the main point about Raff's article. >>And it is not an ordinary article - it is a NYT op-ed, and so if Google has something to say or refute it must issue a rejoinder. > http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2009/12/meaning-of-open.html The link you forward does not address the principle point made by Raff's article. Relevant parts are posted again for your reference. "Another way that Google exploits its control is through preferential placement. With the introduction in 2007 of what it calls "universal search," Google began promoting its own services at or near the top of its search results, bypassing the algorithms it uses to rank the services of others. Google now favors its own price-comparison results for product queries, its own map results for geographic queries, its own news results for topical queries, and its own YouTube results for video queries. And Google's stated plans for universal search make it clear that this is only the beginning." "Because of its domination of the global search market and ability to penalize competitors while placing its own services at the top of its search results, Google has a virtually unassailable competitive advantage. And Google can deploy this advantage well beyond the confines of search to any service it chooses. Wherever it does so, incumbents are toppled, new entrants are suppressed and innovation is imperiled." Above is a clear allegation that without telling us "Google ... (is) promoting its own services at or near the top of its search results, bypassing the algorithms it uses to rank the services of others". I do not know whether they actually do so or not. But if they do not do so, by my reckoning, they will jump in with a strong rejoinder within hours of such an allegation being carried in a NY op-ed article. So, lets assume that they do so. Can anything be more anti-competitive than this. >>Also there is definitely a connection between NN practices and allegations about Google, both being anti-competitive activities. >What connection is that? Cant see how you cannot make the connection. One of the worst NN violation consists in telco's promoting their own services on their network over that of their competitors. Google is doing the same at another level of the network that it controls. Isnt it the same level of offense? Parminder McTim wrote: > > > On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 11:12 AM, Parminder > wrote: > > McTim > > So you agree with Lauren that urgent regulatory action is needed > to ensure network neutrality, > > > Urgent, no, action, well if the FCC principles, are a form of > "action", then yes. > > > and that efforts to confuse this issue should be resisted. > > > yes > > > Efforts at confusion like the arguments " that Internet content > edge-caching (like that used by Akamai, Amazon, Google, and many > other Web services) somehow violates net neutrality principles -- > clearly a false assertion." (quoting the article you forwarded.) > > That to me is a great improvement on whatever I have ever heard > you speak on network neutrality on this list :). (And i remember > the precise 'confusing argument' of edge catching got discussed > during NN discussions on this list.) So congrats to us, we are in > a rare agreement. > > > > > This is entirely in line with what I have argued in the past. I am > abig fan of NN, always have been, I think we just used a different > definition of NN. > > > > However, what goes past me is that while i agree that when FCC is > discussing NN, it is of no avail, and even reprehensible, for the > implicated parties to point fingers at Google alleging another > kind of anti-competitive practice, I cant see how Adam Raff's > article can be criticized on this account. He mentions NN only in > the passing in the opening para just to show that Google itself is > not all smelling of roses. Also there is definitely a connection > between NN practices and allegations about Google, both being > anti-competitive activities. > > > > What connection is that? > > > Rest of the article has to be dealt on its own merit, not only in > terms of muddying waters in the NN debate. That is unfair. Adam > clearly supports NN regulation, but he has a right to go ahead and > make his case against Google. And it is not an ordinary article - > it is a NYT op-ed, and so if Google has something to say or refute > it must issue a rejoinder. > > > > http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2009/12/meaning-of-open.html > > > > > Just addressing one main points of Lauren's blog in defense of > Google which seems so shallow. It is roughly the assertion, I have > often earlier also heard, that with one click one can switch > search engines. A powerful actor telling weaker dependent groups > that they always have the option to move away is a old trick, and > mostly a cruel one. I wont expand on this but I think everyone can > understand this. > > > > I certainly don't. I have moved away from lots of search > engines/homepages/and other web services over the decades. > > > Secondly, I will move away only if I knew what logic/ algorithm > Google used, and so I can decide if it works for me or not. > > > Either it works or it doesn't. If PageRank doesn't give you what you > need, then try Yahoo or Bing. We, as IGC (or even CS asa whole) can't > expect to seriously ask Google to show us their patented IP, can we? > While we are at it, why don't we insist that coca-cola publish their > recipe for Coke or that KFC tell us exactly what their secret recipe is? > \ > > > So can we at least ask it to publish its logic of arranging search > results so the consumers can make a choice. It is a wrong thing to > ask? > > > yes > > > > So what really is Lauren's blog trying to do by being so defensive > about Google and what exactly you are agreeing with is not clear > to me. > > > > > I agree with the below paragraph. > > > "Fundamentally, Google has simply provided better products, that > more people want to use. And anyone else is free to do the same > thing, at least as long as ISPs aren't permitted to strangle the > Internet playing field via their total hold over Internet access > to all sites!" (From Luaran's blog) > > > > Happy New Year, > > McTim -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Mon Jan 4 11:02:54 2010 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2010 16:02:54 +0000 Subject: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0141ABF3A7@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <4B399461.6010702@itforchange.net> <4B3A2A59.7000106@itforchange.net> <00ff01ca8c40$9f09b6d0$6400a8c0@powuseren2ihcx> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0141ABF3A7@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: In message <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0141ABF3A7 at suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>, at 21:53:16 on Sun, 3 Jan 2010, Lee W McKnight writes >Anyway, I don't mean to confuse folks, except to point out that if >search neutrality is an oxymoron....well draw your own conclusions >re net neutrality. The only conclusion that can be drawn is that both concepts include the word "neutrality". I say "both concepts", but as neither is well enough defined in common consciousness to be able to discuss, unless first asking what one's debating partner thinks it means, there's perhaps a second similarity :) -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Mon Jan 4 19:00:35 2010 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Tue, 05 Jan 2010 11:00:35 +1100 Subject: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0141ABF3A8@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: One thing to realise in this debate is that there is an inherent potential conflict of interest involved when a search provider is also an advertising and content provider. Particularly as internet names become more irrelevant and search continues to expand as the major discovery mechanism. And when the worlds biggest search provider is also the biggest content owner and biggest advertising revenue source on line, there is a recipe for problems and potential monopolistic behaviour. And here's another bit for the puzzle! I have just been the victim of an internet fraud - I realised in time (I hope!) that I was the subject of a scam, but to escape it I had to cancel a credit card. Where Google comes in here is that the search result that led me to the fraudulent site was a number one hit on Google (I was looking for a particular piece of Mac software and was drawn to a file sharing site that wanted a small fee - but as I found out later has the habit of using credit card numbers obtained from many similar sites for all sorts of other charges). Quite sophisticated sites. I cant blame a search algorithm for directing me to a site which happens to be fraudulent. But I am not going to argue for entirely neutral algorithms either - in time and as we become more mature as regards cybercrime, search algorithms should be rejecting fraudulent sites where possible (yes this is difficult I know). So we probably don't want neutral search entirely. The Halal search engine discussion here a few months ago raised similar issues. But what I do want is clear disclosure and some clear overall policies regarding search behaviour. This is a critical issue, and especially for governance. It isnt going away and there is no logical home for addressing these issues holistically at present. Ian Peter > From: Lee W McKnight > Reply-To: , Lee W McKnight > Date: Sun, 3 Jan 2010 22:19:24 -0500 > To: "governance at lists.cpsr.org" , Lee W McKnight > , McTim , Thomas Lowenhaupt > > Subject: RE: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality > > And to be a bit more blunt and to keep it real simple: Google is the largest > Internet operator in the US now, and largest source of Internet traffic > worldwide. > > Traditional 'telcos' like AT & T & Verizon are still in top 10, but just > barely. > > But never mind the real world, we'll ignore Google's network and focus lots of > effort developing net neutrality regs focused on....someone else. Brilliant. > > Lee > > Source: see Arbor Networks study Oct. 2009; or readwriteweb article excerpted > below. > > Google Accounts for 6% of All Internet Traffic > Written by Sarah Perez / October 13, 2009 6:38 AM / 8 Comments > « Prior Post Next Post » > > Five years ago, Internet traffic was, for the most part, managed by tier 1 > providers like AT&T, Verizon, Level 3 Communications and Global Crossing, all > of which connected to thousands of tier 2 networks and regional providers. > Today, that has changed. Now, instead of traffic being distributed among tens > of thousands of networks, only 150 networks control some 50% of all online > traffic. Among these new Internet superpowers, it's no surprise to find Google > listed. In fact, the search giant accounts for the largest source (6%) of all > Internet traffic worldwide. > > This data comes from a new report put out by Arbor Networks, who has just > completed a two-year study of 256 exabytes of Internet traffic data, the > largest study of global traffic since the start of the commercial Internet in > the mid-1990's. > "Hyper Giants" Rule Today's Internet > > The biggest trend to come out of Arbor Networks' report is clearly that of the > Internet's consolidation. Today's Internet is "flatter" and "more densely > connected" than ever before, reveals Arbor Networks' Chief Research Officer > Danny McPherson. Not only is Google the largest traffic source, there are only > 30 large companies in addition to Google and including sites like Facebook, > Microsoft and YouTube which now account for a disproportionate 30% of all > Internet traffic. > > According to Craig Labovitz, chief scientist at Arbor Networks, this shift > represents the Internet's move into a second phase where it's no longer "all > about contacting websites." Rather, "over the past two years larger > organizations have been buying up the smaller websites and by July 2009, 30 > per cent of the internet was owned by a few large sites." The acquisitions, > the result of billions of dollars spent by large companies snapping up smaller > ones, has created a new Internet core of "hyper giants," a coin termed by the > report. > > The other companies making the list of Internet giants include names like > Akamai, Limelight, BitGravity, Highwinds, and Gravity - hardly household > names, and certainly not big telco providers. Instead, these content delivery > networks (CDNs), are the new Internet backbone that help move large amounts of > data across the web. > > > ________________________________________ > From: Lee W McKnight [lmcknigh at syr.edu] > Sent: Sunday, January 03, 2010 9:53 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; McTim; Thomas Lowenhaupt > Subject: RE: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality > > McTim, everyone, > > 1st a nit: Google's patents are a matter of public record, like everyone's > (when issued). > > Of course really people including Parminder and Thomas are more > curious/concerned about Google's latest 'secret sauce' tweaked algorithms > which are trade secrets and McTim is right they have no obligation nor > motivation to share secrets. As has also been noted, the whole idea is not to > be neutral but to bias search in one way or another ie, either for financial > reasons of Google or for usability of their customers. Fine. They're a > business, we would assume they are trying to make money from their customers. > So forget search neutrality, ain't happening. > > Next, and main point: as Ralf pointed out, 'networks' exist at all levels of > the stack and of human society (and amongst consenting devices). > > So 'net neutrality' is....amongst ISPs and their customers. But wait, not > including mobile ISPs. Or them too? But not amongst IAPs (application > providers) like Google right. So if you're operating in the cloud providing > applications as a service across the Internet...what are you exactly from a > neutral net point of view? > > Anyway, I don't mean to confuse folks, except to point out that if search > neutrality is an oxymoron....well draw your own conclusions re net neutrality. > IMHO. > > Lee > ________________________________________ > From: McTim [dogwallah at gmail.com] > Sent: Sunday, January 03, 2010 5:26 PM > To: Thomas Lowenhaupt > Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality > > On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 1:47 AM, Thomas Lowenhaupt > wrote: >> >> McTim, > > > >> >> Here¹s my concern and the problem: How are the neighbors to know what's not >> there? >> >> >> >> If Google hand-wires the results to suite its needs, overriding its secret >> proprietary sauce, how are the atomized neighbors to know there are others >> opposed to the development? How are they to know to go to Bing? I suspect >> many would conclude, ³Gee, no one else cares. Maybe I¹m wrong?² And Google >> wins. > > Why would Google "hand-wire" their results in a case like that? They > make money showing ads next to search results. If such an > intervention became public, the resulting negative publicity would be > not worth whatever gain they would get from NOT listing Google haters > in search results. > > Try googling "google haters", there are millions of results. > > If you were in a struggle vs Google re: a local real estate deal, > would you really use Google Search to find allies?? > > Whats missing in all this is this (easily found using Google "how does > pagerank work" I might add): > > PR(A) = (1-d) + d(PR(t1)/C(t1) + ... + PR(tn)/C(tn)) > > While this may not be the current algorithm, it was the early version > of it. In other words, with a few seconds effort, one can easily find > out the information asked for in this thread. > >> >> >> >> Of course education is the answer. And we've plans to develop curriculum that >> begins in the 3rd grade and to educates the public at all levels as to civic >> ills that might arise by putting too much trust in one search engine. But >> this is likely to take a decade or so to permeate society. > > > key phrase there is "might arise". Its brand loyalty, that's all. I > would hope that we as a group have far bigger fish to fry than this. > > >> >> >> >> (Before I move to my second point of disagreement let me slip in another >> example. Imagine we¹re a few years down the road and Google ³winner$² begin >> running for public office. How are we to trust its opaque search algorithm >> during the rough and tumble of an election campaign? > > same as during a non election year. If it is useful to you, use it. > if not, then find something that is useful. > >> Then we¹ll clearly see the relationship between link and ballot voting! > > I cant parse this. > >> And even if Google didn¹t hand-wire, opponents would surely charge that it >> did, poisoning the system.) > > > What you are doing is putting any search engine into a no win system. > > I, for one, appreciate what google has done around US election information. > >> >> >> >> Second, when you say, >> >> >> >> "We, as IGC (or even CS as a whole) can't expect to seriously ask Google to >> show us their patented IP, can we?" >> >> >> >> I disagree. Given the importance of search in the development of civic >> attitudes - like the newspapers and TV of old - I think it¹s vital that we >> address the issue. >> >> >> >> Here¹s a path. Initially we make the importance of ³search transparency² >> known to Google and encourage them to provide their secret sauce¹s recipe. (I >> prefer ³search transparency² to ³search neutrality² as it is a somewhat >> easier to devise a metric.) >> >> > > I think they already know that people want to know how they know what they > know. > > >> >> Google has capitalized their search lead and integrated it into a plethora of >> other services and should be able to keep their lead for the foreseeable >> future, and might be prescient to see the poisoning possibility and be >> agreeable to the need to move toward transparency. Perhaps they might >> initially agree to a trusted outsider initially, a Moody¹s-like entity to >> judge all search engines. And if Google doesn¹t see the light, perhaps Bing >> might take a lead in offering transparent search. > > > perhaps, but i wouldn't bet on it. >> >> >> >> And if the search industry doesn¹t see the necessity ­ no one steps in - it¹s >> incumbent on civil society to educate the public and decision makers about >> the impact of search opacity and encourage the development of a transparent >> search engine. >> > > That has been tried, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikia_Search > > You are welcome to do it again if you feel the need. > > -- > 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 > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jlfullsack at orange.fr Tue Jan 5 08:31:51 2010 From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK) Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2010 14:31:51 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality Message-ID: <24554587.33746.1262698311499.JavaMail.www@wwinf1d40> Dear Ian and all The article below (from IBLS News Portal) may be interesting for some of you Best Jean-Louis Fullsack > Message du 05/01/10 01:01 > De : "Ian Peter" > A : governance at lists.cpsr.org > Copie à : > Objet : Re: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality > > > > One thing to realise in this debate is that there is an inherent potential > conflict of interest involved when a search provider is also an advertising > and content provider. Particularly as internet names become more irrelevant > and search continues to expand as the major discovery mechanism. > > And when the worlds biggest search provider is also the biggest content > owner and biggest advertising revenue source on line, there is a recipe for > problems and potential monopolistic behaviour. > > And here's another bit for the puzzle! I have just been the victim of an > internet fraud - I realised in time (I hope!) that I was the subject of a > scam, but to escape it I had to cancel a credit card. > > Where Google comes in here is that the search result that led me to the > fraudulent site was a number one hit on Google (I was looking for a > particular piece of Mac software and was drawn to a file sharing site that > wanted a small fee - but as I found out later has the habit of using credit > card numbers obtained from many similar sites for all sorts of other > charges). Quite sophisticated sites. > > I cant blame a search algorithm for directing me to a site which happens to > be fraudulent. But I am not going to argue for entirely neutral algorithms > either - in time and as we become more mature as regards cybercrime, search > algorithms should be rejecting fraudulent sites where possible (yes this is > difficult I know). > > So we probably don't want neutral search entirely. The Halal search engine > discussion here a few months ago raised similar issues. But what I do want > is clear disclosure and some clear overall policies regarding search > behaviour. > > This is a critical issue, and especially for governance. It isnt going away > and there is no logical home for addressing these issues holistically at > present. > > Ian Peter INTERNET LAW - The Initial Interest Confusion Theory: The Beginning Of Liability For Search Engine Companies Martha L. Arias, Martha L. Arias Search engine and internet advertisers have found technological systems to provide ‘better location’ and visibility for their patrons’ advertisements (ads). One of these inventions is Meta tags. In simple terms, Meta tags are HTML (Hypertext Markup Language) codes incorporated to an advertisement or webpage that depict that website content and will increase visibility for those searching the web. There are two types of Meta tags, ‘description’ and ‘keyword’ Meta tags. The main objective in using description Meta tags is to describe the website content. At least at its inception, keyword Meta tags intended to use common words or sentences found in a specific website to trigger visibility of the Ads. No doubt Meta tags are an excellent tool for search engine patrons and for Internet surfers. It is an excellent marketing strategy for search engine patrons and time-efficiency instrument for Internet users. Yet, search engine companies turned intense in helping their patrons. They embarked on the sensitive journey of using trademarked terms in Meta tags. But, is this use legal? May search engines be liable for the use of trademarked terms in keyword Meta tags? May this violate the trademark laws and unfair competition rules? The answer to these and other related questions follow. One of the leading United States (U.S.) cases on the issue of liability for the use of trademarked terms is Brookfield Communications, Inc. v. West Coast Entertainment (Brookfield). This case commenced in a District Court of California in 1998 and concluded with a remarkable decision that marked the beginning of a new liability era for those using trademarked words in their advertisements. Brookfield held that the defendant company was liable to the plaintiff company, under the Trademark Infringement and Unfair Competition Laws of the U.S. Lanham Act (15 U.S. §§1114 and 1125(a), for the defendant’s use of plaintiff’s trademarked term in defendant’s Meta tags in Defendant’s websites, even if no actual damage existed. This case introduced the Initial Interest Confusion liability theory that is still applicable in the U.S. Courts. Brookfield was later complemented by Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Netscape Communications (Playboy). In Playboy liability was directed asserted on a search engine company sued for infringement of the same provisions of the U.S. Lanham Act. What are the facts of Brookfield case? Brookfield Communications, Inc. is a company that collects and distributes information about the entertainment industry. In its initial stages, Brookfield created and offered software for major Hollywood film studios only. Later in 1993, they broadened their services and introduced a software database with news and information about the entertainment industry intended for a general or less specialized audience. This database was called “MovieBuff.” West Coast Entertainment is a large video rental store with more than 500 stores nation- wide. In 1991, West Coast Entertainment got a Federal registration of the service mark “Movie Buff’s Movie Store.” Records show that this service mark was related to the sell and rental of video cassettes and video game cartridges. In February 1996, West Coast Entertainment registered a domain name called “moviebuff.com.” In August 1996, Brookfield tried to register a domain name called MovieBuff.com to no avail because this domain name had been registered by West Coast Entertainment Company. In August 1997, Brookfield applied for the Federal registration of the mark “movieBuff” that would identify Brookfield’s products and services. Brookfield trademark application described its products as “computer software providing data and information in the field of the motion picture and television industries.” This Federal trademark was issued in September 1998. Likewise, Brookfield had obtained a California state trademark registration of the mark “movieBuff” in 1994 that covered “computer software.” In October 1998, Brookfield knew that West Coast Entertainment Company would launch an entertainment industry database in their already registered website, “movieBuff.com” with similar information to that offered by Brookfield’s through its “MovieBuff” software and displayed in their website “Brookfieldcomm.com and “moviebuffonline.com.” Brookfield then requested West Coast Entertainment Company to desist this endeavor because it would violate Brookfield’s trademark rights. West Coast Entertainment Company paid no attention to this request and launched its entertainment database in its “movieBuff.com website. Then, this lawsuit commenced. What was the legal issue in this case? There were several legal issues in this case, some of them procedural issues that will not be addressed in this summary. First, the Court considered whether there was an infringement of trademark claim under section 32 of the Lanham Act (U.S. Trademark law); Second, whether there was an unfair competition claim under section 43 of the same Act. These two issues were solved after worthy and lengthy intellectual property considerations that will be reviewed in other summary, especially that related to the use of trademarked terms in domain names. Third, and most important for us in this discussion, the Court considered whether West Coast Entertainment Company (defendant) was liable for the use of the trademarked term “movieBuff” in the Meta tags in its website “westcoastvideo.com” or any other website different than “movieBuff.com.” The Court decision was in the affirmative. The Court held that due to the Initial Interest Confusion theory, West Coast Entertainment Company was liable to Brookfield for the use of its trademarked term in the Meta tags of defendant’s websites other than “movieBueff.com.” What is the Initial Interest Confusion Theory and is it Actionable under the U.S. Lanham Act? Using the facts of this case, the Court appropriately defined this theory as follows: “Web surfers looking for ‘Brookfield’s’ ‘MovieBuff’ products who are taken by a search engine to ‘westcoastvideo.com’ will find a database similar enough to ‘MovieBuff’ such that a sizeable number of consumers who were originally looking for Brookfield’s products will simply decide to utilize West Coast’s offering instead. Although there is no source confusion in the sense that consumers know they are patronizing West Coast rather than Brookfield, there is nevertheless initial interest confusion in the sense that, by using ‘moviebuff.com’ or ‘moviebuff’ to divert people looking for ‘MovieBuff’ to its web site, West Coast improperly benefits from the goodwill that Brookfield developed in its mark.” The wisdom of this theory may be simply explained as follows; a consumer looking for a specific product uses a search engine and types the name of that product. Suddenly, that consumer is taken to the website of a company that may not be the owner of this product’s trademarked term but that sells similar products. Even though, this consumer may be clearly aware that he is using a different website than the initial website he intended, he may decide to stay in this website since it offers a similar product of the one he was looking for. It is clear that the website using a trademarked in its Meta tag is benefiting from the goodwill of this trademarked term to attract consumers to its site. But, where is the confusion and violation of the Lanham Act? The Court stressed that a consumer re-directed to a website different than the one initially intended may not be confused as to what website he is visiting. Yet, the fact that his initial interest for a company or website was diverted to another is a type of confusion against which the Lanham Act protects. This Court citing to Mobile Oil Corp. v. Pegasus Petroleum Corp. said: “to capture initial consumer attention, even though no actual sale is finally completed as a result of the confusion, may be still an infringement.” Thus, one of the principal elements of infringement under the Lanham Act, be it confusion, is found when a company uses a trademarked term in its Meta tags. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Tue Jan 5 09:17:00 2010 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2010 10:17:00 -0400 Subject: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality In-Reply-To: <24554587.33746.1262698311499.JavaMail.www@wwinf1d40> References: <24554587.33746.1262698311499.JavaMail.www@wwinf1d40> Message-ID: The thing that concerns me most about this debate is the perception, apparently generally accepted, that the user is a) unable to protect him/her self and b) stupid. I remember being greeted with surprise and horror when I suggested "playing games with google" - deliberately inserting words into emails to see what the response would be. We can all say no, and if we are "disempowered" to the point where this is no longer possible then the answer surely lies in educating people, rather than regulating google. Deirdre 2010/1/5 Jean-Louis FULLSACK > > > Dear Ian and all > > The article below (from IBLS News Portal) may be interesting for some of > you > > Best > Jean-Louis Fullsack > > > > Message du 05/01/10 01:01 > > De : "Ian Peter" > > A : governance at lists.cpsr.org > > Copie à : > > Objet : Re: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality > > > > > > > > > One thing to realise in this debate is that there is an inherent > potential > > conflict of interest involved when a search provider is also an > advertising > > and content provider. Particularly as internet names become more > irrelevant > > and search continues to expand as the major discovery mechanism. > > > > And when the worlds biggest search provider is also the biggest content > > owner and biggest advertising revenue source on line, there is a recipe > for > > problems and potential monopolistic behaviour. > > > > And here's another bit for the puzzle! I have just been the victim of an > > internet fraud - I realised in time (I hope!) that I was the subject of a > > scam, but to escape it I had to cancel a credit card. > > > > Where Google comes in here is that the search result that led me to the > > fraudulent site was a number one hit on Google (I was looking for a > > particular piece of Mac software and was drawn to a file sharing site > that > > wanted a small fee - but as I found out later has the habit of using > credit > > card numbers obtained from many similar sites for all sorts of other > > charges). Quite sophisticated sites. > > > > I cant blame a search algorithm for directing me to a site which happens > to > > be fraudulent. But I am not going to argue for entirely neutral > algorithms > > either - in time and as we become more mature as regards cybercrime, > search > > algorithms should be rejecting fraudulent sites where possible (yes this > is > > difficult I know). > > > > So we probably don't want neutral search entirely. The Halal search > engine > > discussion here a few months ago raised similar issues. But what I do > want > > is clear disclosure and some clear overall policies regarding search > > behaviour. > > > > This is a critical issue, and especially for governance. It isnt going > away > > and there is no logical home for addressing these issues holistically at > > present. > > > > Ian Peter > > *INTERNET LAW - The Initial Interest Confusion Theory: The Beginning Of > Liability For Search Engine Companies * > > *Martha L. Arias, Martha L. Arias* > > > > > Search engine and internet advertisers have found technological systems to > provide ‘better location’ and visibility for their patrons’ advertisements > (ads). One of these inventions is Meta tags. In simple terms, Meta tags are > HTML (Hypertext Markup Language) codes incorporated to an advertisement or > webpage that depict that website content and will increase visibility for > those searching the web. There are two types of Meta tags, ‘description’ and > ‘keyword’ Meta tags. The main objective in using description Meta tags is to > describe the website content. At least at its inception, keyword Meta tags > intended to use common words or sentences found in a specific website to > trigger visibility of the Ads. No doubt Meta tags are an excellent tool for > search engine patrons and for Internet surfers. It is an excellent marketing > strategy for search engine patrons and time-efficiency instrument for > Internet users. > > Yet, search engine companies turned intense in helping their patrons. They > embarked on the sensitive journey of using trademarked terms in Meta tags. > But, is this use legal? May search engines be liable for the use of > trademarked terms in keyword Meta tags? May this violate the trademark laws > and unfair competition rules? The answer to these and other related > questions follow. > > One of the leading United States (U.S.) cases on the issue of liability for > the use of trademarked terms is Brookfield Communications, Inc. v. West > Coast Entertainment (Brookfield). This case commenced in a District Court of > California in 1998 and concluded with a remarkable decision that marked the > beginning of a new liability era for those using trademarked words in their > advertisements. Brookfield held that the defendant company was liable to the > plaintiff company, under the Trademark Infringement and Unfair Competition > Laws of the U.S. Lanham Act (15 U.S. §§1114 and 1125(a), for the defendant’s > use of plaintiff’s trademarked term in defendant’s Meta tags in Defendant’s > websites, even if no actual damage existed. This case introduced the Initial > Interest Confusion liability theory that is still applicable in the U.S. > Courts. > > Brookfield was later complemented by Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Netscape > Communications (Playboy). In Playboy liability was directed asserted on a > search engine company sued for infringement of the same provisions of the > U.S. Lanham Act. > > *What are the facts of Brookfield case?* > > Brookfield Communications, Inc. is a company that collects and distributes > information about the entertainment industry. In its initial stages, > Brookfield created and offered software for major Hollywood film studios > only. Later in 1993, they broadened their services and introduced a software > database with news and information about the entertainment industry intended > for a general or less specialized audience. This database was called > “MovieBuff.” > > West Coast Entertainment is a large video rental store with more than 500 > stores nation- wide. In 1991, West Coast Entertainment got a Federal > registration of the service mark “Movie Buff’s Movie Store.” Records show > that this service mark was related to the sell and rental of video cassettes > and video game cartridges. In February 1996, West Coast Entertainment > registered a domain name called “moviebuff.com.” > > In August 1996, Brookfield tried to register a domain name called > MovieBuff.com to no avail because this domain name had been registered by > West Coast Entertainment Company. > > In August 1997, Brookfield applied for the Federal registration of the mark > “movieBuff” that would identify Brookfield’s products and services. > Brookfield trademark application described its products as “computer > software providing data and information in the field of the motion picture > and television industries.” This Federal trademark was issued in September > 1998. Likewise, Brookfield had obtained a California state trademark > registration of the mark “movieBuff” in 1994 that covered “computer > software.” > > In October 1998, Brookfield knew that West Coast Entertainment Company > would launch an entertainment industry database in their already registered > website, “movieBuff.com” with similar information to that offered by > Brookfield’s through its “MovieBuff” software and displayed in their website > “Brookfieldcomm.com and “moviebuffonline.com.” > > Brookfield then requested West Coast Entertainment Company to desist this > endeavor because it would violate Brookfield’s trademark rights. West Coast > Entertainment Company paid no attention to this request and launched its > entertainment database in its “movieBuff.com website. Then, this lawsuit > commenced. > > *What was the legal issue in this case?* > > There were several legal issues in this case, some of them procedural > issues that will not be addressed in this summary. > > First, the Court considered whether there was an infringement of trademark > claim under section 32 of the Lanham Act (U.S. Trademark law); Second, > whether there was an unfair competition claim under section 43 of the same > Act. These two issues were solved after worthy and lengthy intellectual > property considerations that will be reviewed in other summary, especially > that related to the use of trademarked terms in domain names. > > Third, and most important for us in this discussion, the Court considered > whether West Coast Entertainment Company (defendant) was liable for the use > of the trademarked term “movieBuff” in the Meta tags in its website “ > westcoastvideo.com” or any other website different than “movieBuff.com.” > The Court decision was in the affirmative. The Court held that due to the > Initial Interest Confusion theory, West Coast Entertainment Company was > liable to Brookfield for the use of its trademarked term in the Meta tags of > defendant’s websites other than “movieBueff.com.” > > *What is the Initial Interest Confusion Theory and is it Actionable under > the U.S. Lanham Act?* > > Using the facts of this case, the Court appropriately defined this theory > as follows: > > “Web surfers looking for ‘Brookfield’s’ ‘MovieBuff’ products who are taken > by a search engine to ‘westcoastvideo.com’ will find a database similar > enough to ‘MovieBuff’ such that a sizeable number of consumers who were > originally looking for Brookfield’s products will simply decide to utilize > West Coast’s offering instead. Although there is no source confusion in the > sense that consumers know they are patronizing West Coast rather than > Brookfield, there is nevertheless initial interest confusion in the sense > that, by using ‘moviebuff.com’ or ‘moviebuff’ to divert people looking for > ‘MovieBuff’ to its web site, West Coast improperly benefits from the > goodwill that Brookfield developed in its mark.” > > The wisdom of this theory may be simply explained as follows; a consumer > looking for a specific product uses a search engine and types the name of > that product. Suddenly, that consumer is taken to the website of a company > that may not be the owner of this product’s trademarked term but that sells > similar products. Even though, this consumer may be clearly aware that he is > using a different website than the initial website he intended, he may > decide to stay in this website since it offers a similar product of the one > he was looking for. It is clear that the website using a trademarked in its > Meta tag is benefiting from the goodwill of this trademarked term to attract > consumers to its site. > > But, where is the confusion and violation of the Lanham Act? The Court > stressed that a consumer re-directed to a website different than the one > initially intended may not be confused as to what website he is visiting. > Yet, the fact that his initial interest for a company or website was > diverted to another is a type of confusion against which the Lanham Act > protects. This Court citing to Mobile Oil Corp. v. Pegasus Petroleum Corp. > said: “to capture initial consumer attention, even though no actual sale is > finally completed as a result of the confusion, may be still an > infringement.” Thus, one of the principal elements of infringement under the > Lanham Act, be it confusion, is found when a company uses a trademarked term > in its Meta tags. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -- “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 From gpaque at gmail.com Tue Jan 5 09:45:53 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Tue, 05 Jan 2010 10:15:53 -0430 Subject: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality In-Reply-To: References: <24554587.33746.1262698311499.JavaMail.www@wwinf1d40> Message-ID: <4B4350A1.8010304@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 From fm-lists at st-kilda.org Tue Jan 5 10:50:46 2010 From: fm-lists at st-kilda.org (Fearghas McKay) Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2010 15:50:46 +0000 Subject: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality In-Reply-To: <4B4350A1.8010304@paque.net> References: <24554587.33746.1262698311499.JavaMail.www@wwinf1d40> <4B4350A1.8010304@paque.net> Message-ID: <800F527C-7D25-477F-897D-E89237E93A20@st-kilda.org> On 5 Jan 2010, at 14:45, Ginger Paque wrote: > Should a user have to search the fine print to find the information > they want? Whatever regulation is done - a user will have to do that at some point. Educating the user needs to be done even if there is regulation because they will need to understand what the regulation covers. Personally my take on the original article is that the search rankings were correct, they had no valid new / original content, just a collection of links. The links might have been ordered or edited specially but they were moving me one step or more further away from the information that I would be looking for. The cynical might say it was sour grapes on the writer's part, I would put it down to a misunderstanding of what I as a user want :-) The other thing that seems to be missing from this debate is that we are not Google's customers, we are users and we can use something else if we choose to, probably because the search doesn't work well enough for us. Whilst I am sure that Google could repurpose their infrastructure into something else and continue as an entity if a better algorithm comes along from an upstart, the market is still wide open for a better engine to be as disruptive as they were. It will probably not come from the USA, the newer emerging markets will bring their own giants of the network world. f ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From toml at communisphere.com Tue Jan 5 11:32:50 2010 From: toml at communisphere.com (Thomas Lowenhaupt) Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2010 11:32:50 -0500 Subject: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality References: <24554587.33746.1262698311499.JavaMail.www@wwinf1d40> <4B4350A1.8010304@paque.net> <800F527C-7D25-477F-897D-E89237E93A20@st-kilda.org> Message-ID: <021001ca8e24$bb6de9f0$6400a8c0@powuseren2ihcx> Fearghas, When you say: > Personally my take on the original article is that the search rankings > were correct, they had no valid new / original content, just a collection > of links. Maybe so, but consider this from a search developer at one of the major engine companies: A real-world web search engine, such as Google's or Microsoft's, has literally thousands or tens of thousands of ranking signals, updated or introduced multiple times during a single day. Additionally, the permutations are near infinite, as the major search engines are constantly running concurrent experiments in an effort to dynamically tune the system with real user queries and user happiness. Moreover, modern search engines such as Google go so far as to customize and personalize each result on the fly for each individual user, meaning that there is no canonical ranking to begin with. And all of this is predicated on top of a very unpredictable and continuously changing corpus of crawled data, with more and more of it arriving in near real-time. Given all of that as context, I wouldn't even know where to begin to try and make the ranking process visible to the user. There is no one algorithm, and no one corpus, no one frozen point in time, no way to even explain the ranking process to lay-people to begin with. A worthy challenge, but I'm not sure how practically it could be done. So creating transparent search is a challenging task indeed. Jimmy Wales' people gave a swipe at it a few years ago but got pounced on for its Alpha release. We've linked to that Wikia Search effort and others on our Transparent Search wiki page - http://bit.ly/TransparentSearch. Best, Tom Lowenhaupt ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From gurstein at gmail.com Tue Jan 5 11:35:13 2010 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2010 08:35:13 -0800 Subject: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality In-Reply-To: <800F527C-7D25-477F-897D-E89237E93A20@st-kilda.org> Message-ID: <49F6D907F18547D8A5A565C8CB1682F1@userPC> Quite honestly I find this whole discussion extremely odd. The assumption seems to be that "we" either as "users" or as "customers" or as autonomous "agents" interacting with Google are completely independent and free (and able) to make or remake ourselves (through learning more, through searching out competitors, through developing new companies etc.etc.) at will. This position ignores a couple of hundred years of anthropology/sociology that points out to anyone who may have missed it that we are not first and foremost "independent" actors free to make or remake ourselves at will. Rather we are creatures of culture and community and while some of us have significant opportunities because of our cultural and community backgrounds many of us do not. Simply exhorting those who don't, to "pull up their sox and compete like a man (or woman" is to my mind quite beside the point (and a position which itself is highly highly culture/nation bound... Some "users" will have the interest, skill, language to read fine print and (most) others won't... Some will have the capacity to see through Google if it abuses its power/position--(most) others won't... Some will have the awareness of knowledge categories (sociology of knowledge) to understand the ways in which Google is increasingly structuring/restructuring how we approach knowledge itself (others are arguing that Google is in fact influencing the very process of thinking/structure of thought but that is a different issue) and will then be able to take a critical position for themselves on how to prevent any possible misuse of that position but most (and daresay including most of those on this list) will not. That is why we have governments who have the mandate to intervene and regulate in the public interest. All of the above arguments on this issue could probably be made concerning things like food and auto safety, pollution standards, and child protection (suthorizing third parties to intervene in abusive relationships between parents and children). I personally see little difference apart from the same ideological blinkers that argued against each of the above interventions, in the instance of Google which is probably the most broadly (at least passively) influential (de facto monopoly) enterprise of the last decade. Mike Gurstein -----Original Message----- From: Fearghas McKay [mailto:fm-lists at st-kilda.org] Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 2010 7:51 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Cc: Fearghas McKay Subject: Re: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality On 5 Jan 2010, at 14:45, Ginger Paque wrote: > Should a user have to search the fine print to find the information > they want? Whatever regulation is done - a user will have to do that at some point. Educating the user needs to be done even if there is regulation because they will need to understand what the regulation covers. Personally my take on the original article is that the search rankings were correct, they had no valid new / original content, just a collection of links. The links might have been ordered or edited specially but they were moving me one step or more further away from the information that I would be looking for. The cynical might say it was sour grapes on the writer's part, I would put it down to a misunderstanding of what I as a user want :-) The other thing that seems to be missing from this debate is that we are not Google's customers, we are users and we can use something else if we choose to, probably because the search doesn't work well enough for us. Whilst I am sure that Google could repurpose their infrastructure into something else and continue as an entity if a better algorithm comes along from an upstart, the market is still wide open for a better engine to be as disruptive as they were. It will probably not come from the USA, the newer emerging markets will bring their own giants of the network world. f ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From toml at communisphere.com Tue Jan 5 11:43:34 2010 From: toml at communisphere.com (Thomas Lowenhaupt) Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2010 11:43:34 -0500 Subject: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality (Corrected) Message-ID: <022701ca8e26$3a164580$6400a8c0@powuseren2ihcx> Fearghas, When you say: > Personally my take on the original article is that the search rankings > were correct, they had no valid new / original content, just a collection > of links. Maybe so, but consider this from a search developer at one of the major engine companies: > A real-world web search engine, such as Google's or Microsoft's, has > literally thousands or tens of thousands of ranking signals, updated or > introduced multiple times during a single day. Additionally, the > permutations are near infinite, as the major search engines are constantly > running concurrent experiments in an effort to dynamically tune the system > with real user queries and user happiness. > > Moreover, modern search engines such as Google go so far as to customize > and personalize each result on the fly for each individual user, meaning > that there is no canonical ranking to begin with. And all of this is > predicated on top of a very unpredictable and continuously changing corpus > of crawled data, with more and more of it arriving in near real-time. > > Given all of that as context, I wouldn't even know where to begin to try > and make the ranking process visible to the user. There is no one > algorithm, and no one corpus, no one frozen point in time, no way to even > explain the ranking process to lay-people to begin with. A worthy > challenge, but I'm not sure how practically it could be done. So creating transparent search is a challenging task indeed. Jimmy Wales' people gave a swipe at it a few years ago but got pounced on for its Alpha release. We've linked to that Wikia Search effort and others on our Transparent Search wiki page - http://bit.ly/TransparentSearch. Best, Tom Lowenhaupt ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Tue Jan 5 15:31:50 2010 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2010 15:31:50 -0500 Subject: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality In-Reply-To: <4B41A7D0.5070807@itforchange.net> References: <4B399461.6010702@itforchange.net> <4B3A2A59.7000106@itforchange.net> <4B41A7D0.5070807@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 3:33 AM, Parminder wrote: > > McTim > > Treating everything, in this case a company's (self-declared) aim of > organizing the world's information, as akin  to buying coke or  KFC chicken > is behind many problems of the modern world. And since you have, in the > past, declared your innocence regarding this socio-political term, I may say > that this is more or less what neoliberalism means. > But I'm not treating "everything" like this, just a simple consumer decision about which search engine to use. > You may however know that all drug manufacturers, for instance, are obliged > to disclose all ingredients of the drugs, whether it effects their > competitiveness or not. This is because someone sensible decided that drugs > are not the same as KFC chicken. However, they ARE regulated (in the USA) by the same federal agency. While it is true that drugs are not fast food, its not clear to me that Google is more like drugs than fast food. Media companies are obliged to clearly > demarcate editorial content from advertisement, once again some policy > makers were a bit nuanced, with public interest in mind. And you spoke about > patents, as Lee points out, all patents are to be publicly available > information. In fact patents were initially devised so that innovative ideas > could be widely shared. So if all patents are publicly available, and PageRank is patented, then isnt the point of this thread moot? > > But coming back to the main point about Raff's article. > >>>And it is not an ordinary article - it is a NYT op-ed, and so if Google >>> has something to say or refute it must issue a rejoinder. > there isn't a must involved, its up to them. If they choose to let it stand, they can certainly do that. >> http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2009/12/meaning-of-open.html > > The link you forward does not address the principle point made by Raff's > article. Relevant parts are posted again for your reference. > > "Another way that Google exploits its control is through preferential > placement. With the introduction in 2007 of what it calls “universal > search,” Google began promoting its own services at or near the top of its > search results, bypassing the algorithms it uses to rank the services of > others. Google now favors its own price-comparison results for product > queries, its own map results for geographic queries, its own news results > for topical queries, and its own YouTube results for video queries. And > Google’s stated plans for universal search make it clear that this is only > the beginning." > > "Because of its domination of the global search market and ability to > penalize competitors while placing its own services at the top of its search > results, Google has a virtually unassailable competitive advantage. And > Google can deploy this advantage well beyond the confines of search to any > service it chooses. Wherever it does so, incumbents are toppled, new > entrants are suppressed and innovation is imperiled." http://www.google.com/search?q=bing+search&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a shows that this is not the case. > > Above is a clear allegation that without telling us "Google ... (is) > promoting its own services at or near the top of its search results, > bypassing the algorithms it uses to rank the services of others". I do not > know whether they actually do so or not. But if they do not do so, by my > reckoning, they will jump in with a strong rejoinder within hours of such an > allegation being carried in a NY op-ed article. So, lets assume that they do > so. Can anything be more anti-competitive than this. yes, do this: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=bMG&q=internet+search&aq=f&oq=&aqi=g-c2g3g-c3g1g-c1 and you will see not a single Google page in the first page. It would be anticompetitve if they manually gave themselves 1st place, but they don't. > >>>Also there is definitely a connection between NN practices and allegations >>> about Google, both being anti-competitive activities. > >>What connection is that? > Cant see how you cannot make the connection. One of the worst NN violation > consists in telco's promoting their own services on their network over that > of their competitors. Google is doing the same at another level of the > network that it controls. Google provides services, these exist on webservers. What providers (telcos) want to do is to treat services/content from webserver A differently than content/services from webserver B. from http://www.savetheinternet.com/faq "Net Neutrality is the guiding principle that preserves the free and open Internet. Net Neutrality simply means no discrimination. Net Neutrality prevents Internet providers from blocking, speeding up or slowing down Web content based on its source, ownership or destination. Net Neutrality is the reason the Internet has driven economic innovation, democratic participation and free speech online. It protects the consumer's right to use any equipment, content, application or service without interference from the network provider. With Net Neutrality, the network's only job is to move data -- not to choose which data to privilege with higher quality service." >Isnt it the same level of offense? not at all. why is it an "offense" to provide the services that most people want to use? -- 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 From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Tue Jan 5 16:57:39 2010 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2010 21:57:39 +0000 Subject: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality In-Reply-To: References: <4B399461.6010702@itforchange.net> <4B3A2A59.7000106@itforchange.net> <4B41A7D0.5070807@itforchange.net> Message-ID: In message , at 15:31:50 on Tue, 5 Jan 2010, McTim writes >Net Neutrality simply means no discrimination. Net Neutrality prevents >Internet providers from blocking, speeding up or slowing down Web >content based on its source, ownership or destination. Isn't it also to do with discriminating traffic depending on whether you've been paid to give a better QoS to one kind of traffic over another? And don't some IPSs deliberately give priority to VoIP traffic - and if true, is that something to be frowned upon? Edge caching of some content compared to others might also be regarded as giving it "unfair" priority (why don't they edge-cache all traffic), but I hardly think that banning edge-caching is desirable. And most obviously, they speed up or slow down traffic depending on whether the subscriber has a 1Mbit, 2Mbit etc tail from his local POP, simply because of the capacity of that tail (to "its destination", the subscriber). ps I'm not saying that some sort of "Net Neutrality" in the core is a good or bad thing, just that definitions need to be very carefully written. -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From katitza at datos-personales.org Tue Jan 5 17:35:37 2010 From: katitza at datos-personales.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2010 17:35:37 -0500 Subject: [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Fwd:_[Madrid]_Petici=F3n_de_solidari?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?dad_con_la_Asociaci=F3n_de_Internautas?= References: Message-ID: <34DA4BCC-03FF-48D5-AF03-CA3F30476A3E@datos-personales.org> Pls. help us spread the word.! Begin forwarded message: > From: Víctor Domingo > Date: January 5, 2010 5:05:42 PM EST > To: > Subject: [Madrid] Petición de solidaridad con la Asociación de > Internautas > > for inmediate release, please spread :( > > original version at http://www.internautas.org/html/5906.html > ------------------ > > We have known by www.meneame.net and some communication media that > we have > been sentenced by the Supreme Court in the PUTASGAE case for hosting > others' contents, which were allegedly slanderous. The Asociación de > Internautas has not yet received any notification of the ruling and > it's > very surprised that this ruling is leaked to the media, even before > reaching the concerned ones. At this time we cannot comment anything > since > we are unaware of it. But we are sure of something: they want to > close the > Asociación de Internautas because we are very inconvenient to a > certain > sector of the society, a minority...but with a big power to decide and > influence. We > ask for > your help to remain open...and figthing. We can only promise > you...that the answer on our side, provided we remain open, will be in > accordance to this. > > 12/22/2009 - href="http://www.abc.es/20091222/medios-redes-web/sancion-euros-alojar-putasgae-200912221611.html > ">ABC > - ?18000 fine for hosting "www.putasgae.org" > > The Civil Room of the Supreme Court has confirmed the rule > condemning the > Asociación de Internautas to pay 18000 euros to the Sociedad General > de > Autores y Editores -T.N:the Spanish RIAA- for having hosted in its > website > pages like www.putasgae.org - T.N:fuckingsgae- and > www.antisgae.internautas.org, which in turn contained slanderous > expressions against the authors society. > > The magistrates of the high court, presided by judge Juan Antonio > Xiol, > have decided to reject in the High Court the appeal lodged by the > Asociación de Internautas as they interpret that they commited a > crime of > illegal intrusion in the right to honour of SGAE, as stated in a > ruling > made public today. > > The legal affair started in March 2004, when SGAE and its president, > Teddy > Bautista, filed a lawsuit against the Asociación de Internautas > before the > Madrid Courts. > > Specifically, the lawsuit stated that the website of Asociación de > Internautas was hosting associated pages with addresses like > "www.putasgae.org" -T.N:fuckingsgae- and > "www.antisgae.internautas.org", > which in turn contained expressions like "hired gun", "mob gang", > "fucking > pickpockets" or "the saying goes that thief who robs a thief > deserves one > hundred years of mercy". > > They deny its participation > > The 19th Section of the National High Court in Madrid acknowledged on > February the 6th, 2006, that SGAE was right and sentenced the > Asociación > de Internautas to pay 18000 euros to the authors society, as well as > ordering the removal of the webpages and the offensive contents of > those > webpages. As a complementary measure, the Asociación de Internautas > should > publish in their website the content of the ruling. > > In the appeal before the Supreme Court, the Asociación de Internautas > denied having any responsibility on the offensive contents of that > Internet pages and hid behind the right to the freedom of speech. The > defendant declared they did not had any participation in the making > nor > the selection of the contents of the webpages, adding they have not > had > effective knowledge of the opinions expressed in them against SGAE. > > The magistrates of the High Court reject the arguments of the > Asociación > de Internautas as they interpret that the "offensive" name of some > of the > webpages they were hosting in their Internet site (like "www.putasgae.org > " > ) were "sufficiently revealing" elements of the "slanderous style of > the > hosted data" > > We ask for your > help > to remain open... and fighting > > > Kind regards, > Víctor Domingo > > P.S: the info in the paper is not really accurate. The real fine is > twice > that amount plus (probably) the expenditure of the process. Since it > was a > double denounce (one as an entity -SGAE- and another one from its > president -Teddy Bautista-) the real fine will be higher than 36000 > euros. > > P.S.2 : our lawyer is currently studying the best option to solve the > situation, but just in case we have to face the total amount in a very > short time, our association will likely disappear soon :-( > > > La Asociación de Internautas necesita tu ayuda > > Informate: > http://www.internautas.org/html/5907.html > > http://www.internautas.org/donaciones.php > > También puedes donar enviando un SMS > > Desde España enviar AI al 27595 (Coste 1,20 euros + IVA) > _______________________________________________ > Madrid mailing list > Madrid at mailman.thepublicvoice.org > http://mailman.thepublicvoice.org/listinfo.cgi/madrid-thepublicvoice.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From lmcknigh at syr.edu Tue Jan 5 23:37:59 2010 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2010 23:37:59 -0500 Subject: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality In-Reply-To: References: <4B399461.6010702@itforchange.net> <4B3A2A59.7000106@itforchange.net> <4B41A7D0.5070807@itforchange.net> , Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE014DEFE496@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> The whole point of content delivery networks is to speed up the delivery of *some* content based on its source, ownership &/or destination. They may 'discriminate' against everyone who is not their paying customer. But CDNs aren't ISPs....and they have nothing to do with 'net neutrality.' Nothing to see here, move along please. ________________________________________ From: Roland Perry [roland at internetpolicyagency.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 2010 4:57 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality In message , at 15:31:50 on Tue, 5 Jan 2010, McTim writes >Net Neutrality simply means no discrimination. Net Neutrality prevents >Internet providers from blocking, speeding up or slowing down Web >content based on its source, ownership or destination. Isn't it also to do with discriminating traffic depending on whether you've been paid to give a better QoS to one kind of traffic over another? And don't some IPSs deliberately give priority to VoIP traffic - and if true, is that something to be frowned upon? Edge caching of some content compared to others might also be regarded as giving it "unfair" priority (why don't they edge-cache all traffic), but I hardly think that banning edge-caching is desirable. And most obviously, they speed up or slow down traffic depending on whether the subscriber has a 1Mbit, 2Mbit etc tail from his local POP, simply because of the capacity of that tail (to "its destination", the subscriber). ps I'm not saying that some sort of "Net Neutrality" in the core is a good or bad thing, just that definitions need to be very carefully written. -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From avri at psg.com Tue Jan 5 23:41:52 2010 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2010 23:41:52 -0500 Subject: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality In-Reply-To: References: <4B399461.6010702@itforchange.net> <4B3A2A59.7000106@itforchange.net> <4B41A7D0.5070807@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On 5 Jan 2010, at 16:57, Roland Perry wrote: >> >> Net Neutrality simply means no discrimination. Net Neutrality prevents >> Internet providers from blocking, speeding up or slowing down Web >> content based on its source, ownership or destination. > > Isn't it also to do with discriminating traffic depending on whether you've been paid to give a better QoS to one kind of traffic over another? i don't believe so. that is differentiating a service offering from best effort service. to avoid confusion i think the Net Neutrality (NN) must be restricted to issues of content, source or protocol port and not bandwidth. (with the one exception that giving preference to network management or routing data necessary to run the network does not violate NN or is a permissible/necessary exception to NN) this has been said many times before and i apologize for repeating it, but i think it has to be said every time someone tries to include bandwidth under the definitions of what constitutes a breech of NN. bandwidth differentiation based on what someone can pay versus best effort for all, may still be wrong according to some judgements, but it is something different then NN. a. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From raul at sdnhq.undp.org Wed Jan 6 07:49:12 2010 From: raul at sdnhq.undp.org (Raul Zambrano) Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 07:49:12 -0500 (EST) Subject: [governance] IGF and GAID Message-ID: Dear Hakik, Thanks for the inputs. Since you have mentioned UNDP, I think there is need for me to step up to the plate and clarify a few things. I think you are 100% right when you say that support for ICTD in the donor community has declined, specially if we compared current activities to say the late 1990s (and before the dot com crash). But on the other hand, I think what has really changed is the way most development practitioners see ICTD. IMHO, we all used to promote ICTD as an end in itself. That was the main goal in the 1990s and early 2000s. Not surprisingly there was a lot of emphasis on infrastructure, access and connectivity. >From 2003 on this has changed dramatically. Now we see ICT as en means to an end. Take for example the Millennium Development Goals. The targets here are all socio-economic and the idea is not to close the so-called "digital divide" but rather to use the new ICTs to close the traditional socio-economic and even governance divides that still exist in most developing countries. This is at least the approach we have taken at UNDP. This at the same time entails that we work more closely together to all those other practitioners who do the traditional development work and are not really aware of the opportunities that ICT offer to solve many (not all!) issues. In other words, ICTs are being mainstreamed into the core development areas. And the challenge today is to make such mainstreaming a more successful one -as we all know that still many development programme chose to ignore ICTs. UNDP is still very active in the areas of ICT and e-governance. In 2008 alone for example we have over 150 programmes in over 70 developing countries with budgets of over 200 million dollars. And many of these programmes are supporting the achievement in one way or another broader development goals. I believe many other donors and agencies are taking the same approach. On the other hand, I still see lots of opportunities to do lots of good work supporting ICTs. So the future is still bright but it is very different from the recent past. We just need to adjust to than and keep moving the agenda forward. Cheers, Raúl ___________________________________________________________________ Raúl Zambrano 304 East 45 Street Senior Policy Advisor 10th Floor ICTD & e-governance New York, NY 10017 UNDP/BDP/DGG 212 906-6654 raul at undp.org 212 906-6952 (Fax) http://ictd.undp.org/e-gov On Sat, 2 Jan 2010, Hakikur Rahman wrote: Dear Parminder, I agree with you cent percent, but wish I could have knew those strange reasons that you have mentioned. Not only UNDP, but seems majority of development partners are no more interested in ICTD. For many years, it has become stalled somewhere, when the field was really going to launch in many lagging nations. Hope GAID, as it has been expected could come up with something in this aspect. Best regards, Hakikur At 06:48 02-01-2010, Parminder wrote: Jean-Louis FULLSACK wrote: Dear Parminder As usually your message clearifies the debate ; therefore all my thanks. > concrete suggestion for IGF reform, which may be taken up when the resolution/ > discussion on IGF continuation finally comes up at the UN general > assembly or at the CSTD (there is a confusion at this stage how the > process will go forward). Isn't there another confusing situation with GAID as far as IG is dealing with Developing Countriers issues are concerned ? If this is the opinion of a majority among us, our relation with -and/or position on- GAID should be laid down accordingly.  Dear Jean-Louis, Development has never been a serious political issue at WSIS, and has been even less so post-WSIS. It is for this reason that the levels of interest of major actors and therefore the trajectories of the IGF and GAID have been very different. (It is a different manner that the subject of development is treated as a red herring with such regularity, and often deviousness, in the IGF that it would make a very interesting study/ story.) IG is very political because it concerns the governance, and thus the possibilities of shaping, of the Internet. Development in post-WSIS structures has been seen in largely in the normal 'charity view' of development, plus as new possibilities of political alliances for transnational businesses to expand their markets in developing countries. The fact is that, at present, no major actor of any significant power has really much interest in ICTD at the global level. (UNDP for some strange reasons has mostly withdrawn from this area.) So while IGF seems to be headed towards even keener political contests, GAID, post-Sarbuland, may be headed towards getting folded up into a regular UN department, doing mundane work (thats what I fear). The way GAID was run as a new age network had many huge problems - and we kept pointed them out at all GAID meetings - but it will be a mistake to forgo  its open new-age network structure for a bureaucratic UN department. What we need instead is a set of more focussed and clearer objectives and work plans, and a better network structure focussed on public interest actors, chiefly those involved with development issues. Parminder > many among us are focusing on just one thing - the > danger that ITU may take over the IGF Right. That is just another point of concern for me. not only because I was working in the (far) past with this Un Agency. I do think that IG needs a strong framework as to be able to apply in any country. Per se ITU isn't qualified for "governance" matters, but it happens to be an intergovernmental body that has a world-wide competence and standardization authority in the ICT/telecom domain, whose circuitry the Internet relies on. That's why I wonder if CS shouldn't rather put its efforts to gain both its place and respect inside this agency. The IGC should also remember that a large part of the CS orgs committed in the WSIS follow-up -especially those working in or with DCs- are struggling for CS being given a plain "ITU member" status.      > there could also be new > options. Thematic working groups, inter-sessional programs, some > possibilities of clear advisory outcomes etc may be some things we have > earlier alluded to. Among these thematic working groups one should deal with some issues related to technical matters such as critical Internet resources, network architecture, network neutrality, etc With my best wishes for a happy and fruitful New Year Jean-Louis Fullsack > Message du 31/12/09 10:20 > De : "Parminder" > A : governance at lists.cpsr.org > Copie à : > Objet : Re: [governance] Online survey on reform of the IGF > > > > Hi All > > While the survey may or may not provide useful inputs for IGC's position > on IGF reform, we should in any case discuss the issue here on the list > so that the coordinators can attempt a consensus position. > > I do think that, in the formal consultation process at Sharm, IGC failed > to provide a comprehensive set of suggestions, even the ones which we > have often discussed in past and adopted by consensus. We may still have > a chance of putting our views forward, now through the channel of > government reps that may be on the lookout for possible good concrete > suggestion for IGF reform, which may be taken up when the resolution/ > discussion on IGF continuation finally comes up at the UN general > assembly or at the CSTD (there is a confusion at this stage how the > process will go forward). > > While seeking to trigger a discussion on this subject after Sharm I had > pointed to fact that many among us are focusing on just one thing - the > danger that ITU may take over the IGF, (or even that the IGF may be > closed down), and consequently not engaging as much as we should to > propose real improvements in the IGF. Apparently, the view is that if we > breathe but one word on possible improvements, it may be taken as > statement of failure of the IGF and be used by those keen on shutting > down the IGF, or seeking an ITU take over of it. > > One proof that these fears are hugely exaggerated, and even > diversionary, can be found in the fact that recently a UN general > assembly resolution for more stable public/ UN funding for the IGF > (which some groups tend to equate with possible ITU takeover) was shot > down, and another one calling for more voluntary contributions to the > trust fund (status quoist) was adopted. One can clearly see here who > calls the shots and which way the wind is blowing. > > So lets relax our exaggerated caution, and boldly seek IGF reform of the > kind we have asked for over the years, while there could also be new > options. Thematic working groups, inter-sessional programs, some > possibilities of clear advisory outcomes etc may be some things we have > earlier alluded to. I personally think that we should also seek a > clearer role for the MAG, and more agenda setting power for it, > including of developing recommendations and advices as per the IGF > mandate based on the proceedings of the IGF and other WGs etc. There > could be other possibilities, but we need to discuss them, and maybe > speak out at Feb meeting (even if thats not the agenda) to catch the ear > of some gov reps, and also pass our views on directly to interested gov > reps. > > Have a great last day of 2009, and wake up to a hopeful and fruitful 2010! > > Parminder > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- The following attachment was sent, but NOT saved in the Fcc copy: A Text/PLAIN (Name="message-footer.txt") segment of about 343 bytes. From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Wed Jan 6 09:15:41 2010 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 19:15:41 +0500 Subject: [governance] Open Patents? Hundreds of thousands of innovations - most in the form of patents Message-ID: <701af9f71001060615n779d3d3bq67bc1efb94114911@mail.gmail.com> Hi Everyone, This is the first time that Patents have gone open with Open Patents! Read on below: Source: Global Innovation Commons http://www.globalinnovationcommons.org/ What would happen if you were given over $2 trillion? That's right, if someone walked up to you and gave you $2 trillion. That could never happen, right? In fact, that is exactly what has just happened. While the patent system has been around since the 17th century when it was developed by nobles in Italy and England, it may surprise you that the system was designed to benefit you. Patents were supposed to be a public disclosure to advance science and useful knowledge. If someone shared sufficient information to teach the public about a novel development or useful technology, they would have a limited time (about 20 years) to decide who could use that idea. There's some bad news and some good news. First, the bad news: For the past 30 years, patents have been abused. Rather than serving the public's expansion of knowledge, they've been used as business and legal weapons. Over 50,000,000 patents covering everything you do have served to keep you from benefiting in many aspects of your life. Many life-saving treatments have been kept from the market because they threaten established business interests. The world's ecosystem has been severely damaged because efficiencies have been kept from entereing the market. In the face of all this, however, there is the good news: The thirty year "cold war" of innovation is over. Today, you now have access to it all. In the Global Innovation Commons, we have assembled hundreds of thousands of innovations - most in the form of patents - which are either expired, no-longer maintained (meaning that the fees to keep the patents in force have lapsed), disallowed, or unprotected in most, if not all, relevant markets. This means that, as of right now, you can take a step into a world full of possibilities, not roadblocks. You want clean water for China or Sudan - it's in here. You want carbon-free energy - it's in here. You want food production for Asia or South America - it's in here. But here's the catch. We're sharing this under a license. The license is really simple. If you use this information, you must share what you're doing with everyone else. If you improve upon it, you must share your improvements with everyone else. And finally, if you use any of this information, you must reference the "Global Innovation Commons." That's it. When you take the next step, turn the possibilities into realities. -- 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 From maxsenges at gmail.com Wed Jan 6 10:13:12 2010 From: maxsenges at gmail.com (Max Senges) Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 16:13:12 +0100 Subject: [governance] Google and Global Voices announce new awards to promote online free expression Message-ID: <4d976d8e1001060713y44938adcp8857a99ee9cddbc3@mail.gmail.com> FYI all info also on http://breakingborders.net/ **Google and Global Voices announced the details of the “Breaking Borders Award” to honor those around the world who are fighting for free expression online. The award, totaling $30,000, will honor and support outstanding web projects, initiated by individuals or groups, that demonstrate courage, energy and resourcefulness in using the Internet to promote freedom of expression. Nominations for the award can be submitted starting today at www.breakingborders. *net *, the* *submission phase will end on 15th of February 2010. The award will be given in three categories, with a $10,000 prize for each awardee. 1. *Advocacy,* given to an activist or group that has used online tools to promote free expression or encourage political change 2. *Technology*, given to an individual or group that has created an important tool that enables free expression and expands access to information 3. *Policy*, given to a policy maker, government official or NGO leader who has made a notable contribution in the field The winners are going to be announced and honored in spring 2010. *"Free societies and prosperity are fundamentally based on freedom of expression, both offline and online," said David Drummond,** *Senior Vice President, Corporate Development and Chief Legal Officer*. "The internet is providing once unimaginable possibilities for political participation, free exchange of information and democratic movements around the world. * *"These awards will honor those who are making a real difference," Drummond said. "We look forward to our partnership with Global Voices and appreciate the support of Thomson Reuters. All of us believe we must develop, support and encourage projects that use the Internet to promote free expression and open up new horizons to citizens everywhere."* "The Internet has emerged as a critical front in the freedom of expression movement worldwide," said Sami Ben Gharbia, Advocacy Director at Global Voices. "In our work at Global Voices we're consistently impressed with the creative ways activists and others are finding to promote freedom of expression online. We're thrilled to be associated with an award recognizing the innovation that's taking place in this area." Nominations are open to individuals, groups or cooperative projects in any of the three categories. Participants can nominate themselves, as well as blogs, websites or other online presences. The nominees should have helped to promote the free circulation of ideas, stood up against censorship, helped local communities, raised awareness about a specific issue or cause, mobilized to change government policy or supported silenced voices. Nominations -- which should include a biography of the individual or a description of the group and text and video content displaying the nominee's work (see below) -- can be submitted at the Breaking Borders website www.breakingborders.net. All nominations will be handled confidentially. An international committee of experts, including representatives from the private sector and NGOs, will judge the nominees and determine the awards. Citizens all over the world are also invited to share their voices and points of view on the Freedom of Expression @ Google YouTube-Channel at www.youtube.com/googlefreeexpression. *About Google* Google's innovative search technologies and web services connect millions of people around the world and allow them to express themselves every day. Founded in 1998 by Stanford Ph.D. students Larry Page and Sergey Brin, Google today is a top Web property in all major global markets. Google's targeted advertising program provides businesses of all sizes with measurable results, while enhancing the overall Web experience for users. Google is headquartered in Silicon Valley with offices throughout the Americas, Europe and Asia. For more information, visit www.google.com. *About Global Voices* Global Voices (GV) has emerged as the leading news room for citizen voices from the developing world. GV is a vibrant global community of hundreds of people, helping individuals, media professionals and the development community access the diverse sources of information coming from citizen media. It is also a platform for innovation in global citizen media, designing and launching original projects that advance access and rights to information about and from the developing world. For more information, go to www.globalvoicesonline.org . * * *About Thomson Reuters * Thomson Reuters is the world's leading source of intelligent information for businesses and professionals. We combine industry expertise with innovative technology to deliver critical information to leading decision makers in the financial, legal, tax and accounting, healthcare and science and media markets, powered by the world's most trusted news organization. With headquarters in New York and major operations in London and Eagan, Minnesota, Thomson Reuters employs more than 50,000 people and operates in over 100 countries. Thomson Reuters shares are listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange (TSX: TRI) and New York Stock Exchange (NYSE: TRI). For more information, go to www.thomsonreuters.com. * * * * *Press Contacts* *Google* Kay Oberbeck Head of Communications & Public Affairs Google Germany, Austria, Switzerland Tel: +49 (0)40-80 817 9226 E-Mail: kayo at google.com * * *Global Voices *Georgia Popplewell Managing Director Tel: +1 868 681 6103 email: georgiap at globalvoicesonline.org* * *Thomson Reuters *Alex Honeysett PR Specialist, Editorial, Reuters Tel: +44 (0)20 7542 8509 E-Mail: Alexandra.Honeysett at thomsonreuters.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ *What is the Breaking Borders Award?* The Breaking Borders award was set up by Global Voices and Google to highlight the importance of free expression around the world and send a clear message to regimes that censor content both online and offline by honoring an outstanding webprojects by individuals or groups, who have shown courage, energy and resourcefulness in using the internet to promote freedom of expression, ensure that diverse political viewpoints are heard and stand up to those who censor information. *Who can participate?* Anyone with a relevant online presence can participate. Nominate yourself, a blog, website or other online presence you consider has helped promote the free circulation of ideas, stood up against censorship, helped local communities, raised awareness about a specific issue or cause, mobilised government or supported silenced voices. *Are there any geographical restrictions to participate?* No, the nominee can be based or support a cause anywhere in the world. *How do I nominate?* Fill-out the nomination form hereor send us an email to nomination at breakingborders.net. Please understand that we can only accept nominations if you provide the following information: a) the name and contact of the nominee (or the organisation/initiative) b) blog, website or other online presence that shows the value of the nominee, c) why the nominee merits the Breaking Borders Award and c) your contact details so we can get in touch with you should we have further questions. Also we would highly appreciate if you could send us the contacts of one or two people who know the nominee and his/her work well. *How will the winner be elected?* A group of international experts in the field of media, politics and social activism will thoroughly review all nominations and select the winner. *Will there only be one winner?*There will be winners in several categories - activist or voice that has promoted an important position or argument - tool-maker for online FoE - policy maker or politician *Will the winner receive a prize?* The awardees will receive a price of $$10'000 each *What is the deadline for nominations?* The deadline for nominations is the 15th of February 2010. *When will the winner be announced?* The awards will be announced in spring 2010. *I would like to upload a video supporting my nomination on the Freedom of Expression at Google YouTube channel.* Email us on nominations at breakingborders.de (separate to email above) to ask to have your video on our Playlist. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Wed Jan 6 12:02:27 2010 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 02:02:27 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: Launch of Youth and IG Dynamic Coalition In-Reply-To: <4B3CCAD1.5000307@gmail.com> References: <4B3CCAD1.5000307@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hello Everyone, Ginger: Thank you very much for sharing the information with IGC community. we hope to have the support of the community. Of course, I will send updates to the mailing list to keep you informed. Regards Rafik 2010/1/1 Ginger Paque > New Year, new projects, new ideas, new voices: > > The Dynamic Coalition for Youth and IG will be launched soon, so anyone who > is interested in jointing/supporting that group, please contact Rafik > Dammak, the coordinator. The coalition would like to be organized and > operational before the OC in February, so this is a great time to get > involved. This is about their future, but it is our future too! Good luck to > this group. Please keep the IGC informed so we can support and collaborate > as appropriate. > 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 From katitza at datos-personales.org Wed Jan 6 12:38:19 2010 From: katitza at datos-personales.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 12:38:19 -0500 Subject: [governance] Stop Digital Strip Search in airports! References: <09E31CC3-70FA-4DA1-AEFC-9A866138761E@datos-personales.org> Message-ID: <9EB59824-BCEA-4AD8-AB3B-D98E4531BFA8@datos-personales.org> (please, feel free to copy paste and re-post). -------------------- Stop Digital Strip Search in airports! http://thepublicvoice.org/2010/01/stop-digital-strip-search-in-airports.php As supporters of the Madrid Declaration, we are calling on national governments to suspend the deployment of body scanners until a full evaluation of the technology is completed. As the Declaration states, we: "Call for a moratorium on the development or implementation of new systems of mass surveillance, including facial recognition, whole body imaging, biometric identifiers, and embedded RFID tags, subject to a full and transparent evaluation by independent authorities and democratic debate;" The Madrid Privacy Declaration is a substantial document that reaffirms international instruments for privacy protection, identifies new challenges, and recommends specific actions. Recommended Actions: JOIN - Facebook Group: Stop Airport Strip Searches http://www.facebook.com/#/group.php?gid=179598280013&ref=mf ENDORSE - Privacy Coalition: Sign the Petition to the US Congress http://privacycoalition.org/stopwholebodyimaging/ ENDORSE: Madrid Privacy Declaration http://thepublicvoice.org/madrid-declaration/ SIGN - International Boycott of Body Scanners (IBBS) http://www.petitiononline.com/IBBS/petition.html SIGN - UK Petition to abandon the proposed rollout of airport body scanners. http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/AirportScanners/ POST - Stop Digital Strip Searches image http://imperialkingdom.net/images/graphics/nakedmachine.jpg Reference materials: Madrid Privacy Declaration http://thepublicvoice.org/madrid-declaration/ EPIC, Whole Body Imaging Technology http://epic.org/privacy/airtravel/backscatter/ EPIC, Spotlight on Surveillance http://epic.org/privacy/surveillance/spotlight/0605/ Privacy International, "statement on proposed deployments of body scanners in airports" http://www.privacyinternational.org/article.shtml?cmd[347]=x-347-565802 TSA, Imaging Technology http://www.tsa.gov/approach/tech/imaging_technology.shtm Michael Chertoff ("Former homeland security chief argues for whole- body imaging") http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/31/AR2009123101746.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 From davidcrine at aol.com Wed Jan 6 12:45:14 2010 From: davidcrine at aol.com (davidcrine at aol.com) Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2010 12:45:14 -0500 Subject: [governance] Fwd: My New 2010 Book:Web Engineering Advancements and Trends: Building New Dimensions of Information Technology In-Reply-To: <8CC5D0D6AE4632B-63EC-660F@webmail-m032.sysops.aol.com> References: <8CC5CFF93E44101-63EC-45B7@webmail-m032.sysops.aol.com> <8CC5D008BEAADF3-63EC-482D@webmail-m032.sysops.aol.com> <8CC5D0D6AE4632B-63EC-660F@webmail-m032.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <8CC5D0F2326EB9F-63EC-68C9@webmail-m032.sysops.aol.com> From: davidcrine at aol.com Sent: Wed, Jan 6, 2010 9:53 am Subject: My New 2010 Book:Web Engineering Advancements and Trends: Building New Dimensions of Information Technology Dear Colleagues: I am inviting you to order a copy of our newly authored book or to have your library order a copy as it comes out here in January 2010. I hope that you and your colleagues or students enjoy this new 2010 book to further your development or research interests. Respectfully yours, David C. Rine Professor Emeritus Volgenau School of Information Technology and Engineering George Mason University ******************** Introducingthe latest release from IGI Global: WebEngineering Advancements and Trends: Building New Dimensions of InformationTechnology ISBN:978-1-60566-719-5; 408 pp; January 2010 Publishedunder Information Science Reference, an imprint of IGI Global http://www.igi-global.com/reference/details.asp?id=35224 Edited by:Ghazi I. Alkhatib, Princess Sumaya University for Technology, Jordan; David C.Rine, George Mason University, USA DESCRIPTION Ascountless failures in information technology and Web-based systems are causedby an incorrect understanding of knowledge sharing, an increased awareness ofmodern, fundamental industry concepts becomes crucial to Web and interfacedevelopers. Web EngineeringAdvancements and Trends: Building New Dimensions of Information Technology examines integrated approaches innew dimensions of social and organizational knowledge sharing with emphasis onintelligent and personalized access. A defining collection of fieldadvancements, this publication provides current research, applications, andtechniques in testing and validation of Web systems. **************************************** “WebEngineering Advancements and Trends: Building New Dimensions of InformationTechnology reflects on the future dimensions of Information Technology andWeb Engineering (ITWE), and expands on two major themes to emphasizeintelligence, provisioning, and personalization of Web engineering utilizingtechnologies for the advancement of ITWE applications.” - Ghazi I.Alkhatib, Applied Science University - Amman, Jordan **************************************** TOPICSCOVERED Agent-enabledsemantic Web GUI testingmethodology Imagemining Intelligentsemantic Web services Objectoriented software testing Pattern-orientedWeb engineering Voicedriven emotion recognizer mobile phone Scenariodriven decision systems Softwarearchitecture analysis Userinterfaces for improving cell phone devices Formore information about Web Engineering Advancements and Trends: Building NewDimensions of Information Technology, you can view the title informationsheet at http://www.igi-global.com/downloads/pdf/35224.pdf.To view the Table of Contents and a complete list of contributors online go to http://www.igi-global.com/reference/details.asp?ID=35224&v=tableOfContents. ABOUTTHE EDITORS Ghazi Alkhatib is an assistant professor of software engineering at theCollege of Computer Science and Information Technology, Applied ScienceUniversity (Amman, Jordan). In 1984, he obtained his Doctor of BusinessAdministration from Mississippi State University in information systems withminors in computer science and accounting. Since then, he has been engaged inteaching, consulting, training, and research in the area of computerinformation systems in the US and gulf countries. In addition to his researchinterests in databases and systems analysis and design, he has publishedseveral articles and presented many papers in regional and internationalconferences on software processes, knowledge management, e-business, Webservices, and agent software, workflow, and portal/grid computing integrationwith Web services. DavidRine has beenpracticing, teaching, and researching engineered software development for overthirty years. Prior to joining George Mason University, he served in variousleadership roles in the IEEE Computer Society and co-founded two of thetechnical committees. He joined George Mason University in 1985 and was thefounding chair of the Department of Computer Science and one of the founders ofthe (Volgenau) School of Information Technology and Engineering. Rine hasreceived numerous research, teaching, and service awards from computer scienceand engineering societies and associations, including the IEEE CentennialAward, IEEE Pioneer Award, IEEE Computer Society Meritorious Service Awards,the IEEE Computer Society Special Awards, IEEE Computer Society 50thanniversary Golden Core Award, and historical IEEE Computer Society Honor Rolland Distinguished Technical Services Awards. He has been a pioneer in graduate,undergraduate, and high school education, producing computer science texts andleading establishment of the International Advanced Placement Computer Scienceprogram for the nation's high school students, co-designer of the firstcomputer science and engineering curriculum (1976), and the first masters insoftware engineering curriculum (1978). He has been an editor of a number ofprestigious software-oriented journals. During his tenure, he has authored over300 published works and has directed many PhD students. Complementing his workat GMU, he has worked on many international technology and relief projects invarious countries and made many life-long international friendships. His paststudents are the most important record of his technical achievements. **************************************** Toview the full contents of this publication, check for Web EngineeringAdvancements and Trends: Building New Dimensions of Information Technology inyour institution’s library. If you library does not currently own thistitle, please recommend it to your librarian. **************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Wed Jan 6 20:11:17 2010 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 06:11:17 +0500 Subject: [governance] February Consultation and Meetings Message-ID: <701af9f71001061711s59eafab3nf35cd4fc09073d7c@mail.gmail.com> Dear Friends and Members, As you are all aware about the IGF Open Consultation and MAG meetings in February 2010, I would like to request those people that cannot participate but would like to be heard during these events to forward their interventions so that we can read and extend them on the floor during the Open Consultation. I further request statements to be brief, concise and to the point as the floor has to be passed on to the wide participation during the consultation. As for the MAG, we have a strong Civil Society MAG group including myself. The MAG is responsible for suggesting the design/organization of the IGF2010. IF you have concerns regarding the programming of the IGF2010, you can forward your statements for intervention to me so that they can be shared amongst our other team members usually at a morning meeting between us before the meeting. Once again, the requirement for being brief, concise and to the point applies here as well! Ideas for interventions can involve statements such as but not limited to: 1. Issues surfaced during the IGF2009 in Sharam. 2. Developing Country Participation/Inclusion Issues. 3. Main Program / Main Theme Issues for IGF2010. 4. Human Rights Issues/Rights on the Internet Issues. 5. Development Agenda for Internet Governance Issues. 6. Youth and Gender Participation Issues. For your convenience and live correspondence, I will be available on Skype (ID:fouadbajwa , kindly don't forget to introduce yourself while adding me) throughout the three days of meetings (1 day open consultation + 2 days MAG meetings). I look forward to assisting your interventions. -- 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 From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Thu Jan 7 03:47:14 2010 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 08:47:14 +0000 Subject: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE014DEFE496@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <4B399461.6010702@itforchange.net> <4B3A2A59.7000106@itforchange.net> <4B41A7D0.5070807@itforchange.net> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE014DEFE496@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: In message <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE014DEFE496 at suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>, at 23:37:59 on Tue, 5 Jan 2010, Lee W McKnight writes >The whole point of content delivery networks is to speed up the >delivery of *some* content based on its source, ownership &/or >destination. > >They may 'discriminate' against everyone who is not their paying customer. > >But CDNs aren't ISPs....and they have nothing to do with 'net neutrality.' To the end user, a CDN is indistinguishable from their ISP; and especially so when the CDN has been deployed by the ISP to reduce the ISP's core bandwidth requirements, or to speed certain content to their customers at the ISP's expense. But your comments neatly highlight the issue that I was bringing to the list: that there are considerable disagreements about what "net neutrality" means to different people. Roland. >________________________________________ >From: Roland Perry [roland at internetpolicyagency.com] >Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 2010 4:57 PM >To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >Subject: Re: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality > >In message , >at 15:31:50 on Tue, 5 Jan 2010, McTim writes > >>Net Neutrality simply means no discrimination. Net Neutrality prevents >>Internet providers from blocking, speeding up or slowing down Web >>content based on its source, ownership or destination. > >Isn't it also to do with discriminating traffic depending on whether >you've been paid to give a better QoS to one kind of traffic over >another? > >And don't some IPSs deliberately give priority to VoIP traffic - and if >true, is that something to be frowned upon? > >Edge caching of some content compared to others might also be regarded >as giving it "unfair" priority (why don't they edge-cache all traffic), >but I hardly think that banning edge-caching is desirable. > >And most obviously, they speed up or slow down traffic depending on >whether the subscriber has a 1Mbit, 2Mbit etc tail from his local POP, >simply because of the capacity of that tail (to "its destination", the >subscriber). > >ps I'm not saying that some sort of "Net Neutrality" in the core is a >good or bad thing, just that definitions need to be very carefully >written. >-- >Roland Perry >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Thu Jan 7 03:52:07 2010 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 08:52:07 +0000 Subject: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality In-Reply-To: References: <4B399461.6010702@itforchange.net> <4B3A2A59.7000106@itforchange.net> <4B41A7D0.5070807@itforchange.net> Message-ID: In message , at 23:41:52 on Tue, 5 Jan 2010, Avri Doria writes >to avoid confusion i think the Net Neutrality (NN) must be restricted >to issues of content, source or protocol port and not bandwidth. In other words, all that it means is "no blocking". While that's a valuable concept, why invent a [confusing] new name for it? Most discussions of NN that I've seen embrace the concept that one kind of content would merely be given priority over another (so disdavantaged traffic is delivered slower, rather than delivered never). The way the end-user perceives such a disadvantage is indistingushable from throttled bandwidth. -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Jan 7 06:30:12 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Thu, 07 Jan 2010 17:00:12 +0530 Subject: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality In-Reply-To: References: <4B399461.6010702@itforchange.net> <4B3A2A59.7000106@itforchange.net> <4B41A7D0.5070807@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4B45C5C4.8040408@itforchange.net> Roland Perry wrote: > In message , at 23:41:52 > on Tue, 5 Jan 2010, Avri Doria writes >> to avoid confusion i think the Net Neutrality (NN) must be restricted >> to issues of content, source or protocol port and not bandwidth. > > In other words, all that it means is "no blocking". > > While that's a valuable concept, why invent a [confusing] new name for > it? Most discussions of NN that I've seen embrace the concept that one > kind of content would merely be given priority over another (so > disdavantaged traffic is delivered slower, rather than delivered never). > > The way the end-user perceives such a disadvantage is indistingushable > from throttled bandwidth. Not true. There is a world of difference between a user getting all her traffic slow, because of low bandwidth, and selective content coming to her slow or fast depending on whether the content provider pays extra or not. In the former case, all content gets treated (and presented to the user) equally, even if equally badly. In the latter case different content gets 'presented' to the user differently, and thus effects her choice. This becomes especially relevant when there are many competing possible sources of information etc that the user may seek. Some may say again (as they said in the discussion on Google), the user should know and be able to select what source of information she wants, and if she is clear about it, A non-NN network is the same as less bandwidth for her (since even if the other source downloads faster and better she will not change her preference). But as Micheal has explained this is not the right reading of real human and social behavior, in its power-laden complexities. parminder ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ceo at bnnrc.net Thu Jan 7 06:46:56 2010 From: ceo at bnnrc.net (AHM Bazlur Rahman) Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 17:46:56 +0600 Subject: [governance] IPv6 Forum Bangladesh Has Been Founded Message-ID: <00a701ca8f8f$2b7df210$1300a8c0@ceo> IPv6 Forum Bangladesh Has Been Founded ___________________ Dhaka/Luxembourg, January 6, 2010 - The IPv6 Forum welcomes Bangladesh as its newest member with the establishment of the IPv6 Forum Bangladesh under the leadership of S M Altaf Hossain as its National Convener and Mr. Sohel Awrangzeb as Member Secretary. . Mr. S M Altaf Hossain and Mr. Sohel Awrangzeb-S21S are 20 plus years in ICT sector in Bangladesh. Work experience with world's leading Corporation/ Enterprises. Other convening committee members are Mr. AHM Bazlur Rahman-S21BR is Chief Executive Officer, Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio and Communication (BNNRC) & Member, Strategy Council UN-Global Alliance for ICT and Development (UN GAID) as Joint Convener and Mr. M A Haque Anu, member of the convening committee. The prime objective of the IPv6 Forum and its members is to promote deployment and swifter uptake of the new Internet using the new Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6) with support from industry, education, research communities and government agencies enabling equitable access to technology and knowledge. "The IPv6 Forum Bangladesh has been created to extend to the Bangladeshi Internet community a strong voice and representation in the new Internet world to enable equal access to knowledge and education on New Generation Internet technologies and create momentum in deploying IPv6" said Latif Ladid, IPv6 Forum President. "The IPv6 Forum Bangladesh will attract key stakeholders from government, industry and academia to design the IPv6 roadmap and vision together for Bangladesh to be among the first to embrace the New Internet World based on IPv6" Stated Mr. AHM Bazlur Rahman, Joint Convener, IPv6 Forum Bangladesh. The Internet World has been using the Internet Protocol version 4 (IPv4) for the last two decades. Despite its tremendous success, IPv4 is showing signs of strain especially in its fast depleting IP address space and its growing security concerns. IPv6 preserves everything good in today's Internet, and adds much more, such as virtually unlimited IP address space to connect everyone and everything, stateless auto-configuration, seamless mobility, automated network management, mandated security and new optional service levels. About IPv6 Forum Bangladesh The IPv6 Forum Bangladesh is a chapter of the IPv6 Forum dedicated to the advancement and propagation of IPv6 in Bangladesh. Comprised of individual members, as opposed to corporate sponsors, its mission is to provide technical leadership and innovative thought for the successful integration of IPv6 into all facets of networking and telecommunications infrastructure, present and future. About IPv6 Forum The IPv6 Forum is a world-wide consortium of international Internet service providers (ISPs) and National Research & Education Networks (NRENs), with a mission to promote IPv6 by improving market and user awareness, creating a quality and secure New Generation Internet and allowing world-wide equitable access to knowledge and technology. The key focus of the IPv6 Forum today is to provide technical guidance for the deployment of IPv6. IPv6 Summits are organized by the IPv6 Forum and staged in various locations around the world to provide industry and market with the best available information on this rapidly advancing technology. Please visit http://www.ipv6forum.com Organization Contact: AHM Bazlur Rahman, Joint Convener ceo at bnnrc.net Mr. Sohel Awrangzeb, Member Secretary sohel.awrangzeb at gmail.com Mr. S M Altaf Hossain, National Convener, smaltaf at gmail.com IPv6 Forum Contact: Latif Ladid Luxembourg +352 30 71 34 Latif.ladid at ipv6forum.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From avri at psg.com Thu Jan 7 07:34:13 2010 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 07:34:13 -0500 Subject: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality In-Reply-To: <49F6D907F18547D8A5A565C8CB1682F1@userPC> References: <49F6D907F18547D8A5A565C8CB1682F1@userPC> Message-ID: Hi, I actually have a lot of trouble accepting this analysis. I for one believe that people do have a choice no matter how much society and culture or businesses interests are prevailing on us. Yes. the constraints of that choice may not be pleasant and we may have no 'good' choices, but we do have the choice. So what ever sociology or anthropology may convince you of, I am convinced that we do remain independent agents. In terms of the contracts with small print. I read most of them, and then decide to use the service I want regardless. Whereas my housemate reads every word and opts not to use any of the services. A choice. Yes propaganda abounds, but we can either listen to it or not listen to it. And yes, most people choose to follow along and do what is expected of them by the culture and the powers that be and most importantly their neighbors. But there are always some who don't - there are always those who make a different choice. Yes, there are those who have no access and hence don't have the choice to use or not use. but that is a different issue. a. On 5 Jan 2010, at 11:35, Michael Gurstein wrote: > Quite honestly I find this whole discussion extremely odd. The assumption > seems to be that "we" either as "users" or as "customers" or as autonomous > "agents" interacting with Google are completely independent and free (and > able) to make or remake ourselves (through learning more, through searching > out competitors, through developing new companies etc.etc.) at will. > > This position ignores a couple of hundred years of anthropology/sociology > that points out to anyone who may have missed it that we are not first and > foremost "independent" actors free to make or remake ourselves at will. > Rather we are creatures of culture and community and while some of us have > significant opportunities because of our cultural and community backgrounds > many of us do not. Simply exhorting those who don't, to "pull up their sox > and compete like a man (or woman" is to my mind quite beside the point (and > a position which itself is highly highly culture/nation bound... > > Some "users" will have the interest, skill, language to read fine print and > (most) others won't... Some will have the capacity to see through Google if > it abuses its power/position--(most) others won't... Some will have the > awareness of knowledge categories (sociology of knowledge) to understand the > ways in which Google is increasingly structuring/restructuring how we > approach knowledge itself (others are arguing that Google is in fact > influencing the very process of thinking/structure of thought but that is a > different issue) and will then be able to take a critical position for > themselves on how to prevent any possible misuse of that position but most > (and daresay including most of those on this list) will not. > > That is why we have governments who have the mandate to intervene and > regulate in the public interest. All of the above arguments on this issue > could probably be made concerning things like food and auto safety, > pollution standards, and child protection (suthorizing third parties to > intervene in abusive relationships between parents and children). > > I personally see little difference apart from the same ideological blinkers > that argued against each of the above interventions, in the instance of > Google which is probably the most broadly (at least passively) influential > (de facto monopoly) enterprise of the last decade. > > Mike Gurstein > > -----Original Message----- > From: Fearghas McKay [mailto:fm-lists at st-kilda.org] > Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 2010 7:51 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Cc: Fearghas McKay > Subject: Re: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality > > > > On 5 Jan 2010, at 14:45, Ginger Paque wrote: > >> Should a user have to search the fine print to find the information >> they want? > > Whatever regulation is done - a user will have to do that at some point. > > Educating the user needs to be done even if there is regulation > because they will need to understand what the regulation covers. > > Personally my take on the original article is that the search rankings > were correct, they had no valid new / original content, just a > collection of links. The links might have been ordered or edited > specially but they were moving me one step or more further away from > the information that I would be looking for. The cynical might say it > was sour grapes on the writer's part, I would put it down to a > misunderstanding of what I as a user want :-) > > The other thing that seems to be missing from this debate is that we > are not Google's customers, we are users and we can use something else > if we choose to, probably because the search doesn't work well enough > for us. Whilst I am sure that Google could repurpose their > infrastructure into something else and continue as an entity if a > better algorithm comes along from an upstart, the market is still wide > open for a better engine to be as disruptive as they were. It will > probably not come from the USA, the newer emerging markets will bring > their own giants of the network world. > > f > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Thu Jan 7 08:05:37 2010 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 13:05:37 +0000 Subject: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality In-Reply-To: <4B45C5C4.8040408@itforchange.net> References: <4B399461.6010702@itforchange.net> <4B3A2A59.7000106@itforchange.net> <4B41A7D0.5070807@itforchange.net> <4B45C5C4.8040408@itforchange.net> Message-ID: In message <4B45C5C4.8040408 at itforchange.net>, at 17:00:12 on Thu, 7 Jan 2010, Parminder writes >Roland Perry wrote: >> In message , at >>23:41:52 on Tue, 5 Jan 2010, Avri Doria writes >>> to avoid confusion i think the Net Neutrality (NN) must be restricted >>> to issues of content, source or protocol port and not bandwidth. >> >> In other words, all that it means is "no blocking". >> >> While that's a valuable concept, why invent a [confusing] new name >>for it? Most discussions of NN that I've seen embrace the concept >>that one kind of content would merely be given priority over another >>(so disdavantaged traffic is delivered slower, rather than delivered >> >> >> The way the end-user perceives such a disadvantage is >>indistingushable from throttled bandwidth. >Not true. There is a world of difference between a user getting all her >traffic slow, because of low bandwidth, and selective content coming to >her slow or fast depending on whether the content provider pays extra >or not. In the former case, all content gets treated (and presented to >the user) equally, even if equally badly. In the latter case different >content gets 'presented' to the user differently, and thus effects her >choice. This becomes especially relevant when there are many competing >possible sources of information etc that the user may seek. I disagree. Content doesn't all arrive at the same speed, even in the absence of specific throttling measures. It depends on the quality of the servers, the end-to-end bandwidth constraints, and also the degree of "bloat" that the information provider attaches to his content. Don't be fooled into thinking that the only speed-of-loading constraint which applies is that of the user's local loop (or indeed some mythical throttling by the ISP of content from providers who have failed to grease their palm sufficiently). And to the end user, *even* content which has been throttled for that reason is indistinguishable from content that has a naturally low end-to-end-bandwidth. And that is in fact the only point I am trying to make here. I presume, by the way, that you also disagree with [what as far as I can tell is] Avri's proposition: that NN is only about content whose delivery is entirely blocked, rather than content whose delivery is discriminated against by the application of 'artificial slowness'. >Some may say again (as they said in the discussion on Google), the user >should know and be able to select what source of information she wants, >and if she is clear about it, A non-NN network is the same as less >bandwidth for her (since even if the other source downloads faster and >better she will not change her preference). But as Micheal has >explained this is not the right reading of real human and social >behavior, in its power-laden complexities. There's allegedly an eight-second rule (people will wait eight seconds for content to load before losing patience). I feel that this is a rule devised by people with very good Internet connectivity, and fast computers. If the information matters to you, waiting longer is acceptable, especially if your normal experience of the Internet is that all pages take more than eight seconds to load. -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From gurstein at gmail.com Thu Jan 7 08:28:08 2010 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 05:28:08 -0800 Subject: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Well, as Margaret Thatcher (in)famously said at one point, "there is no society" (and thus presumably no "social/public interest") and then she and her accolytes proceeded to ensure through policy and process that her wish was made flesh to the continuing detriment of all. Best, M -----Original Message----- From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] Sent: Thursday, January 07, 2010 4:34 AM To: IGC Subject: Re: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality Hi, I actually have a lot of trouble accepting this analysis. I for one believe that people do have a choice no matter how much society and culture or businesses interests are prevailing on us. Yes. the constraints of that choice may not be pleasant and we may have no 'good' choices, but we do have the choice. So what ever sociology or anthropology may convince you of, I am convinced that we do remain independent agents. In terms of the contracts with small print. I read most of them, and then decide to use the service I want regardless. Whereas my housemate reads every word and opts not to use any of the services. A choice. Yes propaganda abounds, but we can either listen to it or not listen to it. And yes, most people choose to follow along and do what is expected of them by the culture and the powers that be and most importantly their neighbors. But there are always some who don't - there are always those who make a different choice. Yes, there are those who have no access and hence don't have the choice to use or not use. but that is a different issue. a. On 5 Jan 2010, at 11:35, Michael Gurstein wrote: > Quite honestly I find this whole discussion extremely odd. The > assumption seems to be that "we" either as "users" or as "customers" > or as autonomous "agents" interacting with Google are completely > independent and free (and > able) to make or remake ourselves (through learning more, through searching > out competitors, through developing new companies etc.etc.) at will. > > This position ignores a couple of hundred years of > anthropology/sociology that points out to anyone who may have missed > it that we are not first and foremost "independent" actors free to > make or remake ourselves at will. Rather we are creatures of culture > and community and while some of us have significant opportunities > because of our cultural and community backgrounds many of us do not. > Simply exhorting those who don't, to "pull up their sox and compete > like a man (or woman" is to my mind quite beside the point (and a > position which itself is highly highly culture/nation bound... > > Some "users" will have the interest, skill, language to read fine > print and > (most) others won't... Some will have the capacity to see through Google if > it abuses its power/position--(most) others won't... Some will have the > awareness of knowledge categories (sociology of knowledge) to understand the > ways in which Google is increasingly structuring/restructuring how we > approach knowledge itself (others are arguing that Google is in fact > influencing the very process of thinking/structure of thought but that is a > different issue) and will then be able to take a critical position for > themselves on how to prevent any possible misuse of that position but most > (and daresay including most of those on this list) will not. > > That is why we have governments who have the mandate to intervene and > regulate in the public interest. All of the above arguments on this > issue could probably be made concerning things like food and auto > safety, pollution standards, and child protection (suthorizing third > parties to intervene in abusive relationships between parents and children). > > I personally see little difference apart from the same ideological > blinkers that argued against each of the above interventions, in the > instance of Google which is probably the most broadly (at least > passively) influential (de facto monopoly) enterprise of the last > decade. > > Mike Gurstein > > -----Original Message----- > From: Fearghas McKay [mailto:fm-lists at st-kilda.org] > Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 2010 7:51 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Cc: Fearghas McKay > Subject: Re: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net > neutrality > > > > On 5 Jan 2010, at 14:45, Ginger Paque wrote: > >> Should a user have to search the fine print to find the information >> they want? > > Whatever regulation is done - a user will have to do that at some > point. > > Educating the user needs to be done even if there is regulation > because they will need to understand what the regulation covers. > > Personally my take on the original article is that the search rankings > were correct, they had no valid new / original content, just a > collection of links. The links might have been ordered or edited > specially but they were moving me one step or more further away from > the information that I would be looking for. The cynical might say it > was sour grapes on the writer's part, I would put it down to a > misunderstanding of what I as a user want :-) > > The other thing that seems to be missing from this debate is that we > are not Google's customers, we are users and we can use something else > if we choose to, probably because the search doesn't work well enough > for us. Whilst I am sure that Google could repurpose their > infrastructure into something else and continue as an entity if a > better algorithm comes along from an upstart, the market is still wide > open for a better engine to be as disruptive as they were. It will > probably not come from the USA, the newer emerging markets will bring > their own giants of the network world. > > f > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Thu Jan 7 09:09:48 2010 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 14:09:48 +0000 Subject: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <$hQPRxWsseRLFALv@perry.co.uk> In message , at 05:28:08 on Thu, 7 Jan 2010, Michael Gurstein writes >Well, as Margaret Thatcher (in)famously said at one point, "there is no >society" (and thus presumably no "social/public interest") and then she and >her accolytes proceeded to ensure through policy and process that her wish >was made flesh to the continuing detriment of all. "I think we've been through a period where too many people have been given to understand that if they have a problem, it's the government's job to cope with it. 'I have a problem, I'll get a grant.' 'I'm homeless, the government must house me.' They're casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society." So it's nothing to do with "social/public interest", but whether or not people can expect a magic financial crutch to support them in their adversity. It's almost exactly the same set of issues as the current USA healthcare debate. I wonder how many people on this list would wish that governments got themselves organised, and [attempted to] sort out all the perceived ills on the Internet, on the grounds that they believe the current mechanisms were failing their collective citizens? And that, Ladies and Gentlemen, is most of the IG debate in a nutshell. -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jeanette at wzb.eu Thu Jan 7 10:06:17 2010 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Thu, 07 Jan 2010 15:06:17 +0000 Subject: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality In-Reply-To: <$hQPRxWsseRLFALv@perry.co.uk> References: <$hQPRxWsseRLFALv@perry.co.uk> Message-ID: <4B45F869.6040009@wzb.eu> > > I wonder how many people on this list would wish that governments got > themselves organised, and [attempted to] sort out all the perceived ills > on the Internet, on the grounds that they believe the current mechanisms > were failing their collective citizens? Here is quote from Larry Lessig that I recently used: "In a world drowning in spam, computer viruses, identity theft, copyright 'piracy', and the sexual exploitation of children, the resolve against regulation has weakened. We all love the Net. But if some government could really deliver on the promise to erase all the bads of this space, most of us would gladly sign up." I think what has changed over the last decade is that the belief in the Internet's capacity for for self-regulation has lost its original traction. But public regulation hasn't become the default solution. The debate is about where, when and how governments should play a role. In this respect, the Internet has become more similar to other policy fields, hasn't it? jeanette > > And that, Ladies and Gentlemen, is most of the IG debate in a nutshell. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From avri at acm.org Thu Jan 7 10:19:53 2010 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 10:19:53 -0500 Subject: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality In-Reply-To: <$hQPRxWsseRLFALv@perry.co.uk> References: <$hQPRxWsseRLFALv@perry.co.uk> Message-ID: <8F972BDA-AADF-4B65-80FC-3C994A44D8ED@acm.org> Hi, This seems to describe things in such black and white contrast: either governments must come in and give us a crutch or we have a dog eat dog Thatcherite regime. I think the appropriate balance varies over time - and in my opinion this is a time where while the absolute power or responsibility of the government is (or should be) waning, it is still not completely out of the equation. If I look at the discussions we have had on these topics, i think most of use fall somewhere on a very wide spectrum between those who demand a government crutch from the nanny state and Thatcherite laissez faire regime. a. On 7 Jan 2010, at 09:09, Roland Perry wrote: > So it's nothing to do with "social/public interest", but whether or not > people can expect a magic financial crutch to support them in their > adversity. It's almost exactly the same set of issues as the current USA > healthcare debate. > > I wonder how many people on this list would wish that governments got > themselves organised, and [attempted to] sort out all the perceived ills > on the Internet, on the grounds that they believe the current mechanisms > were failing their collective citizens? > > And that, Ladies and Gentlemen, is most of the IG debate in a nutshell. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From avri at psg.com Thu Jan 7 10:22:47 2010 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 10:22:47 -0500 Subject: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality In-Reply-To: <4B45F869.6040009@wzb.eu> References: <$hQPRxWsseRLFALv@perry.co.uk> <4B45F869.6040009@wzb.eu> Message-ID: Hi, And there is a lot of space between self-regualtion and government regulation. This is where I look for some multistakeholder solution to the regulatory conundrum. This includes a balance between self-regualtion and top down regulatory regimes. a. On 7 Jan 2010, at 10:06, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > > >> I wonder how many people on this list would wish that governments got >> themselves organised, and [attempted to] sort out all the perceived ills >> on the Internet, on the grounds that they believe the current mechanisms >> were failing their collective citizens? > > Here is quote from Larry Lessig that I recently used: > > "In a world drowning in spam, computer viruses, identity theft, copyright 'piracy', and the sexual exploitation of children, the resolve against regulation has weakened. We all love the Net. But if some government could really deliver on the promise to erase all the bads of this space, most of us would gladly sign up." > > I think what has changed over the last decade is that the belief in the Internet's capacity for for self-regulation has lost its original traction. But public regulation hasn't become the default solution. The debate is about where, when and how governments should play a role. In this respect, the Internet has become more similar to other policy fields, hasn't it? > jeanette >> And that, Ladies and Gentlemen, is most of the IG debate in a nutshell. > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jeanette at wzb.eu Thu Jan 7 10:35:36 2010 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Thu, 07 Jan 2010 15:35:36 +0000 Subject: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality In-Reply-To: References: <$hQPRxWsseRLFALv@perry.co.uk> <4B45F869.6040009@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <4B45FF48.2040204@wzb.eu> Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > And there is a lot of space between self-regualtion and government > regulation. Yes, and I would say that this space might or should vary with the issues at hand. My feeling is that "top down regulatory regimes" are nowadays in most areas more of a fiction than a reality. Such regulatory options may be part of the black and white rhetorics we would like to leave behind. jeanette > > This is where I look for some multistakeholder solution to the > regulatory conundrum. This includes a balance between > self-regualtion and top down regulatory regimes. > > a. > > On 7 Jan 2010, at 10:06, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > >> >> >>> I wonder how many people on this list would wish that governments >>> got themselves organised, and [attempted to] sort out all the >>> perceived ills on the Internet, on the grounds that they believe >>> the current mechanisms were failing their collective citizens? >> Here is quote from Larry Lessig that I recently used: >> >> "In a world drowning in spam, computer viruses, identity theft, >> copyright 'piracy', and the sexual exploitation of children, the >> resolve against regulation has weakened. We all love the Net. But >> if some government could really deliver on the promise to erase all >> the bads of this space, most of us would gladly sign up." >> >> I think what has changed over the last decade is that the belief in >> the Internet's capacity for for self-regulation has lost its >> original traction. But public regulation hasn't become the default >> solution. The debate is about where, when and how governments >> should play a role. In this respect, the Internet has become more >> similar to other policy fields, hasn't it? jeanette >>> And that, Ladies and Gentlemen, is most of the IG debate in a >>> nutshell. >> ____________________________________________________________ You >> received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any >> message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ You > received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any > message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Thu Jan 7 12:03:45 2010 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 17:03:45 +0000 Subject: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality In-Reply-To: <4B45F869.6040009@wzb.eu> References: <$hQPRxWsseRLFALv@perry.co.uk> <4B45F869.6040009@wzb.eu> Message-ID: In message <4B45F869.6040009 at wzb.eu>, at 15:06:17 on Thu, 7 Jan 2010, Jeanette Hofmann writes >> I wonder how many people on this list would wish that governments >>got themselves organised, and [attempted to] sort out all the >>perceived ills on the Internet, on the grounds that they believe the >>current mechanisms were failing their collective citizens? > >Here is quote from Larry Lessig that I recently used: > >"In a world drowning in spam, computer viruses, identity theft, >copyright 'piracy', and the sexual exploitation of children, the >resolve against regulation has weakened. We all love the Net. But if >some government could really deliver on the promise to erase all the >bads of this space, most of us would gladly sign up." I hadn't seen that quote before, but it does sum up what a lot of "ordinary" people think. >I think what has changed over the last decade is that the belief in the >Internet's capacity for for self-regulation has lost its original >traction. But public regulation hasn't become the default solution. The >debate is about where, when and how governments should play a role. The joy we have (all this debate, meetings etc) is that the Internet is going thorough this particular phase in its lifecycle. Automobiles went through it a couple of generations ago. I'm not a big fan of the expression "self regulation" because that implies "self control in the absence of any applicable legal framework". But most of the issues involved *do* have a legal framework, but working out how that legal framework applies to the online world is difficult, and in the mean time the authorities are happy if the "industry" applies a common-sense interpretation of the existing legal framework, ahead of the various law enforcement and judicial systems getting their collective brains into the right gear. That's what I call co-regulation. The sorts of issues being regulated in this way are competition, privacy, defamation, trademark & copyright, obscene & harmful material, and 'duty of care' of a supplier to his customer and to the public. >In this respect, the Internet has become more similar to other policy >fields, hasn't it? The only other policy field that I can think of which is at approximately the same stage is Human Embryo Research. >> And that, Ladies and Gentlemen, is most of the IG debate in a >>nutshell. -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Thu Jan 7 12:19:41 2010 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 17:19:41 +0000 Subject: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality In-Reply-To: <8F972BDA-AADF-4B65-80FC-3C994A44D8ED@acm.org> References: <$hQPRxWsseRLFALv@perry.co.uk> <8F972BDA-AADF-4B65-80FC-3C994A44D8ED@acm.org> Message-ID: In message <8F972BDA-AADF-4B65-80FC-3C994A44D8ED at acm.org>, at 10:19:53 on Thu, 7 Jan 2010, Avri Doria writes >Hi, > >This seems to describe things in such black and white contrast: either >governments must come in and give us a crutch or we have a dog eat dog >Thatcherite regime. That's a misrepresentation of the Thatcherite doctrine. The UK continued with policies that were much more socialist than many other countries (Nationalised Health and Education, widespread welfare system etc). Her statement, which is basically "There's no such thing as a Disney-esque Fairy Godmother" did not deny the possibility that the State should continue to organise a very wide range of state-run benefits, and collect large amounts of taxation to fund them! R. >On 7 Jan 2010, at 09:09, Roland Perry wrote: > >> So it's nothing to do with "social/public interest", but whether or not >> people can expect a magic financial crutch to support them in their >> adversity. It's almost exactly the same set of issues as the current USA >> healthcare debate. >> >> I wonder how many people on this list would wish that governments got >> themselves organised, and [attempted to] sort out all the perceived ills >> on the Internet, on the grounds that they believe the current mechanisms >> were failing their collective citizens? >> >> And that, Ladies and Gentlemen, is most of the IG debate in a nutshell. > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From gurstein at gmail.com Thu Jan 7 12:47:45 2010 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 09:47:45 -0800 Subject: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality In-Reply-To: <8F972BDA-AADF-4B65-80FC-3C994A44D8ED@acm.org> Message-ID: Since when did acting in the public interest become "demanding a government crutch"? These kinds of rhetorical flourishes indicate a deep if apparently unconscious set of ideological blinkers that in fact belie the rather more compromising content of the statement being made. MBG -----Original Message----- From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at acm.org] Sent: Thursday, January 07, 2010 7:20 AM To: IGC Subject: Re: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality Hi, This seems to describe things in such black and white contrast: either governments must come in and give us a crutch or we have a dog eat dog Thatcherite regime. I think the appropriate balance varies over time - and in my opinion this is a time where while the absolute power or responsibility of the government is (or should be) waning, it is still not completely out of the equation. If I look at the discussions we have had on these topics, i think most of use fall somewhere on a very wide spectrum between those who demand a government crutch from the nanny state and Thatcherite laissez faire regime. a. On 7 Jan 2010, at 09:09, Roland Perry wrote: > So it's nothing to do with "social/public interest", but whether or > not people can expect a magic financial crutch to support them in > their adversity. It's almost exactly the same set of issues as the > current USA healthcare debate. > > I wonder how many people on this list would wish that governments got > themselves organised, and [attempted to] sort out all the perceived > ills on the Internet, on the grounds that they believe the current > mechanisms were failing their collective citizens? > > And that, Ladies and Gentlemen, is most of the IG debate in a > nutshell. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From gurstein at gmail.com Thu Jan 7 13:20:58 2010 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 10:20:58 -0800 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] AP on France and "Taxing Google" Message-ID: <61FC74879EFA4A2494DFF6F974A52B25@userPC> Bringing together several current discussion threads on this elist... M From: Lauren Weinstein Date: January 7, 2010 12:08:59 PM EST To: nnsquad at nnsquad.org Subject: [ NNSquad ] AP on France and "Taxing Google" AP on France and "Taxing Google" http://bit.ly/6SfQZe (AP) --Lauren-- NNSquad Moderator Archives !DSPAM:2676,4b4618a9177551127410012! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From avri at acm.org Thu Jan 7 13:44:47 2010 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 13:44:47 -0500 Subject: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <798056DC-19B6-40CB-8DD8-697C58A16B4C@acm.org> Hi, I was just quoting someone else having spoken of it this way on the list - and it is an edge position that some hold. Though I admit that I am one of those who favors minimal government involvement in the Internet except as an equal partner in an multistakeholder regime. BTW: i do not understand how you get to describe other people as having blinkers on. How does one achieve that perspective? I can understand recognizing when I realize I have blinkers on, but do not understand how one can make such an evaluation about others. But it is just my personal view that Thatcher's politics were dog eat dog politics. a. On 7 Jan 2010, at 12:47, Michael Gurstein wrote: > Since when did acting in the public interest become "demanding a government > crutch"? > > These kinds of rhetorical flourishes indicate a deep if apparently > unconscious set of ideological blinkers that in fact belie the rather more > compromising content of the statement being made. > > MBG > > -----Original Message----- > From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at acm.org] > Sent: Thursday, January 07, 2010 7:20 AM > To: IGC > Subject: Re: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality > > > Hi, > > This seems to describe things in such black and white contrast: either > governments must come in and give us a crutch or we have a dog eat dog > Thatcherite regime. > > I think the appropriate balance varies over time - and in my opinion this is > a time where while the absolute power or responsibility of the government is > (or should be) waning, it is still not completely out of the equation. If I > look at the discussions we have had on these topics, i think most of use > fall somewhere on a very wide spectrum between those who demand a government > crutch from the nanny state and Thatcherite laissez faire regime. > > a. > > > > On 7 Jan 2010, at 09:09, Roland Perry wrote: > >> So it's nothing to do with "social/public interest", but whether or >> not people can expect a magic financial crutch to support them in >> their adversity. It's almost exactly the same set of issues as the >> current USA healthcare debate. >> >> I wonder how many people on this list would wish that governments got >> themselves organised, and [attempted to] sort out all the perceived >> ills on the Internet, on the grounds that they believe the current >> mechanisms were failing their collective citizens? >> >> And that, Ladies and Gentlemen, is most of the IG debate in a >> nutshell. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From gurstein at gmail.com Thu Jan 7 13:56:12 2010 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 10:56:12 -0800 Subject: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality In-Reply-To: <798056DC-19B6-40CB-8DD8-697C58A16B4C@acm.org> Message-ID: For a rather more general discussion (he doesn't use the term "blinkers" directly but the idea is there) take a look at George Lakoff's deconstruction of political language in various of his writings and how the Republicans have managed to reframe the political discussion in the US by the use of terminology such as "government crutches" (public support), "death taxes" (inheritance taxes), "union bosses" (union leaders) etc.etc.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Lakoff MBG -----Original Message----- From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at acm.org] Sent: Thursday, January 07, 2010 10:45 AM To: IGC Subject: Re: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality Hi, I was just quoting someone else having spoken of it this way on the list - and it is an edge position that some hold. Though I admit that I am one of those who favors minimal government involvement in the Internet except as an equal partner in an multistakeholder regime. BTW: i do not understand how you get to describe other people as having blinkers on. How does one achieve that perspective? I can understand recognizing when I realize I have blinkers on, but do not understand how one can make such an evaluation about others. But it is just my personal view that Thatcher's politics were dog eat dog politics. a. On 7 Jan 2010, at 12:47, Michael Gurstein wrote: > Since when did acting in the public interest become "demanding a > government crutch"? > > These kinds of rhetorical flourishes indicate a deep if apparently > unconscious set of ideological blinkers that in fact belie the rather > more compromising content of the statement being made. > > MBG > > -----Original Message----- > From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at acm.org] > Sent: Thursday, January 07, 2010 7:20 AM > To: IGC > Subject: Re: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality > > > Hi, > > This seems to describe things in such black and white contrast: > either governments must come in and give us a crutch or we have a dog > eat dog Thatcherite regime. > > I think the appropriate balance varies over time - and in my opinion > this is a time where while the absolute power or responsibility of the > government is (or should be) waning, it is still not completely out of > the equation. If I look at the discussions we have had on these > topics, i think most of use fall somewhere on a very wide spectrum > between those who demand a government crutch from the nanny state and > Thatcherite laissez faire regime. > > a. > > > > On 7 Jan 2010, at 09:09, Roland Perry wrote: > >> So it's nothing to do with "social/public interest", but whether or >> not people can expect a magic financial crutch to support them in >> their adversity. It's almost exactly the same set of issues as the >> current USA healthcare debate. >> >> I wonder how many people on this list would wish that governments got >> themselves organised, and [attempted to] sort out all the perceived >> ills on the Internet, on the grounds that they believe the current >> mechanisms were failing their collective citizens? >> >> And that, Ladies and Gentlemen, is most of the IG debate in a >> nutshell. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From yehudakatz at mailinator.com Thu Jan 7 14:51:41 2010 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (Yehuda Katz) Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 11:51:41 -0800 (PST) Subject: Aw: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality Message-ID: With all this talk about Self-Governance and/or/vs. Governmental Oversight... Does anyone have any opinion on forming our own Government? [pro/con] ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From correia.rui at gmail.com Thu Jan 7 15:47:55 2010 From: correia.rui at gmail.com (Rui Correia) Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 22:47:55 +0200 Subject: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: First we would need to have our own country, right? Rui 2010/1/7 Yehuda Katz : > With all this talk about Self-Governance and/or/vs. Governmental Oversight... > > Does anyone have any opinion on forming our own Government? [pro/con] > ____________________________________________________________ > -- ________________________________________________ Rui Correia Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant Angola Liaison Consultant 2 Cutten St Horison Roodepoort-Johannesburg, South Africa Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 _______________ áâãçéêíóôõúç ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From toml at communisphere.com Thu Jan 7 16:21:46 2010 From: toml at communisphere.com (Thomas Lowenhaupt) Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 16:21:46 -0500 Subject: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality References: Message-ID: <12e201ca8fdf$6cfb7be0$6400a8c0@powuseren2ihcx> Rui, Countries are tough to come by, generally requiring the investment of a lot of death to create one. But what about using a city-TLD as a model for a modern day governance system? There are going to be dozens, if not hundreds, of them over the next decade and nary a thought has gone on at ICANN or this list as to their governance. It's long been my thinking that an exemplary city-TLD governance structure would mature into the infrastructure for the traditional governance structure. Our early effort on this are presented at http://bit.ly/CityGovernance. Tom Lowenhaupt ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rui Correia" To: ; "Yehuda Katz" Sent: Thursday, January 07, 2010 3:47 PM Subject: Re: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality First we would need to have our own country, right? Rui 2010/1/7 Yehuda Katz : > With all this talk about Self-Governance and/or/vs. Governmental > Oversight... > > Does anyone have any opinion on forming our own Government? [pro/con] > ____________________________________________________________ > -- ________________________________________________ Rui Correia Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant Angola Liaison Consultant 2 Cutten St Horison Roodepoort-Johannesburg, South Africa Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 _______________ áâãçéêíóôõúç ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From avri at acm.org Thu Jan 7 16:50:15 2010 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 16:50:15 -0500 Subject: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1F03D94E-40BC-46D6-8597-5093CC006B40@acm.org> hi, Every side in a discussion is constantly involved in designing new sy to name the things under discussion in ways that suits their arguments. And that is why it safe to talk about the span from government crutch to the right of access - because the phrases indicate where someone sits in the spectrum of opinion. a. On 7 Jan 2010, at 13:56, Michael Gurstein wrote: > For a rather more general discussion (he doesn't use the term "blinkers" > directly but the idea is there) take a look at George Lakoff's > deconstruction of political language in various of his writings and how the > Republicans have managed to reframe the political discussion in the US by > the use of terminology such as "government crutches" (public support), > "death taxes" (inheritance taxes), "union bosses" (union leaders) > etc.etc.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Lakoff > > MBG > > -----Original Message----- > From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at acm.org] > Sent: Thursday, January 07, 2010 10:45 AM > To: IGC > Subject: Re: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality > > > Hi, > > I was just quoting someone else having spoken of it this way on the list - > and it is an edge position that some hold. > Though I admit that I am one of those who favors minimal government > involvement in the Internet except as an equal partner in an > multistakeholder regime. > > BTW: i do not understand how you get to describe other people as having > blinkers on. How does one achieve that perspective? I can understand > recognizing when I realize I have blinkers on, but do not understand how one > can make such an evaluation about others. > > But it is just my personal view that Thatcher's politics were dog eat dog > politics. > > a. > > On 7 Jan 2010, at 12:47, Michael Gurstein wrote: > >> Since when did acting in the public interest become "demanding a >> government crutch"? >> >> These kinds of rhetorical flourishes indicate a deep if apparently >> unconscious set of ideological blinkers that in fact belie the rather >> more compromising content of the statement being made. >> >> MBG >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at acm.org] >> Sent: Thursday, January 07, 2010 7:20 AM >> To: IGC >> Subject: Re: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality >> >> >> Hi, >> >> This seems to describe things in such black and white contrast: >> either governments must come in and give us a crutch or we have a dog >> eat dog Thatcherite regime. >> >> I think the appropriate balance varies over time - and in my opinion >> this is a time where while the absolute power or responsibility of the >> government is (or should be) waning, it is still not completely out of >> the equation. If I look at the discussions we have had on these >> topics, i think most of use fall somewhere on a very wide spectrum >> between those who demand a government crutch from the nanny state and >> Thatcherite laissez faire regime. >> >> a. >> >> >> >> On 7 Jan 2010, at 09:09, Roland Perry wrote: >> >>> So it's nothing to do with "social/public interest", but whether or >>> not people can expect a magic financial crutch to support them in >>> their adversity. It's almost exactly the same set of issues as the >>> current USA healthcare debate. >>> >>> I wonder how many people on this list would wish that governments got >>> themselves organised, and [attempted to] sort out all the perceived >>> ills on the Internet, on the grounds that they believe the current >>> mechanisms were failing their collective citizens? >>> >>> And that, Ladies and Gentlemen, is most of the IG debate in a >>> nutshell. >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From katitza at datos-personales.org Thu Jan 7 18:41:08 2010 From: katitza at datos-personales.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 18:41:08 -0500 Subject: [governance] EPIC: 2009 Year in Review References: Message-ID: <5A3B4A89-0D99-45D8-A33D-B6626950EE12@datos-personales.org> I thought this might be of interest. > > = > ====================================================================== > E P I C A l e r t > = > ====================================================================== > Year in Review January 7, 2010 > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Published by the > Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) > Washington, D.C. > > http://www.epic.org/alert/epic_alert_yir2009.html > > ====================================================================== > > > 2 0 0 9 P R I V A C Y Y E A R I N R E V I E W / > > 2 0 1 0 P R I V A C Y I S S U E S T O W A T C H > > ====================================================================== > Top Privacy Stories 2009 > - Data Breaches and ID Theft on the Rise > - Supreme Court Strikes Down Strip Searches, Enhanced Penalties for > Identity Proxies > - White House Visitors Now Public Information > - Facebook: Sharing is Caring > - Tiger's Texting > - Biometric Company Goes Bankrupt. Fingerprints for Sale? > - Behavioral Tracking > - Europe Updates Communications Privacy Law > - Medical Privacy Victories in Congress and the Courts > - Octomom Privacy Breach > > Top Privacy Issues to Watch in 2010 > - Cloud Computing > - Smartgrid: Will Your Power Meter be Spying on You? > - Federal Trade Commission and Privacy > - Data Breach Legislation > - Invasion of the Body Scanners > - Biometric Identification > - Electronic Privacy at the Supreme Court > - Google Books and Reader Privacy > - De-identification Techniques > - Global Privacy Standards > > > 2009 was a busy year for privacy. Big Internet firms, such as Facebook > and Google, created new challenges for Internet users as personal data > became more valuable to advertisers. Congress considered many privacy > bills, though few became law. The Supreme Court decided several > privacy > cases, including a student strip-search case. The Department of > Homeland Security stepped up surveillance of the American public even > as a known terrorist boarded a plane with explosive material hidden in > his underwear. The year promises even more news with biometric > identifiers, body scans, Congressional hearings, a Supreme Court case > on text messages, and the related privacy challenges. > > > Here are the Top Ten Privacy Stories of 2009 and the Top Ten Privacy > Issue to Watch in 2010 from the Electronic Privacy Information Center > (EPIC): > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * > > Data Breaches and ID Theft on the Rise > > Non-profits and the Federal Trade Commission reported a continued rise > in data breaches and identity theft in 2009. The FTC received 313,982 > identity theft consumer complaints during the past year, topping all > previous records. Lawmakers have been unable to pass meaningful > legislation so identity thieves and data breachers can look forward to > another great - and profitable - year! > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * > > Supreme Court Strikes Down Strip Searches, Enhanced Penalties for > Identity Proxies > > Concluding that perhaps it was not reasonable to strip search a > teenage > girl in the hunt for a single tablet of ibuprofin, the Supreme Court > ruled 8-1 that such a search violated the Fourth Amendment because > "there were no reasons to suspect the drugs presented a danger or were > concealed in her underwear." The Court also ruled unanimously that > individuals who provide identification numbers that are not their own, > but don't intentionally impersonate others, cannot be subject to harsh > criminal punishments under federal law. But in a 5-4 decision, the > Supreme Court rejected the constitutional right of a convicted > individual to access his DNA to prove innocence. > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * > > White House Visitors Now Public Information > > In an effort to promote government accountability, the White House > decided to release the names of people who visit the White House. The > policy includes grade school classes from Des Moines but excludes > Supreme Court nominees and national security advisors. This is a good > topic for a high school paper. > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * > > Facebook: Sharing is Caring > > Oil and water. Privacy and Facebook. The world's top social network > service navigated the privacy waters with mixed success in 2009. Early > in the year, a proposed change in the Terms of Service that > transferred > control over user data to Facebook triggered a massive protest. More > than 100,000 users signed up for, no surprise, "Facebook Users Against > the New Terms of Service." Then a year-end change to the privacy > settings led to a formal complaint at the Federal Trade Commission, > charging unfair and deceptive trade practices. Share that news item > with Everyone! > > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * > > Tiger's Texting > > The downward slide of golf phenom Tiger Woods began when a few of his > texting buddies decided to push the save button instead of delete. > Tiger's texts made their way into the national tabloids, the stories > followed, and the endorsements soon disappeared. This was all the more > amazing since Tiger's yacht is named "Privacy." Warning to celebs: be > careful what you text and with whom you text. > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * > > Biometric Company Goes Bankrupt. Fingerprints for Sale? > > Clear, a company that offered air travellers the fast lane at > airports, > may now be playing fast and loose with the customer information it > acquired. As a Registered Traveler program, the company obtained > biometric identifiers -- digital fingerprints and iris scans -- on > more > than 100,000 frequent flyers. Clear, operated by Verified Identity > Pass, also gathered up detailed personal histories for its private > clearance program. But once the company went bankrupt, the biometric > ddatabase was the main asset to sell. Lawyers for the customers > stepped > in and stopped the sale of personal identifiers. Bad news for identity > thieves hoping to make it quickly through airline security. > > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * > > Behavioral Tracking > > In 2009 consumer advocates focused on the companies that focus on > consumers. A coalition of privacy groups urged Congress to crack down > on behavorial advertising. Lawmakers and the FTC expressed interest. > Rep. Rick Boucher announced that he is drafting a bill that would > impose strict rules on websites and advertisers. Boucher said his goal > is "to ensure that consumers know what information is being collected > about them on the Web and how it is being used, and to give them > control over that information." > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * > > Europe Updates Communications Privacy Law > > Toward the end of the Year, the European Union established new > Internet > policies, including a right to Internet access, net neutrality > obligations, and strengthened consumer protections. Under the ePrivacy > directive, communications service providers will also be required to > notify consumers of security breaches, persistent identifiers > ("cookies") will become opt-in, there will be enhanced penalties for > spammers, and national data protection agencies will receive new > enforcement powers. > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * > > Medical Privacy Victories in Congress and the Courts > > Early in the year, President Obama signed into law the HI-TECH Act of > 2009. The Act established new medical privacy safeguards. Medical > privacy also had victories in the courts as judges grew leery of the > sale of sensitive prescription information. > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * > > Octomom Privacy Breach > > There are some personal details that even aspiring reality show stars > do not want to share with the world. After the birth of Nadia > ("Octomom") Suleman's octuplets, more than two dozen hospital > employees took peeks at Octomom's medical records. Apparently US > Weekly > was not providing detailed enough information. The privacy breaches > cost the hospital a cool $250,000, the maximum allowed under > California > privacy laws. > > ====================================================================== > ISSUES TO WATCH IN 2010 > ====================================================================== > > New technologies with interesting privacy implications have been > introduced, the government has moved into social networking, the > Supreme Court will rule on workplace privacy, and the FTC may take a > new stance on regulation. Here are the top ten privacy topics to pay > attention to in 2010. > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * > > Cloud Computing > > What happens to your data when it's in the cloud? That's the issue > that > policymakers will look at more closely in 2010, not only because users > are moving data to the cloud, but also because government agencies > are. > Still, the privacy and security risks are real, as the FTC recently > reminded the FCC, following a petition from EPIC. > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * > > Smartgrid: Will Your Power Meter be Spying on You? > > Standards are still being developed for the Smart Grid, a host of > technologies that will modernize the existing electrical grid. The > Smart Grid could enable more efficient delivery of electricity and > allow consumers to make more informed energy use decisions. But Smart > Grid technologies also raises troubling privacy possibilities that > there could be very detailed tracking – and record keeping - of > individuals’ electricity use. New error message: "Don't you think > you've been in the sauna long enough?" > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * > > Federal Trade Commission and Privacy > > In 2009, the Federal Trade Commission signaled that it was moving away > from the “Notice and Choice,” “hands off” approach to privacy > protection. In 2010, the FTC fills in the blanks with a new approach > to > privacy protection. Welcome to the 21st century, Washington DC. > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * > > Data Breach Legislation > > Congress is moving to adopt comprehensive data breach legislation and > also to regulate the data broker industry. A Data Breach Bill has > passed the House, similar legilsation is pending in the Senate. If > passed, the Data Breach bill could provide uniform data breach > protections, but also threatens to undermine stricter state data > breach > laws. > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * > > Invasion of the Body Scanners > > The Christmas Day attack has renewed calls for the deployment of > digital strip search devices in the nation's airports. Never mind that > the devices are not designed to detect the liquid or powder > explosives, > favored by the bad guys, the machines will subject American air > travellers to the full monty, captured in high-res. Heading to the > airport? Better hit the gym first. > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * > > Biometric Identification > > Even though one company tried to sell the biometric identifiers on > 100,000 affluent air travelers (see Top Privacy Stories 2009), don't > expect a let up in the rush to digitize fingerprints and iris scans. > For advice on how to protect your privacy in a world of biometrics, > check out Tom Cruise in Minority Report. > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * > > Electronic Privacy at the Supreme Court > > Do workers have privacy rights in their pagers and cell phones? That > is > a question before the Supreme Court in 2010. The case will allow the > court to decide whether government employees have a constitutional > right to keep text messages private. And that will hinge on whether > employees have a "reasonable expectation of privacy" when they text > while at work. > > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * > > Google Books and Reader Privacy > > And while you're downloading the latest digital text on new threats to > your privacy, you might be wondering who's keeping track of your > intellectual interest. The answer could be Google. The Internet giant > spent the last several years scanning the books in the nation's > libraries and now wants to make them available online. Only problem is > that Google is planning to track everyone who checks out a digital > text > unless a federal court in New York says otherwise. > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * > > De-identification Techniques > > The holy grail of privacy protection is still genuine techniques for > deidentification and anonymization. But finding technqiues that really > work is turning out to be a tough problem. Expect more focus on this > issue in 2010, as companies and agencies try to develop privacy > friendly services. > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * > > Global Privacy Standards > > The move is on to establish global standards for personal data. > Advocates are rallying behind the Madrid Privacy Declaration, while > government officials meet in closed door sessions to hammer out > agreements. The big question at the end of 2010 is whether there will > be more privacy, more surveillance, or more of both. > > ====================================================================== > Privacy Policy > ====================================================================== > > The EPIC Alert mailing list is used only to mail the EPIC Alert and to > send notices about EPIC activities. We do not sell, rent or share our > mailing list. We also intend to challenge any subpoena or other legal > process seeking access to our mailing list. We do not enhance (link > to > other databases) our mailing list or require your actual name. > > In the event you wish to subscribe or unsubscribe your e-mail address > from this list, please follow the above instructions under > "subscription information." > > ====================================================================== > About EPIC > ====================================================================== > > The Electronic Privacy Information Center is a public interest > research > center in Washington, DC. It was established in 1994 to focus public > attention on emerging privacy issues such as the Clipper Chip, the > Digital Telephony proposal, national ID cards, medical record privacy, > and the collection and sale of personal information. EPIC publishes > the > EPIC Alert, pursues Freedom of Information Act litigation, and > conducts > policy research. For more information, visit http://www.epic.org or > write EPIC, 1718 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 200, Washington, DC > 20009. > +1 202 483 1140 (tel), +1 202 483 1248 (fax). > > If you'd like to support the work of the Electronic Privacy > Information > Center, contributions are welcome and fully tax-deductible. Checks > should be made out to "EPIC" and sent to 1718 Connecticut Ave., NW, > Suite 200, Washington, DC 20009. Or you can contribute online at: > > http://www.epic.org/donate > > Your contributions will help support Freedom of Information Act and > First Amendment litigation, strong and effective advocacy for the > right > of privacy and efforts to oppose government regulation of encryption > and expanding wiretapping powers. > > Thank you for your support. > > ------------------ End EPIC 2009 Year in Review ------------------ > > . > > _______________________________________________ > EPIC-press mailing list > EPIC-press at mailinglists.epic.org > http://mailinglists.epic.org/mailman/listinfo/epic-press -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From iza at anr.org Thu Jan 7 18:45:02 2010 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2010 08:45:02 +0900 Subject: [governance] DPI technology and regulatory move Message-ID: Dear all list members, I got involved in a study group on DPI (Deep Packet Inspection) and behavioral targeting advertising (and its policy issues) with ISP, Ad agency layers, and our government as observer in Japan. Of course, I am on the side of protecting the privacy as well as confidentiality of communication, with proper balance with business. Do you know how current DPI technology works in some detail? One target is, of course, Phorm, as they intend to start business in Korea and eventually in Japan. Yet under the "NDA" the vendors (ISPs) are quiet about how they use the technology without interfering the privacy. There is a plan that they will start business in Korea, after giving up in UK and US market, at least for the time being. If you know any bit of info, or source/reference, or expert, that will be great. Many thanks in advance. izumi -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, Japan * * * * * << Writing the Future of the History >> www.anr.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Jan 8 01:30:16 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Fri, 08 Jan 2010 12:00:16 +0530 Subject: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality In-Reply-To: <$hQPRxWsseRLFALv@perry.co.uk> References: <$hQPRxWsseRLFALv@perry.co.uk> Message-ID: <4B46D0F8.101@itforchange.net> Roland Perry wrote: > In message , at 05:28:08 on > Thu, 7 Jan 2010, Michael Gurstein writes > >> Well, as Margaret Thatcher (in)famously said at one point, "there is no >> society" (and thus presumably no "social/public interest") and then she and >> her accolytes proceeded to ensure through policy and process that her wish >> was made flesh to the continuing detriment of all. >> > > "I think we've been through a period where too many people have > been given to understand that if they have a problem, it's the > government's job to cope with it. 'I have a problem, I'll get a > grant.' 'I'm homeless, the government must house me.' They're > casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no > such thing as society." > > So it's nothing to do with "social/public interest", but whether or not > people can expect a magic financial crutch to support them in their > adversity. It's almost exactly the same set of issues as the current USA > healthcare debate. > How we see it greatly depends on whether one sits over decades and generations of structural advantages, built often through through unjust and even illegal means, or whether one is at the wrong end of socio-economically exploitative structures. I think it is too easily assumed that all of us who do not need these 'magic crutches' are somehow special and we deserve what we have, and those who do not have all what we have deserve it too. Thats an ideology. And there is another ideology opposed to this one which believes that there is at present large scale social injustice which has to be corrected by strong positive measures for social justice - which often involves redistributive measures which you call as 'magic financial crutch'. > I wonder how many people on this list would wish that governments got > themselves organised, and [attempted to] sort out all the perceived ills > on the Internet, on the grounds that they believe the current mechanisms > were failing their collective citizens? > or maybe the question is How many on the list believe that the Internet, in the directions that it is taking, may exacerbate entrenched structural advantaged and disadvantages, It is therefore important to have pulbic interest policies to ensure "realization of internationally agreed human rights, social equity and interdependence, cultural concerns, and both social and economic development" (from IGC's charter). And such policies are only possible if there are adequate public policy mechanisms, and therefore such mechanisms should be organised as soon as possible before it is too late. Obviously governments will have to play an important in any such mechanisms, but these mechanisms should be much more widely participative, follow global HR and other socio-political norms, be based on clearly articulated principles (constitutionalism) and not be ad-hoc, transparent and involve a strong role of civil society organizations. BTW, would like to have an IGC vote between the two propositions. We can propose a question - which of the two formulations in your view more correctly describes the situation vis a vis the current evolution of the Internet, need (or not) for public policies, and the role of governments in this relation. parminder > And that, Ladies and Gentlemen, is most of the IG debate in a nutshell. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Jan 8 01:45:02 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Fri, 08 Jan 2010 12:15:02 +0530 Subject: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality In-Reply-To: <4B46D0F8.101@itforchange.net> References: <$hQPRxWsseRLFALv@perry.co.uk> <4B46D0F8.101@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4B46D46E.4040403@itforchange.net> Parminder wrote: > > > Roland Perry wrote: >> I wonder how many people on this list would wish that governments got >> themselves organised, and [attempted to] sort out all the perceived ills >> on the Internet, on the grounds that they believe the current mechanisms >> were failing their collective citizens? >> > or maybe the question is > > How many on the list believe that the Internet, in the directions that > it is taking, may exacerbate entrenched structural advantaged and > disadvantages, It is therefore important to have pulbic interest > policies to ensure "realization of internationally agreed human > rights, social equity and interdependence, cultural concerns, and both > social and economic development" (from IGC's charter). And such > policies are only possible if there are adequate public policy > mechanisms, and therefore such mechanisms should be organised as soon > as possible before it is too late. Obviously governments will have to > play an important in any such mechanisms, but these mechanisms should > be much more widely participative, follow global HR and other > socio-political norms, be based on clearly articulated principles > (constitutionalism) and not be ad-hoc, transparent and involve a > strong role of civil society organizations. > > > BTW, would like to have an IGC vote between the two propositions. We > can propose a question - which of the two formulations in your view > more correctly describes the situation vis a vis the current evolution > of the Internet, need (or not) for public policies, and the role of > governments in this relation. > > parminder >> And that, Ladies and Gentlemen, is most of the IG debate in a nutshell. >> Which I consider is an ideologically committed attempt to rig the IG space and debate (as I have arguned often earlier, also citing it as a reason why many of us arent speaking up for IGF reform when the time is ripe). I would argue instead that the propositon I wrote is 'most of the IG debate in a nutshell' parminder >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Fri Jan 8 04:35:27 2010 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2010 09:35:27 +0000 Subject: [governance] DPI technology and regulatory move In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In message , at 08:45:02 on Fri, 8 Jan 2010, Izumi AIZU writes >Do you know how current DPI technology works in some detail? >One target is, of course, Phorm, as they intend to start business >in Korea and eventually in Japan. Yet under the "NDA" the vendors >(ISPs) are quiet about how they use the technology without >interfering the privacy. There is a plan that they will start business >in Korea, after giving up in UK and US market, at least for the >time being. > >If you know any bit of info, or source/reference, or expert, that >will be great http://www.lightbluetouchpaper.org/2008/04/04/the-phorm-webwise-system/ Is a great deal of information, written by my friend, and technical expert, Dr Richard Clayton. -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de Fri Jan 8 04:46:35 2010 From: bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de (Ralf Bendrath) Date: Fri, 08 Jan 2010 10:46:35 +0100 Subject: [governance] DPI technology and regulatory move In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B46FEFB.5010406@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Izumi AIZU schrieb: > I got involved in a study group on DPI (Deep Packet Inspection) > and behavioral targeting advertising (and its policy issues) with ISP, > Ad agency layers, and our government as observer in Japan. Interesting. I thought DPI-based advertizing was almost dead after Phorm ceased its operations in the US and the UK. > Do you know how current DPI technology works in some detail? > One target is, of course, Phorm, There is a detailed analysis of the Phorm system from FIPR: Clayton, Richard. 2008. "The Phorm "Webwise" System." Cambridge: Cambridge University Computer Lab, http://www.lightbluetouchpaper.org/2008/04/04/the-phorm-webwise-system/. In general, DPI normally works with "configurable computing" (FPGA or CPLD) instead of von-Neumann-machines, because of the high speeds required for processing the data. The interesting parameters are: 1) speed of throughput (bandwidth to be inspected) 2) number of policy rules (malware patterns, prohibited protocols, ...) 3) search algorithm 4) depth of inspection (newer DPI gear allows for about 35 bytes depth, cheaper machines only look at layer-7 headers) 5) policy decisions (dropping, copying, re-directing, inserting, throttling, ... packets). While DPI has mostly been an extra box ISPs had to put into their network, it is nowadays converging with routers and switches. Search for "layer-7-switches" or "application-based routing". Further reading: gives a fairly good bibliography. Other sources are at https://www.dpacket.org/ and in my ISA conference paper from last year: . For the geeks: German DPI vendor ipoque has recently open-sourced its PACE DPI engine: Xilinx also offers a full traffic management suite for their FPGA machines: Hope this helps, Ralf ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Fri Jan 8 05:34:18 2010 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2010 10:34:18 +0000 Subject: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality In-Reply-To: <4B46D0F8.101@itforchange.net> References: <$hQPRxWsseRLFALv@perry.co.uk> <4B46D0F8.101@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <3uR9CBSqowRLFAqw@perry.co.uk> In message <4B46D0F8.101 at itforchange.net>, at 12:00:16 on Fri, 8 Jan 2010, Parminder writes >there is another ideology  opposed to this one which believes that >there is at present large scale social injustice which has to be >corrected by strong positive measures for social justice - which often >involves redistributive measures which you call as 'magic financial >crutch'. Just to be clear, I was describing what I believe to be Margaret Thatcher's views, when she made her much misquoted statements about "society". That was many years ago, and I don't necessarily agree with the philosophy either then, or now. But I do feel that if you are going to criticise someone, the least you can do first is properly understand what it is you are criticising. Meanwhile, I spend quite a lot of my time working for various charitable ventures which are in a very real sense "society's" manifestation of the philanthropic "Fairy Godmother", or to use your words "a redistributive measure". However, the donors in this case are giving voluntary, and it's matter of plain fact that many redistributive measures are forced unwillingly upon the wider public. That's what "politicians in power" (or what we call "Government") spends much of its time doing. For example, Margaret Thatcher is famous for a failed attempt to redistribute local property taxation from a basis of per-dollar-value of your property to a per-adult-resident in the property. > I wonder how many people on this list would wish that governments got >themselves organised, and [attempted to] sort out all the perceived >ills on the Internet, on the grounds that they believe the current >mechanisms were failing their collective citizens? Of course, I posed that rhetorical question because the overwhelming feeling I get from most lists like this is that Government intervention is not welcome when it comes particularly to meddling with content on the Internet (although some people are happier for Governments to intervene to break up large monopolistic infrastructure providers). -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From aizu at anr.org Fri Jan 8 08:09:47 2010 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2010 22:09:47 +0900 Subject: [governance] DPI technology and regulatory move In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Roland, Thank you very much for quite informative reference. I will read them and learn more. best, izumi 2010/1/8 Roland Perry : > In message , at > 08:45:02 on Fri, 8 Jan 2010, Izumi AIZU writes >> >> Do you know how current DPI technology works in some detail? >> One target is, of course, Phorm, as they intend to start business >> in Korea and eventually in Japan. Yet under the "NDA" the vendors >> (ISPs) are quiet about how they use the technology without >> interfering the privacy. There is a plan that they will start business >> in Korea, after giving up in UK and US market, at least for the >> time being. >> >> If you know any bit of info, or source/reference, or expert, that >> will be great > > http://www.lightbluetouchpaper.org/2008/04/04/the-phorm-webwise-system/ > > Is a great deal of information, written by my friend, and technical expert, > Dr Richard Clayton. > -- > Roland Perry > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >    governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, Japan * * * * * << Writing the Future of the History >> www.anr.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From iza at anr.org Fri Jan 8 08:10:48 2010 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2010 22:10:48 +0900 Subject: [governance] DPI technology and regulatory move In-Reply-To: <4B46FEFB.5010406@zedat.fu-berlin.de> References: <4B46FEFB.5010406@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Message-ID: Ralf, This is quite helpful. It may be far more than my brain capacity can absorb ;-), but will do my best. I plan to report back as we progress the study in Japan. izumi 2010/1/8 Ralf Bendrath : > Izumi AIZU schrieb: > >> I got involved in a study group on DPI (Deep Packet Inspection) >> and behavioral targeting advertising (and its policy issues) with ISP, >> Ad agency layers, and our government as observer in Japan. > > Interesting. I thought DPI-based advertizing was almost dead after Phorm > ceased its operations in the US and the UK. > >> Do you know how current DPI technology works in some detail? >> One target is, of course, Phorm, > > There is a detailed analysis of the Phorm system from FIPR: > Clayton, Richard. 2008. "The Phorm "Webwise" System." Cambridge: > Cambridge University Computer Lab, > http://www.lightbluetouchpaper.org/2008/04/04/the-phorm-webwise-system/. > > In general, DPI normally works with "configurable computing" (FPGA or > CPLD) instead of von-Neumann-machines, because of the high speeds > required for processing the data. > > The interesting parameters are: > 1) speed of throughput (bandwidth to be inspected) > 2) number of policy rules (malware patterns, prohibited protocols, ...) > 3) search algorithm > 4) depth of inspection (newer DPI gear allows for about 35 bytes depth, > cheaper machines only look at layer-7 headers) > 5) policy decisions (dropping, copying, re-directing, inserting, > throttling, ... packets). > > While DPI has mostly been an extra box ISPs had to put into their > network, it is nowadays converging with routers and switches. Search for > "layer-7-switches" or "application-based routing". > > Further reading: > gives a fairly > good bibliography. > Other sources are at https://www.dpacket.org/ and in my ISA conference > paper from last year: > . > > For the geeks: German DPI vendor ipoque has recently open-sourced its > PACE DPI engine: > Xilinx also offers a full traffic management suite for their FPGA > machines: > > > Hope this helps, > > Ralf > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, Japan * * * * * << Writing the Future of the History >> www.anr.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From davidcrine at aol.com Fri Jan 8 11:31:32 2010 From: davidcrine at aol.com (davidcrine at aol.com) Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2010 08:31:32 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Web Engineering Advancements and Trends: Building New Dimensions of Information Technology Message-ID: Dear Colleagues: I am inviting you to order a copy of our newly authored book or to have your library order a copy as it comes out here in January 2010. I hope that you and your colleagues or students enjoy this new 2010 book to further your development or research interests. Respectfully yours, David C. Rine Professor Emeritus Volgenau School of Information Technology and Engineering George Mason University ******************** Introducing the latest release from IGI Global: Web Engineering Advancements and Trends: Building New Dimensions of Information Technology ISBN: 978-1-60566-719-5; 408 pp; January 2010 Published under Information Science Reference, an imprint of IGI Global http://www.igi-global.com/reference/details.asp?id=35224 Edited by: Ghazi I. Alkhatib, Princess Sumaya University for Technology, Jordan; David C. Rine, George Mason University, USA DESCRIPTION As countless failures in information technology and Web-based systems are caused by an incorrect understanding of knowledge sharing, an increased awareness of modern, fundamental industry concepts becomes crucial to Web and interface developers. Web Engineering Advancements and Trends: Building New Dimensions of Information Technology examines integrated approaches in new dimensions of social and organizational knowledge sharing with emphasis on intelligent and personalized access. A defining collection of field advancements, this publication provides current research, applications, and techniques in testing and validation of Web systems. **************************************** “Web Engineering Advancements and Trends: Building New Dimensions of Information Technology reflects on the future dimensions of Information Technology and Web Engineering (ITWE), and expands on two major themes to emphasize intelligence, provisioning, and personalization of Web engineering utilizing technologies for the advancement of ITWE applications.” - Ghazi I. Alkhatib, Applied Science University - Amman, Jordan **************************************** TOPICS COVERED Agent-enabled semantic Web GUI testing methodology Image mining Intelligent semantic Web services Object oriented software testing Pattern-oriented Web engineering Voice driven emotion recognizer mobile phone Scenario driven decision systems Software architecture analysis User interfaces for improving cell phone devices For more information about Web Engineering Advancements and Trends: Building New Dimensions of Information Technology, you can view the title information sheet at http://www.igi-global.com/downloads/pdf/35224.pdf. To view the Table of Contents and a complete list of contributors online go to http://www.igi-global.com/reference/details.asp?ID=35224&v=tableOfContents. ABOUT THE EDITORS Ghazi Alkhatib is an assistant professor of software engineering at the College of Computer Science and Information Technology, Applied Science University (Amman, Jordan). In 1984, he obtained his Doctor of Business Administration from Mississippi State University in information systems with minors in computer science and accounting. Since then, he has been engaged in teaching, consulting, training, and research in the area of computer information systems in the US and gulf countries. In addition to his research interests in databases and systems analysis and design, he has published several articles and presented many papers in regional and international conferences on software processes, knowledge management, e-business, Web services, and agent software, workflow, and portal/grid computing integration with Web services. David Rine has been practicing, teaching, and researching engineered software development for over thirty years. Prior to joining George Mason University, he served in various leadership roles in the IEEE Computer Society and co-founded two of the technical committees. He joined George Mason University in 1985 and was the founding chair of the Department of Computer Science and one of the founders of the (Volgenau) School of Information Technology and Engineering. Rine has received numerous research, teaching, and service awards from computer science and engineering societies and associations, including the IEEE Centennial Award, IEEE Pioneer Award, IEEE Computer Society Meritorious Service Awards, the IEEE Computer Society Special Awards, IEEE Computer Society 50th anniversary Golden Core Award, and historical IEEE Computer Society Honor Roll and Distinguished Technical Services Awards. He has been a pioneer in graduate, undergraduate, and high school education, producing computer science texts and leading establishment of the International Advanced Placement Computer Science program for the nation's high school students, co-designer of the first computer science and engineering curriculum (1976), and the first masters in software engineering curriculum (1978). He has been an editor of a number of prestigious software-oriented journals. During his tenure, he has authored over 300 published works and has directed many PhD students. Complementing his work at GMU, he has worked on many international technology and relief projects in various countries and made many life-long international friendships. His past students are the most important record of his technical achievements. **************************************** To view the full contents of this publication, check for Web Engineering Advancements and Trends: Building New Dimensions of Information Technology in your institution’s library. If you library does not currently own this title, please recommend it to your librarian. **************************************** ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From voxinternet at gmail.com Fri Jan 8 13:30:18 2010 From: voxinternet at gmail.com (Programme de recherche Vox Internet) Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2010 19:30:18 +0100 Subject: [governance] Lettre de diffusion Vox Internet II janvier 2010 Message-ID: > > Fondation Maison des Sciences de l'Homme École Normale Supérieure Lettres et Sciences Humaines Centre de Sociologie de l'Innovation-École des Mines de Paris Bonjour à tous, Vous trouverez en pièce jointe la lettre de diffusion Vox Internet II de janvier 2010. Bien cordialement, l'équipe Vox Internet -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: lettre de diffusion janvier 2010.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 123765 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From yehudakatz at mailinator.com Fri Jan 8 13:55:54 2010 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (Yehuda Katz) Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2010 10:55:54 -0800 (PST) Subject: Aw: Re: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality In-Reply-To: 4B46D46E.4040403@itforchange.net Message-ID: Hurray for you Parminder! That was exactly my conncerns, when You'all were pushing for "Entiltlements" as I put it on Aug 2009 (Thu, 27th)* through the IGC**: Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles . And it is exactly why the Chinese did not want it pursued [Try providing Entiltlements (Fulfill the Rights) for 1.3 Billion Chinese and then another 1.3 Indians], Governments weren't designed to handle the load. I'll go alittle further too say, And that's why I'm calling for something new (A new Government Design). - Ref: * Right's Entitlements - ?How to Fund? per Yehuda Katz [governance] Right's Entitlements - ?How to Fund? http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/arc/governance/2009-08/msg00325.html ** Concensus Call per Lisa Horner FINAL STATEMENT (V6) – for consensus call http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/arc/governance/2009-09/msg00136.html ---____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de Fri Jan 8 20:02:46 2010 From: bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de (Ralf Bendrath) Date: Sat, 09 Jan 2010 02:02:46 +0100 Subject: [governance] DPI technology and regulatory move In-Reply-To: <4B46FEFB.5010406@zedat.fu-berlin.de> References: <4B46FEFB.5010406@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Message-ID: <4B47D5B6.9070205@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Ralf Bendrath schrieb: > There is a detailed analysis of the Phorm system from FIPR: Clayton, > Richard. 2008. "The Phorm "Webwise" System." Cambridge: Cambridge > University Computer Lab, > http://www.lightbluetouchpaper.org/2008/04/04/the-phorm-webwise-system/. PS: There is also a prety comprehensive legal analysis of Phorm, based on Clayton's technical analysis: Bohm, Nicholas: The Phorm “Webwise” System - a Legal Analysis, Cambridge: Foundation for Information Policy Research ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Jan 9 01:27:44 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sat, 09 Jan 2010 11:57:44 +0530 Subject: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality In-Reply-To: <3uR9CBSqowRLFAqw@perry.co.uk> References: <$hQPRxWsseRLFALv@perry.co.uk> <4B46D0F8.101@itforchange.net> <3uR9CBSqowRLFAqw@perry.co.uk> Message-ID: <4B4821E0.5020008@itforchange.net> Roland Perry wrote: > In message <4B46D0F8.101 at itforchange.net>, at 12:00:16 on Fri, 8 Jan > 2010, Parminder writes > >> there is another ideology opposed to this one which believes that >> there is at present large scale social injustice which has to be >> corrected by strong positive measures for social justice - which >> often involves redistributive measures which you call as 'magic >> financial crutch'. > > Just to be clear, I was describing what I believe to be Margaret > Thatcher's views, when she made her much misquoted statements about > "society". That was many years ago, and I don't necessarily agree with > the philosophy either then, or now. But I do feel that if you are > going to criticise someone, the least you can do first is properly > understand what it is you are criticising. Mr Perry I well know what I am criticizing, or rather engaging with, so I request that you avoid snob statements. They are very disturbing, especially in the cross-cultural and geopolitical nature of this group. Do you Mr Perry ever in London, or wherever you stay, in a group pf people discussing something say to anyone - 'if you are going to criticise someone, the least you can do first is properly understand what it is you are criticising'. I am just trying to understand. Also i criticize no one, just viewpoints, unlike what you have done. So please.... You quoted Thatcher, and then explained the quote using the 'magic financial crutch' language, and then through comparison with the issues involved in US health insurance debate went on to wonder if anyone wants governments to get more involved in IG 'on the grounds that they believe the current mechanisms were failing their collective citizens'. That is a very consistent political narrative, and I do understand it completely. (In any case my statements engage with whoever holds views represented in the mentioned statements.) On the other hand (since you used the above distasteful snob language) I can say that before answering *you* should at least properly understand what who are disagreeing or agreeing with. For substantiation of this pl see below. > > Meanwhile, I spend quite a lot of my time working for various > charitable ventures which are in a very real sense "society's" > manifestation of the philanthropic "Fairy Godmother", or to use your > words "a redistributive measure". No, thats not the meaning of redistribution. In a way quite to the contrary. 'Fairy godmother' business is charity, with moral-ethical basis. Redistribution is a term of political economy, and presupposes political power as its basis. Charity is often the rich persons look at social injustice, frameworks of political power and redistribution are that of the (politically conscious) people at the wrong end. > However, the donors in this case are giving voluntary, and it's matter > of plain fact that many redistributive measures are forced unwillingly > upon the wider public. Exactly the issue, thanks for constructing it for me. All voluntary stuff is good. but that does not replace redistribution of the political kind, which is what neoliberal ideology seeks to do. So, both your position and my critique is consistent, unlike what you propose. As for 'being forced on the wider public', of course who likes to lose power and resources, while forgetting that they are often the product of unjust and exploitative social structures,and thus need corresponding corrective measures of redistribution. > > That's what "politicians in power" (or what we call "Government") Micheal has pointed to a good critique of how language is 'constructed' for ideological purposes. I see government in frameworks other that just 'politicians in power'. We work in many forms of engagement with governments, with great results. > spends much of its time doing. if you mean redistribution, that is one of the main jobs of governments. Incidentally governments in the North spend 40-50 percent of country's GDPs, a good amount of that on redistribution, while they advocate still weaker states for the South. > For example, Margaret Thatcher is famous for a failed attempt to > redistribute local property taxation from a basis of per-dollar-value > of your property to a per-adult-resident in the property. On my reading, per-dollar value property tax looks much more redistributive that per-adult resident. So Thatcher was being regressive and anti-redistribution that she is known to be, and was not in that sense not furthering redistribution, but the opposite. > >> I wonder how many people on this list would wish that governments >> got themselves organised, and [attempted to] sort out all the >> perceived ills on the Internet, on the grounds that they believe >> the current mechanisms were failing their collective citizens? > > Of course, I posed that rhetorical question because the overwhelming > feeling I get from most lists like this is that Government > intervention is not welcome when it comes particularly to meddling > with content on the Internet (although some people are happier for > Governments to intervene to break up large monopolistic infrastructure > providers). I too posed my response because the overwhelming feeling I get is that a few more articulate and dominant voices seem to dominant the list discussion in a manner that makes it look that civil society in general has views that are broadly neoliberal, especially in the area of IG. I proposed a vote since I am confident that the greater majority actually does not really think so. Positioning dominant views as something natural and commonsense, is the very basis of hegemony. (Now before you again react inappropriately as you did the last time, let me tell you that my critiques are political and not personal, unlike what comes out of the language you used.) Regards Parminder ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jlfullsack at orange.fr Sat Jan 9 03:18:51 2010 From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK) Date: Sat, 9 Jan 2010 09:18:51 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality In-Reply-To: <4B4821E0.5020008@itforchange.net> References: <$hQPRxWsseRLFALv@perry.co.uk> <4B46D0F8.101@itforchange.net> <3uR9CBSqowRLFAqw@perry.co.uk> <4B4821E0.5020008@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <21073399.440349.1263025131871.JavaMail.www@wwinf1j06> Dear Parminder and all Once more you enlighten the debate with a clear position I strongly support. Therefore, many thanks to you for beeing watchful on this CS list. Neoliberal positions, as they are frequently expressed here denying the government its involvment in an as "public affair" as Internet governance, are paradoxal (even  inconsistent) when one considers the billions dollars and euros the democratic governments have just spent for saving the banking system after the neolib disaster.  Of course, governement shouldn't be given "exclusive power", even in our democracies. For this reason, CS should be the watchdog for preventing people from any deviance (of their government), or at least for informing them on the threatening dangers. Moreover, in many of our democracies CS partners with public authorities at local and/or natinal level in a certain number of domains, even IG. This also happens in France, although with criticisms and, in some cases, even  a clear opposition (e.g. in download control and the so-called "three strikes" law). All the best Jean-Louis Fullsack > Message du 09/01/10 07:28 > De : "Parminder" > A : governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Roland Perry" , "'Research and Advocacy Team'" > Copie à : > Objet : Re: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality > > > > > Roland Perry wrote: > > In message <4B46D0F8.101 at itforchange.net>, at 12:00:16 on Fri, 8 Jan > > 2010, Parminder writes > > > >> there is another ideology opposed to this one which believes that > >> there is at present large scale social injustice which has to be > >> corrected by strong positive measures for social justice - which > >> often involves redistributive measures which you call as 'magic > >> financial crutch'. > > > > Just to be clear, I was describing what I believe to be Margaret > > Thatcher's views, when she made her much misquoted statements about > > "society". That was many years ago, and I don't necessarily agree with > > the philosophy either then, or now. But I do feel that if you are > > going to criticise someone, the least you can do first is properly > > understand what it is you are criticising. > Mr Perry > > I well know what I am criticizing, or rather engaging with, so I request > that you avoid snob statements. They are very disturbing, especially in > the cross-cultural and geopolitical nature of this group. Do you Mr > Perry ever in London, or wherever you stay, in a group pf people > discussing something say to anyone - 'if you are going to criticise > someone, the least you can do first is properly understand what it is > you are criticising'. I am just trying to understand. Also i criticize > no one, just viewpoints, unlike what you have done. So please.... > > You quoted Thatcher, and then explained the quote using the 'magic > financial crutch' language, and then through comparison with the issues > involved in US health insurance debate went on to wonder if anyone > wants governments to get more involved in IG 'on the grounds that they > believe the current mechanisms were failing their collective citizens'. > That is a very consistent political narrative, and I do understand it > completely. (In any case my statements engage with whoever holds views > represented in the mentioned statements.) On the other hand (since you > used the above distasteful snob language) I can say that before > answering *you* should at least properly understand what who are > disagreeing or agreeing with. For substantiation of this pl see below. > > > > > Meanwhile, I spend quite a lot of my time working for various > > charitable ventures which are in a very real sense "society's" > > manifestation of the philanthropic "Fairy Godmother", or to use your > > words "a redistributive measure". > No, thats not the meaning of redistribution. In a way quite to the > contrary. 'Fairy godmother' business is charity, with moral-ethical > basis. Redistribution is a term of political economy, and presupposes > political power as its basis. Charity is often the rich persons look at > social injustice, frameworks of political power and redistribution are > that of the (politically conscious) people at the wrong end. > > > > However, the donors in this case are giving voluntary, and it's matter > > of plain fact that many redistributive measures are forced unwillingly > > upon the wider public. > Exactly the issue, thanks for constructing it for me. All voluntary > stuff is good. but that does not replace redistribution of the political > kind, which is what neoliberal ideology seeks to do. So, both your > position and my critique is consistent, unlike what you propose. > > > As for 'being forced on the wider public', of course who likes to lose > power and resources, while forgetting that they are often the product of > unjust and exploitative social structures,and thus need corresponding > corrective measures of redistribution. > > > > > That's what "politicians in power" (or what we call "Government") > Micheal has pointed to a good critique of how language is 'constructed' > for ideological purposes. I see government in frameworks other that just > 'politicians in power'. We work in many forms of engagement with > governments, with great results. > > spends much of its time doing. > if you mean redistribution, that is one of the main jobs of governments. > Incidentally governments in the North spend 40-50 percent of country's > GDPs, a good amount of that on redistribution, while they advocate still > weaker states for the South. > > > For example, Margaret Thatcher is famous for a failed attempt to > > redistribute local property taxation from a basis of per-dollar-value > > of your property to a per-adult-resident in the property. > On my reading, per-dollar value property tax looks much more > redistributive that per-adult resident. So Thatcher was being regressive > and anti-redistribution that she is known to be, and was not in that > sense not furthering redistribution, but the opposite. > > > >> I wonder how many people on this list would wish that governments > >> got themselves organised, and [attempted to] sort out all the > >> perceived ills on the Internet, on the grounds that they believe > >> the current mechanisms were failing their collective citizens? > > > > Of course, I posed that rhetorical question because the overwhelming > > feeling I get from most lists like this is that Government > > intervention is not welcome when it comes particularly to meddling > > with content on the Internet (although some people are happier for > > Governments to intervene to break up large monopolistic infrastructure > > providers). > I too posed my response because the overwhelming feeling I get is that a > few more articulate and dominant voices seem to dominant the list > discussion in a manner that makes it look that civil society in general > has views that are broadly neoliberal, especially in the area of IG. I > proposed a vote since I am confident that the greater majority actually > does not really think so. Positioning dominant views as something > natural and commonsense, is the very basis of hegemony. (Now before you > again react inappropriately as you did the last time, let me tell you > that my critiques are political and not personal, unlike what comes out > of the language you used.) > > Regards > > Parminder > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Sat Jan 9 04:30:55 2010 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sat, 9 Jan 2010 09:30:55 +0000 Subject: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality In-Reply-To: <4B4821E0.5020008@itforchange.net> References: <$hQPRxWsseRLFALv@perry.co.uk> <4B46D0F8.101@itforchange.net> <3uR9CBSqowRLFAqw@perry.co.uk> <4B4821E0.5020008@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <3EbdovrPzESLFAQP@perry.co.uk> In message <4B4821E0.5020008 at itforchange.net>, at 11:57:44 on Sat, 9 Jan 2010, Parminder writes > >Roland Perry wrote: >> In message <4B46D0F8.101 at itforchange.net>, at 12:00:16 on Fri, 8 Jan >>2010, Parminder writes >> >>> there is another ideology opposed to this one which believes that >>>there is at present large scale social injustice which has to be >>>corrected by strong positive measures for social justice - which >>>often involves redistributive measures which you call as 'magic >>>financial crutch'. >> >> Just to be clear, I was describing what I believe to be Margaret >>Thatcher's views, when she made her much misquoted statements about >>"society". That was many years ago, and I don't necessarily agree with >>the philosophy either then, or now. But I do feel that if you are >>going to criticise someone, the least you can do first is properly >>understand what it is you are criticising. >Mr Perry > >I well know what I am criticizing, or rather engaging with, so I >request that you avoid snob statements. Perhaps it would have been clearer if I'd said "...the least *one* can do..." etc. It wasn't a comment on your position. >You quoted Thatcher, and then explained the quote using the 'magic >financial crutch' language, Because that was what she was referring to. As I also explained, that's nothing to do with my personal views on the matter, just a clarification of her expression "no such thing as society". >> Meanwhile, I spend quite a lot of my time working for various >>charitable ventures which are in a very real sense "society's" >>manifestation of the philanthropic "Fairy Godmother", or to use your >>words "a redistributive measure". >No, thats not the meaning of redistribution. In a way quite to the >contrary. I'll try to find a different word for it in future. >Now before you again react inappropriately as you did the last time, >let me tell you that my critiques are political and not personal, >unlike what comes out of the language you used.) I'm sorry if you took my remarks personally, it was not intended. Indeed I wasn't trying to start a debate about politics at all. So I'll leave it there. -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From lmcknigh at syr.edu Sat Jan 9 19:53:22 2010 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Sat, 9 Jan 2010 19:53:22 -0500 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] Appeals Court Warm to Comcast in Fight Against FCC - The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times In-Reply-To: <9A5769A1-8B77-45BE-8EDC-80BF48C0599B@farber.net> References: <9A5769A1-8B77-45BE-8EDC-80BF48C0599B@farber.net> Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE014DEFE4B1@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> FYI Not that I'm defending Comcast's actions which precipitated the case. But my forecast remains the same: the legal wrangling over net neutrality will likely begin - after more delay - with a scolding and slap on the wrist of the FCC for trying to enforce Internet principles without having following the rules of the Admin Procedures Act to define the principles. That's a big no-no in US law, which the current neutrality rule-making proceeding in theory would correct, but even if the FCC succeeds this time it can't be applied to a case from years earlier. Anyway, a step forward, then 2 (or 3) steps back remains my political/legal forecast. Note last line from court staffer saying 'see you in a couple years'....which is faster than I predict we will get any clarity in this area : ( Looking on the bright side: we/the IGF have plenty of time to define Internet rights and principles, since noone else has done a good job of it already. In my opinion. _______________________________________ From: David Farber [dave at farber.net] Sent: Saturday, January 09, 2010 8:06 AM To: ip Subject: [IP] Appeals Court Warm to Comcast in Fight Against FCC - The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2010/01/appeals-court-warm-to-comcast-in-fight-against-fcc.html Archives [https://www.listbox.com/images/feed-icon-10x10.jpg] [https://www.listbox.com/images/listbox-logo-small.png] ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From yehudakatz at mailinator.com Sun Jan 10 20:06:56 2010 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (Yehuda Katz) Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2010 17:06:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] ICANN no. 37 NAIROBI | 7-12 March 2010 Message-ID: Time is running short for ICANN no. 37 NAIROBI | 7-12 March 2010 http://nbo.icann.org/ Any IGC / CPSR Mailist Members going ? Any Statements or Paper Presentaions? - ALAC Scheadule: https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?at_large_nairobi_schedule - AFRALO-ICANN At Large Africa https://st.icann.org/afralo/index.cgi?action=recent_changes - EURALO-ICANN At Large Europe https://st.icann.org/euralo/index.cgi?action=recent_changes - ASIAPAC-ICANN At Large Asia Pacific https://st.icann.org/asiapac/index.cgi?action=recent_changes - NARALO-ICANN At Large North America https://st.icann.org/naralo/index.cgi?action=recent_changes - LAC RALO https://st.icann.org/lacralo/index.cgi?action=recent_changes - At Large Advisory Committee https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?action=recent_changes - GNSO Council Workspace https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?action=recent_changes -- Diplo Internet Governance.org http://www.diplointernetgovernance.org http://www.diplointernetgovernance.org/video/icann-nairobi --- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From gpaque at gmail.com Mon Jan 11 06:44:20 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 07:14:20 -0430 Subject: [governance] Deadline for written Contributions to IGF Message-ID: <4B4B0F14.5030601@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 From goldstein.roxana at gmail.com Mon Jan 11 10:01:10 2010 From: goldstein.roxana at gmail.com (Roxana Goldstein) Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 12:01:10 -0300 Subject: [governance] Deadline for written Contributions to IGF In-Reply-To: <4B4B0F14.5030601@gmail.com> References: <4B4B0F14.5030601@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4ca4162f1001110701i65fc7351ld62f3917325ac971@mail.gmail.com> Hi Ginger, and all. With short time, there go some ideas to include, excuse me they go in spanish, I expect Ginger can make a perfect translation :): - el proceso preparatorio debería incluir soporte, asistencia para producir procesos participativos que permitan sensibilizar a más actores sociales y que faciliten la producción de aportes (documentos, investigaciones, preparación de workshops, etc.) que expresen las necesidades y posturas de los países y regiones menos representadas, a las que más difícil les resulta trasladarse, y en las que las problemáticas relativas a la IG están menos difundidas y la sociedad menos informada e involucrada en estos procesos. Esta idea implica, por ejemplo: mayor financiamiento para investigaciones, mayor apoyo financiero y de todo tipo para procesos preparatorios e IGF regionales y nacionales, apoyo a procesos de difusión, sensibilización y producción de aportes durante toda la etapa preparatoria, mayor apoyo y profundización de los servicios de participación remota durante los IGF -nacionales, regionales, y global- como así también de las reuniones preparatorias. - En cuanto al post-IGF, implica también la asistencia, financiamiento etc. para procesos de gestión de información y conocimiento de lo producido durante el IGF, que permitan optimizar el aprovechamiento, y por lo tanto el impacto, de los contenidos y los procesos, en las regiones y países menos desarrollados, donde el involucramiento aún no es suficiente. - Durante el IGF y reuniones preparatorias, mayor soporte y perfeccionamiento de los mecanismos de participación remota, con énfasis en el proceso de preparación de dichos procesos en las regiones y países con menor posibilidad de participación. Hasta aquí lo que puedo aportar, de manera general, en este momento. Espero sea de utilidad. Un abrazo, Roxana 2010/1/11 Ginger Paque > Hello everyone, > I hope everyone is back and energetic for a productive (happy, healthy) > 2010. > > Jeremy is still collating his efforts towards IGF reform, and will report > as soon as he can. > > On less complex topics, is there interest in a short IGC written > contribution, for example: > 1. supporting rights and principles as an overarching theme > 2. workshop structure to include a remote participation moderator and some > kind of pre-event training for remote participation. > > Can we agree on a short concrete written contribution, or is it too short a > time? Any thoughts? > > Best, > Ginger > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From amedinagomez at gmail.com Mon Jan 11 10:07:39 2010 From: amedinagomez at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Antonio_Medina_G=F3mez?=) Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 10:07:39 -0500 Subject: [governance] Deadline for written Contributions to IGF In-Reply-To: <4ca4162f1001110701i65fc7351ld62f3917325ac971@mail.gmail.com> References: <4B4B0F14.5030601@gmail.com> <4ca4162f1001110701i65fc7351ld62f3917325ac971@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2bd2431a1001110707x6f0d9c8atb3aff7f140564a45@mail.gmail.com> Totalmente de acuerdo con Roxana. Antonio Medina Gomez Presidente Asociación Colombiana de Usuarios de Internet. ACUI IGF Colombia presidencia at acui.org.co amedinagomez at gmail.com http://www.acui.org.co El 11 de enero de 2010 10:01, Roxana Goldstein escribió: > Hi Ginger, and all. > With short time, there go some ideas to include, excuse me they go in > spanish, I expect Ginger can make a perfect translation :): > > - el proceso preparatorio debería incluir soporte, asistencia para producir > procesos participativos que permitan sensibilizar a más actores sociales y > que faciliten la producción de aportes (documentos, investigaciones, > preparación de workshops, etc.) que expresen las necesidades y posturas de > los países y regiones menos representadas, a las que más difícil les resulta > trasladarse, y en las que las problemáticas relativas a la IG están menos > difundidas y la sociedad menos informada e involucrada en estos procesos. > Esta idea implica, por ejemplo: mayor financiamiento para investigaciones, > mayor apoyo financiero y de todo tipo para procesos preparatorios e IGF > regionales y nacionales, apoyo a procesos de difusión, sensibilización y > producción de aportes durante toda la etapa preparatoria, mayor apoyo y > profundización de los servicios de participación remota durante los IGF > -nacionales, regionales, y global- como así también de las reuniones > preparatorias. > > - En cuanto al post-IGF, implica también la asistencia, financiamiento etc. > para procesos de gestión de información y conocimiento de lo producido > durante el IGF, que permitan optimizar el aprovechamiento, y por lo tanto el > impacto, de los contenidos y los procesos, en las regiones y países menos > desarrollados, donde el involucramiento aún no es suficiente. > > - Durante el IGF y reuniones preparatorias, mayor soporte y > perfeccionamiento de los mecanismos de participación remota, con énfasis en > el proceso de preparación de dichos procesos en las regiones y países con > menor posibilidad de participación. > > Hasta aquí lo que puedo aportar, de manera general, en este momento. Espero > sea de utilidad. > > Un abrazo, > Roxana > > > > > 2010/1/11 Ginger Paque > >> Hello everyone, >> I hope everyone is back and energetic for a productive (happy, healthy) >> 2010. >> >> Jeremy is still collating his efforts towards IGF reform, and will report >> as soon as he can. >> >> On less complex topics, is there interest in a short IGC written >> contribution, for example: >> 1. supporting rights and principles as an overarching theme >> 2. workshop structure to include a remote participation moderator and some >> kind of pre-event training for remote participation. >> >> Can we agree on a short concrete written contribution, or is it too short >> a time? Any thoughts? >> >> Best, >> Ginger >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From gpaque at gmail.com Mon Jan 11 10:22:41 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 10:52:41 -0430 Subject: [governance] Deadline for written Contributions to IGF In-Reply-To: <4ca4162f1001110701i65fc7351ld62f3917325ac971@mail.gmail.com> References: <4B4B0F14.5030601@gmail.com> <4ca4162f1001110701i65fc7351ld62f3917325ac971@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4B4B4241.8050508@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 jfcallo at isocperu.org Mon Jan 11 14:43:27 2010 From: jfcallo at isocperu.org (jfcallo at isocperu.org) Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 14:43:27 -0500 Subject: [governance] Interesante que se diga y se inscriba en nuestro idioma In-Reply-To: <4ca4162f1001110701i65fc7351ld62f3917325ac971@mail.gmail.com> References: <4B4B0F14.5030601@gmail.com> <4ca4162f1001110701i65fc7351ld62f3917325ac971@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20100111144327.sedj63a2f44wg8oc@www.isocperu.org> Respetable Roxana Goldstein: Previo saludo, es de sumo agrado leer una propuesta en español. Por lo general, algunos, como es mi caso, no escribo un buen ingles y se presta a confusiones. De hecho que el IGF, debe extender o ampliar su marco de accion. Por ejemplo tener uno a dos corresponsales por pais, de manera que se tenga un panorama amplio y real de cada pais, region o lugar. Lo explique en la lista de correos de ISOC, institucion a la que pertenesco. No basta con que los latinoamericanos tengamos un representante en el directorio de una u otra organizacion, pues muchas veces solo exponen su punto particular u obsesivamente subjetivo. En mi sencillo parecer, se requiere de una mayor representatividad y que en los Foros o Grandes reuniones se de oportunidad a otros actores, siempre los mismos año tras año; esta bien que representen a su organizacion pero con una mayor participacion y puntos de vista, estaremos no solo masificando Internet, sino que se de buen uso para la inclusion de diversas personas, incluyendo las personas con discapacidad, de lo contrario se aumentara el analfabestimo digital y su respectiva brecha y los seminarios y convenciones terminaran siendo viajes turisticos y no su razon principal de ser: contribuir a un mejor manejo y conocimiento de Internet. Gracias Atentamente 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 cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Mon Jan 11 16:00:22 2010 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 13:00:22 -0800 (PST) Subject: Aw: Re: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <108229.40195.qm@web83906.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Faulty logic Yehuda.   Mere numbers and size are not reasons large governments do not do things.  Perhaps you would do yourself a favor and study bureaucrats. --- On Fri, 1/8/10, Yehuda Katz wrote: From: Yehuda Katz Subject: Aw: Re: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Date: Friday, January 8, 2010, 6:55 PM Hurray for you Parminder! That was exactly my conncerns, when You'all were pushing for "Entiltlements" as I put it on Aug 2009 (Thu, 27th)*  through the IGC**: Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles . And it is exactly why the Chinese did not want it pursued [Try providing Entiltlements (Fulfill the Rights) for 1.3 Billion Chinese and then another 1.3 Indians], Governments weren't designed to handle the load. I'll go alittle further too say, And that's why I'm calling for something new (A new Government Design). - Ref: *  Right's Entitlements - ?How to Fund? per Yehuda Katz [governance] Right's Entitlements - ?How to Fund? http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/arc/governance/2009-08/msg00325.html ** Concensus Call per Lisa Horner FINAL STATEMENT (V6) – for consensus call http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/arc/governance/2009-09/msg00136.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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Jan 11 16:07:13 2010 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 13:07:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality In-Reply-To: <3uR9CBSqowRLFAqw@perry.co.uk> Message-ID: <58014.1157.qm@web83901.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Well done Roland  -- after all the posts we finally have a beginning point: --- On Fri, 1/8/10, Roland Perry wrote: Of course, I posed that rhetorical question because the overwhelming feeling I get from most lists like this is that Government intervention is not welcome when it comes particularly to meddling with content on the Internet (although some people are happier for Governments to intervene to break up large monopolistic infrastructure providers). -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________   Of course there are losers like me that do not have a bent.  We like to apply the principals/les but conclude on individual case by case. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Jan 11 16:08:44 2010 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 13:08:44 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Neutrality Message-ID: <954355.73231.qm@web83908.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Quotes are to numerous to help bolster this point;   If neutrality simply means doing nothing -- then it is not. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Jan 11 16:43:34 2010 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 13:43:34 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Deadline for written Contributions to IGF In-Reply-To: <4B4B0F14.5030601@gmail.com> Message-ID: <531907.61870.qm@web83912.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Ginger, (I am just about rested up from western holidays -- Only to start up again with Chuc Mung Nam Moi -- and Tet)   I would like to see a set of ideals that we would propose for every occassion that would require a paper contribution.  The occassions and sponsors and subject de jour can change but our overriding ideals should always be put forth:::::  on the practical side we would always be ready and always plug (shamelessly I hope;-) our ideals.   1. Seeking the highest levels of participation and contribution.   2. Consistency with the notion of individual rights.   3. Openness and transparency.   4. Inclusive as is reasonable.   5. As bottom up as is reliable.   These are not particular goals or principles. They are just what we have seen time and time again help to prevent bad governance. In keeping with good mandate, we are best serving the Internet, and non-internet community by reminding others of these good ideas. Of course there are many more, but this can encompass all and is never repeated enough. --- On Mon, 1/11/10, Ginger Paque wrote: From: Ginger Paque Subject: [governance] Deadline for written Contributions to IGF To: "'governance at lists.cpsr.org'" , "Jeremy Malcolm" Date: Monday, January 11, 2010, 11:44 AM Hello everyone, I hope everyone is back and energetic for a productive (happy, healthy) 2010. Jeremy is still collating his efforts towards IGF reform, and will report as soon as he can. On less complex topics, is there interest in a short IGC written contribution, for example: 1. supporting rights and principles as an overarching theme 2. workshop structure to include a remote participation moderator and some kind of pre-event training for remote participation. Can we agree on a short concrete written contribution, or is it too short a time? Any thoughts? Best, Ginger -----Inline Attachment Follows----- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Jan 11 21:14:47 2010 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (Yehuda Katz) Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 18:14:47 -0800 (PST) Subject: Aw: Re: Aw: Re: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net In-Reply-To: 108229.40195.qm@web83906.mail.sp1.yahoo.com Message-ID: I beg to differ Eric, Perhapes I should have posted Michael & Rolands comments together (below here), so that you may follow the logic. ..."Roland Perry wrote, à la Michael Gurstein: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/arc/governance/2010-01/msg00049.html In message , at 05:28:08 on Thu, 7 Jan 2010, Michael Gurstein writes >Well, as Margaret Thatcher (in)famously said at one point, "there is no >society" (and thus presumably no "social/public interest") and then she and >her accolytes proceeded to ensure through policy and process that her wish >was made flesh to the continuing detriment of all. "I think we've been through a period where too many people have been given to understand that if they have a problem, it's the government's job to cope with it. 'I have a problem, I'll get a grant.' 'I'm homeless, the government must house me.' They're casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society." So it's nothing to do with "social/public interest", but whether or not people can expect a magic financial crutch to support them in their adversity. It's almost exactly the same set of issues as the current USA healthcare debate. I wonder how many people on this list would wish that governments got themselves organised, and [attempted to] sort out all the perceived ills on the Internet, on the grounds that they believe the current mechanisms were failing their collective citizens? ... - ..."Roland Perry wrote: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/arc/governance/2010-01/msg00055.html ... That's a misrepresentation of the Thatcherite doctrine. The UK continued with policies that were much more socialist than many other countries (Nationalised Health and Education, widespread welfare system etc). Her statement, which is basically "There's no such thing as a Disney-esque Fairy Godmother" did not deny the possibility that the State should continue to organise a very wide range of state-run benefits, and collect large amounts of taxation to fund them! ... - ..."Roland Perry wrote: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/arc/governance/2010-01/msg00070.html In message <4B46D0F8.101 at itforchange.net>, at 12:00:16 on Fri, 8 Jan 2010, Parminder writes: >there is another ideology opposed to this one which believes that there is at >present large scale social injustice which has to be corrected by strong >positive measures for social justice - which often involves redistributive >measures which you call as 'magic financial crutch'. Just to be clear, I was describing what I believe to be Margaret Thatcher's views, when she made her much misquoted statements about "society". That was many years ago, and I don't necessarily agree with the philosophy either then, or now. But I do feel that if you are going to criticise someone, the least you can do first is properly understand what it is you are criticising. ..." - Just to be clear Eric, "Thatcher's Views" and any Goverment with ONE+Plus BILLION PEOPLE are going to have to venture off into the Magic Kingdom of Fairy God Mothers (or the 'Land of Bailouts & Voodoo Economics') in order to FUND the "Entitlements". And the Chinese proved my point. Roland and I are just being 'practical & pargmatic' about the economics surrounding the 'Request of Rights' this List deems to advance. If it were economically possible to do, it would have been done by now. So go ahead Eric, Fart in the Hurricane. -- ..." Eric Dierker wrote: >Faulty logic Yehuda. >Mere numbers and size are not reasons large governments do not do things. >Perhaps you would do yourself a favor and study bureaucrats. Perhapes You should study India, 'They' (Bureaucrats) are going to look you in the face, shake their heads, ah-ha, ah-ha,... and not do a damn thing about it, Because there is no way to do it. They don't have the structure or the economic resources to Fulfill the Rights that you so elequently impose upon them, by the swift touch of your electronic keyboard, sharp tongue, and first-world station in life. Adios Amigo ;-) --- On Fri, 1/8/10, Yehuda Katz wrote: From: Yehuda Katz Subject: Aw: Re: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Date: Friday, January 8, 2010, 6:55 PM >> >>Hurray for you Parminder! >> >>That was exactly my conncerns, when You'all were pushing for "Entiltlements" as >>I put it on Aug 2009 (Thu, 27th)* through the IGC**: Statement by IGC >>supporting rights and principles . >> >>And it is exactly why the Chinese did not want it pursued [Try providing >>Entiltlements (Fulfill the Rights) for 1.3 Billion Chinese and then another 1.3 >>Indians], Governments weren't designed to handle the load. >> >>I'll go alittle further too say, And that's why I'm calling for something new >>(A new Government Design). - Ref: * Right's Entitlements - ?How to Fund? per Yehuda Katz [governance] Right's Entitlements - ?How to Fund? http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/arc/governance/2009-08/msg00325.html ** Concensus Call per Lisa Horner FINAL STATEMENT (V6) – for consensus call http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/arc/governance/2009-09/msg00136.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 sebastien.bachollet at free.fr Tue Jan 12 00:39:08 2010 From: sebastien.bachollet at free.fr (=?iso-8859-1?Q?S=E9bastien_Bachollet?=) Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 06:39:08 +0100 Subject: [governance] TR: [ALAC-Announce] Director White Paper - Request for Comments Message-ID: <00b501ca9349$90570c40$b10524c0$@bachollet@free.fr> Dear all, It is my pleasure to forward you this message of the At-Large advisory committee of ICANN. Your comments are welcome preferably using the wiki comments (link in the messages bellow). Please forward it to you pears. All the best Chers amis, Je vous transmet, avec plaisir, ce message du comité At-Large de l'Icann. Vos commentaires sont les bienvenus de préférence en utilisant les possibilités de commentaires sur le wiki (les liens dans les messages ci-dessous). Merci de faire suivre ce message à vos collègues. Amicalement Estimado todos, Es mi placer de transmitir este mensajes del Consejo At-Large de ICANN. Sus comentarios son bienvenidos. Gracias Sébastien Bachollet Président d'honneur - Isoc France sebastien.bachollet at isoc.fr www.egeni.org www.isoc.fr * La version française est ci-dessous *La versión española está abajo Dear All, At its 22 December 2009 teleconference, the ALAC charged a small group with the task of creating an initial white paper on the proposed process for the selection of an ICANN At-Large Board Member to be distributed for wide-spread comment early in January 2010. Please find attached a copy of the Director White Paper in EN and FR for review. The Spanish document will be available in the next few days. The Director White Paper is also available for comment on wiki pages. The ‘portal page’ is available at: https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?director_white_paper. All members of the At-Large community are encouraged to comment on the Director White Paper prior to the next Community Call on the At-Large Selection Process to be scheduled between 27-29 January 2010 (a Doodle will be sent shortly). Comments will be accepted in any of the six UN languages. Please make your comments directly on the wiki page using the "comment" button. It is additionally requested that At-Large community members forward this message to other relevant lists to distribute the call for comments on the Director White Paper as widely as possible. Regards, ** Cher tous, À sa téléconférence du 22 décembre 2009, l'ALAC a chargé un petit groupe de la tâche de créer un premier livre blanc sur le procédé proposé pour le choix d'un membre du conseil At-Large d'ICANN à distribuer pour le commentaire répandu tôt en janvier 2010. Veuillez trouver ci-joint une copie du directeur livre blanc en en et franc pour la revue. Le document espagnol sera disponible en prochains jours. Le directeur livre blanc est également disponible pour le commentaire aux pages de wiki. Le page portique de `est disponible à : https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?director_white_paper. Tous les membres de la communauté At-Large sont encouragés à présenter leurs observations sur le directeur livre blanc avant le prochain faire appel de la Communauté au processus de sélection At-Large à programmer entre les 27-29 janvier 2010 (un Doodle sera envoyé sous peu). Des commentaires seront acceptés dans des six langues l'unes des de l'ONU. Veuillez formuler vos commentaires directement sur la page de wiki utilisant le " ; comment" ; bouton. On lui demande en plus que membre de la Communauté At-Large font suivre à ce message d'autres listes appropriées pour distribuer l'appel pour des commentaires sur le directeur livre blanc aussi largement comme possible. Cordialment, ** Estimado todos, En su teleconferencia del 22 de diciembre de 2009, el ALAC encargó a un pequeño grupo de la tarea de crear un Libro Blanco inicial en el proceso propuesto para la selección de un miembro del Consejo At-Large de ICANN que se distribuirá para el comentario extenso temprano en enero de 2010. Encuentre por favor ató una copia del director Libro Blanco en el EN y el franco para la revisión. El documento español estará disponible en los próximos días. El director Libro Blanco está también disponible para el comentario en las páginas del wiki. El page porta del `está disponible en: https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?director_white_paper. Animan a todos los miembros de la comunidad At-Large a comentar respecto al director Libro Blanco antes de la llamada siguiente de la comunidad en el proceso de selección At-Large que se programará entre el 27-29 de enero de 2010 (un Doodle será enviado pronto). Los comentarios serán aceptados en seis idiomas unas de los de la O.N.U. Haga por favor sus comentarios directamente en la página del wiki usando el " comment" botón. Se pide además que los miembros de la Comunidad At-Large transmiten a este mensaje otras listas relevantes para distribuir la llamada para los comentarios sobre el director Libro Blanco tan extensamente como sea posible. Respetos, Heidi Ullrich, Matthias Langenegger, Gisella Gruber-White, Marilyn Vernon, Kristina Nordström ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff[at]atlarge.icann.org website: www.atlarge.icann.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ABS White Paper_FINAL_11012011_EN.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 335437 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Call for community Comment on ABS White Paper_FR_final.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 207549 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: ATT00086.txt URL: From b.schombe at gmail.com Tue Jan 12 03:27:50 2010 From: b.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin SCHOMBE) Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 09:27:50 +0100 Subject: [governance] Deadline for written Contributions to IGF In-Reply-To: <4ca4162f1001110701i65fc7351ld62f3917325ac971@mail.gmail.com> References: <4B4B0F14.5030601@gmail.com> <4ca4162f1001110701i65fc7351ld62f3917325ac971@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi all, I think translation is very necessary Baudouin 2010/1/11, Roxana Goldstein : > Hi Ginger, and all. > With short time, there go some ideas to include, excuse me they go in > spanish, I expect Ginger can make a perfect translation :): > > - el proceso preparatorio debería incluir soporte, asistencia para producir > procesos participativos que permitan sensibilizar a más actores sociales y > que faciliten la producción de aportes (documentos, investigaciones, > preparación de workshops, etc.) que expresen las necesidades y posturas de > los países y regiones menos representadas, a las que más difícil les resulta > trasladarse, y en las que las problemáticas relativas a la IG están menos > difundidas y la sociedad menos informada e involucrada en estos procesos. > Esta idea implica, por ejemplo: mayor financiamiento para investigaciones, > mayor apoyo financiero y de todo tipo para procesos preparatorios e IGF > regionales y nacionales, apoyo a procesos de difusión, sensibilización y > producción de aportes durante toda la etapa preparatoria, mayor apoyo y > profundización de los servicios de participación remota durante los IGF > -nacionales, regionales, y global- como así también de las reuniones > preparatorias. > > - En cuanto al post-IGF, implica también la asistencia, financiamiento etc. > para procesos de gestión de información y conocimiento de lo producido > durante el IGF, que permitan optimizar el aprovechamiento, y por lo tanto el > impacto, de los contenidos y los procesos, en las regiones y países menos > desarrollados, donde el involucramiento aún no es suficiente. > > - Durante el IGF y reuniones preparatorias, mayor soporte y > perfeccionamiento de los mecanismos de participación remota, con énfasis en > el proceso de preparación de dichos procesos en las regiones y países con > menor posibilidad de participación. > > Hasta aquí lo que puedo aportar, de manera general, en este momento. Espero > sea de utilidad. > > Un abrazo, > Roxana > > > > > 2010/1/11 Ginger Paque > >> Hello everyone, >> I hope everyone is back and energetic for a productive (happy, healthy) >> 2010. >> >> Jeremy is still collating his efforts towards IGF reform, and will report >> as soon as he can. >> >> On less complex topics, is there interest in a short IGC written >> contribution, for example: >> 1. supporting rights and principles as an overarching theme >> 2. workshop structure to include a remote participation moderator and some >> kind of pre-event training for remote participation. >> >> Can we agree on a short concrete written contribution, or is it too short >> a >> time? Any thoughts? >> >> Best, >> Ginger >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> > -- 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. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From vanda at uol.com.br Tue Jan 12 07:28:26 2010 From: vanda at uol.com.br (Vanda UOL) Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 10:28:26 -0200 Subject: [governance] TR: ICANN Fellowship Program In-Reply-To: <00b501ca9349$90570c40$b10524c0$@bachollet@free.fr> References: <00b501ca9349$90570c40$b10524c0$@bachollet@free.fr> Message-ID: <013001ca9382$c12a8020$437f8060$@com.br> Dear all, Estimados amigos, Chers Amis Please access http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-11jan10-en.htm to analyze the opportunity to join ICANN meeting in Brussels next June. Por favor vean en http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-11jan10-en.htm la oportunidad de participar en la conferencia de ICANN en Bruselas el próximo Junio Svp accès http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-11jan10-en.htm pour analyser l'occasion de joindre la réunion d'ICANN à Bruxelles juin prochain. Thank you for your attention / Gracias por su atención / Merci pour votre attention Vanda Scartezini Fellowship Program Committee ICANN Board – ALAC Liaison www.executivasdeti.blogspot.com -----Original Message----- From: Sébastien Bachollet [mailto:sebastien.bachollet at free.fr] Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 3:39 AM To: Sébastien Bachollet Subject: [governance] TR: [ALAC-Announce] Director White Paper - Request for Comments Dear all, It is my pleasure to forward you this message of the At-Large advisory committee of ICANN. Your comments are welcome preferably using the wiki comments (link in the messages bellow). Please forward it to you pears. All the best Chers amis, Je vous transmet, avec plaisir, ce message du comité At-Large de l'Icann. Vos commentaires sont les bienvenus de préférence en utilisant les possibilités de commentaires sur le wiki (les liens dans les messages ci-dessous). Merci de faire suivre ce message à vos collègues. Amicalement Estimado todos, Es mi placer de transmitir este mensajes del Consejo At-Large de ICANN. Sus comentarios son bienvenidos. Gracias Sébastien Bachollet Président d'honneur - Isoc France sebastien.bachollet at isoc.fr www.egeni.org www.isoc.fr * La version française est ci-dessous *La versión española está abajo Dear All, At its 22 December 2009 teleconference, the ALAC charged a small group with the task of creating an initial white paper on the proposed process for the selection of an ICANN At-Large Board Member to be distributed for wide-spread comment early in January 2010. Please find attached a copy of the Director White Paper in EN and FR for review. The Spanish document will be available in the next few days. The Director White Paper is also available for comment on wiki pages. The ‘portal page’ is available at: https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?director_white_paper. All members of the At-Large community are encouraged to comment on the Director White Paper prior to the next Community Call on the At-Large Selection Process to be scheduled between 27-29 January 2010 (a Doodle will be sent shortly). Comments will be accepted in any of the six UN languages. Please make your comments directly on the wiki page using the "comment" button. It is additionally requested that At-Large community members forward this message to other relevant lists to distribute the call for comments on the Director White Paper as widely as possible. Regards, ** Cher tous, À sa téléconférence du 22 décembre 2009, l'ALAC a chargé un petit groupe de la tâche de créer un premier livre blanc sur le procédé proposé pour le choix d'un membre du conseil At-Large d'ICANN à distribuer pour le commentaire répandu tôt en janvier 2010. Veuillez trouver ci-joint une copie du directeur livre blanc en en et franc pour la revue. Le document espagnol sera disponible en prochains jours. Le directeur livre blanc est également disponible pour le commentaire aux pages de wiki. Le page portique de `est disponible à : https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?director_white_paper. Tous les membres de la communauté At-Large sont encouragés à présenter leurs observations sur le directeur livre blanc avant le prochain faire appel de la Communauté au processus de sélection At-Large à programmer entre les 27-29 janvier 2010 (un Doodle sera envoyé sous peu). Des commentaires seront acceptés dans des six langues l'unes des de l'ONU. Veuillez formuler vos commentaires directement sur la page de wiki utilisant le " ; comment" ; bouton. On lui demande en plus que membre de la Communauté At-Large font suivre à ce message d'autres listes appropriées pour distribuer l'appel pour des commentaires sur le directeur livre blanc aussi largement comme possible. Cordialment, ** Estimado todos, En su teleconferencia del 22 de diciembre de 2009, el ALAC encargó a un pequeño grupo de la tarea de crear un Libro Blanco inicial en el proceso propuesto para la selección de un miembro del Consejo At-Large de ICANN que se distribuirá para el comentario extenso temprano en enero de 2010. Encuentre por favor ató una copia del director Libro Blanco en el EN y el franco para la revisión. El documento español estará disponible en los próximos días. El director Libro Blanco está también disponible para el comentario en las páginas del wiki. El page porta del `está disponible en: https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?director_white_paper. Animan a todos los miembros de la comunidad At-Large a comentar respecto al director Libro Blanco antes de la llamada siguiente de la comunidad en el proceso de selección At-Large que se programará entre el 27-29 de enero de 2010 (un Doodle será enviado pronto). Los comentarios serán aceptados en seis idiomas unas de los de la O.N.U. Haga por favor sus comentarios directamente en la página del wiki usando el " comment" botón. Se pide además que los miembros de la Comunidad At-Large transmiten a este mensaje otras listas relevantes para distribuir la llamada para los comentarios sobre el director Libro Blanco tan extensamente como sea posible. Respetos, Heidi Ullrich, Matthias Langenegger, Gisella Gruber-White, Marilyn Vernon, Kristina Nordström ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff[at]atlarge.icann.org website: www.atlarge.icann.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From correia.rui at gmail.com Tue Jan 12 07:48:32 2010 From: correia.rui at gmail.com (Rui Correia) Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 14:48:32 +0200 Subject: [governance] TR: ICANN Fellowship Program In-Reply-To: <013001ca9382$c12a8020$437f8060$@com.br> References: <013001ca9382$c12a8020$437f8060$@com.br> Message-ID: [Vanda - this is not directed at you; I can see it comes from the PR] I wonder who came up with this idiotic use o the word "fellowship" when referring to what is in fact a sponsorship to cover travel and accommodation (and "a stipend"). Then just to crown it, those who get the fellowships are called "alumni"! Must come from the same bright linguist who decided it was fine to use the word "itinerary" for an event programme! "Itinerary > Day 1 > Day 2" etc, all in the same venue! Rui 2010/1/12 Vanda UOL : > Dear all, Estimados amigos, Chers Amis > > > > Please access >   http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-11jan10-en.htm  to > analyze the opportunity to join ICANN meeting in Brussels next June. > > > > Por favor vean en > http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-11jan10-en.htm la > oportunidad de participar en la conferencia de ICANN en Bruselas el próximo > Junio > > > > Svp accès  http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-11jan10-en.htm >  pour analyser l'occasion de joindre la réunion d'ICANN à Bruxelles juin > prochain. > > > > > > Thank you for your attention / Gracias por su atención / Merci pour votre > attention > > > > > > Vanda Scartezini > > Fellowship Program Committee > > ICANN Board – ALAC Liaison > > www.executivasdeti.blogspot.com > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Sébastien Bachollet [mailto:sebastien.bachollet at free.fr] > Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 3:39 AM > To: Sébastien Bachollet > Subject: [governance] TR: [ALAC-Announce] Director White Paper - Request for > Comments > > > > Dear all, > > It is my pleasure to forward you this message of the At-Large advisory > committee of ICANN. > > Your comments are welcome preferably using the wiki comments (link in the > messages bellow). > > Please forward it to you pears. > > All the best > > > > Chers amis, > > Je vous transmet, avec plaisir, ce message du comité At-Large de l'Icann. > > Vos commentaires sont les bienvenus de préférence en utilisant les > possibilités de commentaires sur le wiki (les liens dans les messages > ci-dessous). > > Merci de faire suivre ce message à vos collègues. > > Amicalement > > > > Estimado todos, > > Es mi placer de transmitir este mensajes del Consejo At-Large de ICANN. > > Sus comentarios son bienvenidos. > > Gracias > > > > Sébastien Bachollet > > Président d'honneur - Isoc France > > sebastien.bachollet at isoc.fr > > www.egeni.org > > www.isoc.fr > > > > * La version française est ci-dessous > > > > *La versión española está abajo > > > > > > > > Dear All, > > > > > > > > At its 22 December 2009 teleconference, the ALAC charged a small group with > the task of creating an initial white paper on the proposed process for the > selection of an ICANN At-Large Board Member to be distributed for > wide-spread comment early in January 2010. > > > > > > > > Please find attached a copy of the Director White Paper in EN and FR for > review. The Spanish document will be available in the next few days. > > > > > > > > The Director White Paper is also available for comment on wiki pages. The > ‘portal page’ is available at: > > > > https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?director_white_paper. > > > > > > > > All members of the At-Large community are encouraged to comment on the > Director White Paper prior to the next Community Call on the At-Large > Selection Process to be scheduled between 27-29 January 2010 (a Doodle will > be sent shortly). > > > > > > > > Comments will be accepted in any of the six UN languages. Please make your > comments directly on the wiki page using the "comment" button. > > > > > > > > It is additionally requested that At-Large community members forward this > message to other relevant lists to distribute the call for comments on the > Director White Paper as widely as possible. > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > ** > > > > Cher tous, > > > > > > > > À sa téléconférence du 22 décembre 2009, l'ALAC a chargé un petit groupe de > la tâche de créer un premier livre blanc sur le procédé proposé pour le > choix d'un membre du conseil At-Large d'ICANN à distribuer pour le > commentaire répandu tôt en janvier 2010. > > > > > > > > Veuillez trouver ci-joint une copie du directeur livre blanc en en et franc > pour la revue.  Le document espagnol sera disponible en prochains jours. > > > > > > > > Le directeur livre blanc est également disponible pour le commentaire aux > pages de wiki. Le page portique de `est disponible à : > > https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?director_white_paper. > > > > > > > > Tous les membres de la communauté At-Large sont encouragés à présenter leurs > observations sur le directeur livre blanc avant le prochain faire appel de > la Communauté au processus de sélection At-Large à programmer entre les > > 27-29 janvier 2010 (un Doodle sera envoyé sous peu). > > > > > > > > Des commentaires seront acceptés dans des six langues l'unes des de l'ONU. > > Veuillez formuler vos commentaires directement sur la page de wiki utilisant > le " ; comment" ; bouton. > > > > > > > > On lui demande en plus que membre de la Communauté At-Large font suivre à ce > message d'autres listes appropriées pour distribuer l'appel pour des > commentaires sur le directeur livre blanc aussi largement comme possible. > > > > > > > > Cordialment, > > > > > > > > ** > > > > > > > > Estimado todos, > > > > > > > > En su teleconferencia del 22 de diciembre de 2009, el ALAC encargó a un > pequeño grupo de la tarea de crear un Libro Blanco inicial en el proceso > propuesto para la selección de un miembro del Consejo At-Large de ICANN que > se distribuirá para el comentario extenso temprano en enero de 2010. > > > > > > > > Encuentre por favor ató una copia del director Libro Blanco en el EN y el > franco para la revisión. El documento español estará disponible en los > próximos días. > > > > > > > > El director Libro Blanco está también disponible para el comentario en las > páginas del wiki. El page porta del `está disponible en: > > https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?director_white_paper. > > > > > > > > Animan a todos los miembros de la comunidad At-Large a comentar respecto al > director Libro Blanco antes de la llamada siguiente de la comunidad en el > proceso de selección At-Large que se programará entre el 27-29 de enero de > 2010 (un Doodle será enviado pronto). > > > > > > > > Los comentarios serán aceptados en seis idiomas unas de los de la O.N.U. > > Haga por favor sus comentarios directamente en la página del wiki usando el > " comment" botón. > > > > > > > > Se pide además que los miembros de la Comunidad At-Large transmiten a este > mensaje otras listas relevantes para distribuir la llamada para los > comentarios sobre el director Libro Blanco tan extensamente como sea > posible. > > > > > > > > Respetos, > > > > > > > > Heidi Ullrich, Matthias Langenegger, Gisella Gruber-White, Marilyn Vernon, > Kristina Nordström ICANN At-Large Staff > > > > email: staff[at]atlarge.icann.org > > website: www.atlarge.icann.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 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- ________________________________________________ Rui Correia Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant Angola Liaison Consultant 2 Cutten St Horison Roodepoort-Johannesburg, South Africa Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 _______________ áâãçéêíóôõúç ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From correia.rui at gmail.com Tue Jan 12 07:56:03 2010 From: correia.rui at gmail.com (Rui Correia) Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 14:56:03 +0200 Subject: [governance] TR: ICANN Fellowship Program In-Reply-To: References: <013001ca9382$c12a8020$437f8060$@com.br> Message-ID: And it is announced in three languages, but once you click through, it is only in English! Way to go, ICANN! That surely shows dedication to your pledges of representativeness! Rui 2010/1/12 Rui Correia : > [Vanda - this is not directed at you; I can see it comes from the PR] > > I wonder who came up with this idiotic use o the word "fellowship" > when referring to what is in fact a sponsorship to cover travel and > accommodation (and "a stipend"). Then just to crown it, those who get > the fellowships are called "alumni"! > > Must come from the same bright linguist who decided it was fine to use > the word "itinerary" for an event programme! "Itinerary > Day 1 > Day > 2" etc, all in the same venue! > > Rui > > > > 2010/1/12 Vanda UOL : >> Dear all, Estimados amigos, Chers Amis >> >> >> >> Please access >>   http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-11jan10-en.htm  to >> analyze the opportunity to join ICANN meeting in Brussels next June. >> >> >> >> Por favor vean en >> http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-11jan10-en.htm la >> oportunidad de participar en la conferencia de ICANN en Bruselas el próximo >> Junio >> >> >> >> Svp accès  http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-11jan10-en.htm >>  pour analyser l'occasion de joindre la réunion d'ICANN à Bruxelles juin >> prochain. >> >> >> >> >> >> Thank you for your attention / Gracias por su atención / Merci pour votre >> attention >> >> >> >> >> >> Vanda Scartezini >> >> Fellowship Program Committee >> >> ICANN Board – ALAC Liaison >> >> www.executivasdeti.blogspot.com >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Sébastien Bachollet [mailto:sebastien.bachollet at free.fr] >> Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 3:39 AM >> To: Sébastien Bachollet >> Subject: [governance] TR: [ALAC-Announce] Director White Paper - Request for >> Comments >> >> >> >> Dear all, >> >> It is my pleasure to forward you this message of the At-Large advisory >> committee of ICANN. >> >> Your comments are welcome preferably using the wiki comments (link in the >> messages bellow). >> >> Please forward it to you pears. >> >> All the best >> >> >> >> Chers amis, >> >> Je vous transmet, avec plaisir, ce message du comité At-Large de l'Icann. >> >> Vos commentaires sont les bienvenus de préférence en utilisant les >> possibilités de commentaires sur le wiki (les liens dans les messages >> ci-dessous). >> >> Merci de faire suivre ce message à vos collègues. >> >> Amicalement >> >> >> >> Estimado todos, >> >> Es mi placer de transmitir este mensajes del Consejo At-Large de ICANN. >> >> Sus comentarios son bienvenidos. >> >> Gracias >> >> >> >> Sébastien Bachollet >> >> Président d'honneur - Isoc France >> >> sebastien.bachollet at isoc.fr >> >> www.egeni.org >> >> www.isoc.fr >> >> >> >> * La version française est ci-dessous >> >> >> >> *La versión española está abajo >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Dear All, >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> At its 22 December 2009 teleconference, the ALAC charged a small group with >> the task of creating an initial white paper on the proposed process for the >> selection of an ICANN At-Large Board Member to be distributed for >> wide-spread comment early in January 2010. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Please find attached a copy of the Director White Paper in EN and FR for >> review. The Spanish document will be available in the next few days. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> The Director White Paper is also available for comment on wiki pages. The >> ‘portal page’ is available at: >> >> >> >> https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?director_white_paper. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> All members of the At-Large community are encouraged to comment on the >> Director White Paper prior to the next Community Call on the At-Large >> Selection Process to be scheduled between 27-29 January 2010 (a Doodle will >> be sent shortly). >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Comments will be accepted in any of the six UN languages. Please make your >> comments directly on the wiki page using the "comment" button. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> It is additionally requested that At-Large community members forward this >> message to other relevant lists to distribute the call for comments on the >> Director White Paper as widely as possible. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Regards, >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ** >> >> >> >> Cher tous, >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> À sa téléconférence du 22 décembre 2009, l'ALAC a chargé un petit groupe de >> la tâche de créer un premier livre blanc sur le procédé proposé pour le >> choix d'un membre du conseil At-Large d'ICANN à distribuer pour le >> commentaire répandu tôt en janvier 2010. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Veuillez trouver ci-joint une copie du directeur livre blanc en en et franc >> pour la revue.  Le document espagnol sera disponible en prochains jours. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Le directeur livre blanc est également disponible pour le commentaire aux >> pages de wiki. Le page portique de `est disponible à : >> >> https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?director_white_paper. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Tous les membres de la communauté At-Large sont encouragés à présenter leurs >> observations sur le directeur livre blanc avant le prochain faire appel de >> la Communauté au processus de sélection At-Large à programmer entre les >> >> 27-29 janvier 2010 (un Doodle sera envoyé sous peu). >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Des commentaires seront acceptés dans des six langues l'unes des de l'ONU. >> >> Veuillez formuler vos commentaires directement sur la page de wiki utilisant >> le " ; comment" ; bouton. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On lui demande en plus que membre de la Communauté At-Large font suivre à ce >> message d'autres listes appropriées pour distribuer l'appel pour des >> commentaires sur le directeur livre blanc aussi largement comme possible. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Cordialment, >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ** >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Estimado todos, >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> En su teleconferencia del 22 de diciembre de 2009, el ALAC encargó a un >> pequeño grupo de la tarea de crear un Libro Blanco inicial en el proceso >> propuesto para la selección de un miembro del Consejo At-Large de ICANN que >> se distribuirá para el comentario extenso temprano en enero de 2010. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Encuentre por favor ató una copia del director Libro Blanco en el EN y el >> franco para la revisión. El documento español estará disponible en los >> próximos días. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> El director Libro Blanco está también disponible para el comentario en las >> páginas del wiki. El page porta del `está disponible en: >> >> https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?director_white_paper. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Animan a todos los miembros de la comunidad At-Large a comentar respecto al >> director Libro Blanco antes de la llamada siguiente de la comunidad en el >> proceso de selección At-Large que se programará entre el 27-29 de enero de >> 2010 (un Doodle será enviado pronto). >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Los comentarios serán aceptados en seis idiomas unas de los de la O.N.U. >> >> Haga por favor sus comentarios directamente en la página del wiki usando el >> " comment" botón. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Se pide además que los miembros de la Comunidad At-Large transmiten a este >> mensaje otras listas relevantes para distribuir la llamada para los >> comentarios sobre el director Libro Blanco tan extensamente como sea >> posible. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Respetos, >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Heidi Ullrich, Matthias Langenegger, Gisella Gruber-White, Marilyn Vernon, >> Kristina Nordström ICANN At-Large Staff >> >> >> >> email: staff[at]atlarge.icann.org >> >> website: www.atlarge.icann.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 >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>     governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > > > -- > ________________________________________________ > > > Rui Correia > Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant > Angola Liaison Consultant > 2 Cutten St > Horison > Roodepoort-Johannesburg, > South Africa > Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 > Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 > _______________ > áâãçéêíóôõúç > -- ________________________________________________ Rui Correia Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant Angola Liaison Consultant 2 Cutten St Horison Roodepoort-Johannesburg, South Africa Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 _______________ áâãçéêíóôõúç ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Tue Jan 12 08:06:36 2010 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 22:06:36 +0900 Subject: [governance] TR: ICANN Fellowship Program In-Reply-To: References: <013001ca9382$c12a8020$437f8060$@com.br> Message-ID: I suspect the intention has been to create something more than just a travel support grant. The "fellows" are required to attend daily briefings while at the ICANN meeting and to be active in meeting sessions, write a report, show value they have taken back from the meeting. By take back, I mean something that has an input to a larger group (ccTLD, government, some community) so their participation isn't just a one-off personal benefit. At least that's my understanding. Very easy to give someone a ticket and cover their hotel costs and not put any support programmes in place, and ICANN did that for a couple of years in the early part of the decade (it had some value, but could have done more, I know a few on this list who benefited.) The Fellowship Program is trying to do something more, and has good feedback so perhaps it's working. Adam >[Vanda - this is not directed at you; I can see it comes from the PR] > >I wonder who came up with this idiotic use o the word "fellowship" >when referring to what is in fact a sponsorship to cover travel and >accommodation (and "a stipend"). Then just to crown it, those who get >the fellowships are called "alumni"! > >Must come from the same bright linguist who decided it was fine to use >the word "itinerary" for an event programme! "Itinerary > Day 1 > Day >2" etc, all in the same venue! > >Rui > > > >2010/1/12 Vanda UOL : >> Dear all, Estimados amigos, Chers Amis >> >> >> >> Please access > > http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-11jan10-en.htm to >> analyze the opportunity to join ICANN meeting in Brussels next June. >> >> >> >> Por favor vean en >> http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-11jan10-en.htm la >> oportunidad de participar en la conferencia de ICANN en Bruselas el próximo >> Junio >> >> >> >> Svp accès http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-11jan10-en.htm >> pour analyser l'occasion de joindre la réunion d'ICANN à Bruxelles juin >> prochain. >> >> >> >> >> >> Thank you for your attention / Gracias por su atención / Merci pour votre >> attention >> >> >> >> >> >> Vanda Scartezini >> >> Fellowship Program Committee >> >> ICANN Board ­ ALAC Liaison >> >> www.executivasdeti.blogspot.com >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Sébastien Bachollet [mailto:sebastien.bachollet at free.fr] >> Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 3:39 AM >> To: Sébastien Bachollet >> Subject: [governance] TR: [ALAC-Announce] Director White Paper - Request for >> Comments >> >> >> >> Dear all, >> >> It is my pleasure to forward you this message of the At-Large advisory >> committee of ICANN. >> >> Your comments are welcome preferably using the wiki comments (link in the >> messages bellow). >> >> Please forward it to you pears. >> >> All the best >> >> >> >> Chers amis, >> >> Je vous transmet, avec plaisir, ce message du comité At-Large de l'Icann. >> >> Vos commentaires sont les bienvenus de préférence en utilisant les >> possibilités de commentaires sur le wiki (les liens dans les messages >> ci-dessous). >> >> Merci de faire suivre ce message à vos collègues. >> >> Amicalement >> >> >> >> Estimado todos, >> >> Es mi placer de transmitir este mensajes del Consejo At-Large de ICANN. >> >> Sus comentarios son bienvenidos. >> >> Gracias >> >> >> >> Sébastien Bachollet >> >> Président d'honneur - Isoc France >> >> sebastien.bachollet at isoc.fr >> >> www.egeni.org >> >> www.isoc.fr >> >> >> >> * La version française est ci-dessous >> >> >> >> *La versión española está abajo >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Dear All, >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> At its 22 December 2009 teleconference, the ALAC charged a small group with >> the task of creating an initial white paper on the proposed process for the >> selection of an ICANN At-Large Board Member to be distributed for >> wide-spread comment early in January 2010. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Please find attached a copy of the Director White Paper in EN and FR for >> review. The Spanish document will be available in the next few days. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> The Director White Paper is also available for comment on wiki pages. The > > Œportal page¹ is available at: >> >> >> >> https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?director_white_paper. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> All members of the At-Large community are encouraged to comment on the >> Director White Paper prior to the next Community Call on the At-Large >> Selection Process to be scheduled between 27-29 January 2010 (a Doodle will >> be sent shortly). >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Comments will be accepted in any of the six UN languages. Please make your >> comments directly on the wiki page using the "comment" button. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> It is additionally requested that At-Large community members forward this >> message to other relevant lists to distribute the call for comments on the >> Director White Paper as widely as possible. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Regards, >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ** >> >> >> >> Cher tous, >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> À sa téléconférence du 22 décembre 2009, l'ALAC a chargé un petit groupe de >> la tâche de créer un premier livre blanc sur le procédé proposé pour le >> choix d'un membre du conseil At-Large d'ICANN à distribuer pour le >> commentaire répandu tôt en janvier 2010. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Veuillez trouver ci-joint une copie du directeur livre blanc en en et franc >> pour la revue. Le document espagnol sera disponible en prochains jours. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Le directeur livre blanc est également disponible pour le commentaire aux >> pages de wiki. Le page portique de `est disponible à : >> >> https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?director_white_paper. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Tous les membres de la communauté At-Large sont encouragés à présenter leurs >> observations sur le directeur livre blanc avant le prochain faire appel de >> la Communauté au processus de sélection At-Large à programmer entre les >> >> 27-29 janvier 2010 (un Doodle sera envoyé sous peu). >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Des commentaires seront acceptés dans des six langues l'unes des de l'ONU. >> >> Veuillez formuler vos commentaires directement sur la page de wiki utilisant >> le " ; comment" ; bouton. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On lui demande en plus que membre de la Communauté At-Large font suivre à ce >> message d'autres listes appropriées pour distribuer l'appel pour des >> commentaires sur le directeur livre blanc aussi largement comme possible. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Cordialment, >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ** >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Estimado todos, >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> En su teleconferencia del 22 de diciembre de 2009, el ALAC encargó a un >> pequeño grupo de la tarea de crear un Libro Blanco inicial en el proceso >> propuesto para la selección de un miembro del Consejo At-Large de ICANN que >> se distribuirá para el comentario extenso temprano en enero de 2010. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Encuentre por favor ató una copia del director Libro Blanco en el EN y el >> franco para la revisión. El documento español estará disponible en los >> próximos días. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> El director Libro Blanco está también disponible para el comentario en las >> páginas del wiki. El page porta del `está disponible en: >> >> https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?director_white_paper. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Animan a todos los miembros de la comunidad At-Large a comentar respecto al >> director Libro Blanco antes de la llamada siguiente de la comunidad en el >> proceso de selección At-Large que se programará entre el 27-29 de enero de >> 2010 (un Doodle será enviado pronto). >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Los comentarios serán aceptados en seis idiomas unas de los de la O.N.U. >> >> Haga por favor sus comentarios directamente en la página del wiki usando el >> " comment" botón. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Se pide además que los miembros de la Comunidad At-Large transmiten a este >> mensaje otras listas relevantes para distribuir la llamada para los >> comentarios sobre el director Libro Blanco tan extensamente como sea >> posible. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Respetos, >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Heidi Ullrich, Matthias Langenegger, Gisella Gruber-White, Marilyn Vernon, >> Kristina Nordström ICANN At-Large Staff >> >> >> >> email: staff[at]atlarge.icann.org >> >> website: www.atlarge.icann.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 >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > > >-- >________________________________________________ > > >Rui Correia >Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant >Angola Liaison Consultant >2 Cutten St >Horison >Roodepoort-Johannesburg, >South Africa >Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 >Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 >_______________ >áâãçéêíóôõúç >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From correia.rui at gmail.com Tue Jan 12 08:30:48 2010 From: correia.rui at gmail.com (Rui Correia) Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 15:30:48 +0200 Subject: [governance] TR: ICANN Fellowship Program In-Reply-To: References: <013001ca9382$c12a8020$437f8060$@com.br> Message-ID: Adam, Fair enough. However, and using an example I was personally involved with - at Highway Africa (largest annual gathering of journalists from across Africa), a similar procedure is used, with people applying to attend with cost covered and some to take part in 5-day long professional courses after the conference (total 9-10 days), and yet, it is called merely a sponsorship. I could understand a three-month stint being called a fellowship - not the 3-day ICANN event. It is PR gold-spraying. As for the document being only in English, for EUR 4,500 ICANN could have had it translated into all 11 languages that are displayed in bar of the said document. In fact, EUR 3,000 would be enough, it it left out the part about "what is ICANN". Rui 2010/1/12 Adam Peake : > I suspect the intention has been to create something more than just a travel > support grant. The "fellows" are required to attend daily briefings while at > the ICANN meeting and to be active in meeting sessions, write a report, show > value they have taken back from the meeting.  By take back, I mean something > that has an input to a larger group (ccTLD, government, some community) so > their participation isn't just a one-off personal benefit. At least that's > my understanding. > > Very easy to give someone a ticket and cover their hotel costs and not put > any support programmes in place, and ICANN did that for a couple of years in > the early part of the decade (it had some value, but could have done more, I > know a few on this list who benefited.)  The Fellowship Program is trying to > do something more, and has good feedback so perhaps it's working. > > Adam > > > >> [Vanda - this is not directed at you; I can see it comes from the PR] >> >> I wonder who came up with this idiotic use o the word "fellowship" >> when referring to what is in fact a sponsorship to cover travel and >> accommodation (and "a stipend"). Then just to crown it, those who get >> the fellowships are called "alumni"! >> >> Must come from the same bright linguist who decided it was fine to use >> the word "itinerary" for an event programme! "Itinerary > Day 1 > Day >> 2" etc, all in the same venue! >> >> Rui >> >> >> >> 2010/1/12 Vanda UOL : >>> >>>  Dear all, Estimados amigos, Chers Amis >>> >>> >>> >>>  Please access >> >>  >   http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-11jan10-en.htm  to >>> >>>  analyze the opportunity to join ICANN meeting in Brussels next June. >>> >>> >>> >>>  Por favor vean en >>>  http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-11jan10-en.htm la >>>  oportunidad de participar en la conferencia de ICANN en Bruselas el >>> próximo >>>  Junio >>> >>> >>> >>>  Svp accès >>>  http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-11jan10-en.htm >>>  pour analyser l'occasion de joindre la réunion d'ICANN à Bruxelles juin >>>  prochain. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>  Thank you for your attention / Gracias por su atención / Merci pour >>> votre >>>  attention >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>  Vanda Scartezini >>> >>>  Fellowship Program Committee >>> >>>  ICANN Board ­ ALAC Liaison >>> >>>  www.executivasdeti.blogspot.com >>> >>> >>> >>>  -----Original Message----- >>>  From: Sébastien Bachollet [mailto:sebastien.bachollet at free.fr] >>>  Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 3:39 AM >>>  To: Sébastien Bachollet >>>  Subject: [governance] TR: [ALAC-Announce] Director White Paper - Request >>> for >>>  Comments >>> >>> >>> >>>  Dear all, >>> >>>  It is my pleasure to forward you this message of the At-Large advisory >>>  committee of ICANN. >>> >>>  Your comments are welcome preferably using the wiki comments (link in >>> the >>>  messages bellow). >>> >>>  Please forward it to you pears. >>> >>>  All the best >>> >>> >>> >>>  Chers amis, >>> >>>  Je vous transmet, avec plaisir, ce message du comité At-Large de >>> l'Icann. >>> >>>  Vos commentaires sont les bienvenus de préférence en utilisant les >>>  possibilités de commentaires sur le wiki (les liens dans les messages >>>  ci-dessous). >>> >>>  Merci de faire suivre ce message à vos collègues. >>> >>>  Amicalement >>> >>> >>> >>>  Estimado todos, >>> >>>  Es mi placer de transmitir este mensajes del Consejo At-Large de ICANN. >>> >>>  Sus comentarios son bienvenidos. >>> >>>  Gracias >>> >>> >>> >>>  Sébastien Bachollet >>> >>>  Président d'honneur - Isoc France >>> >>>  sebastien.bachollet at isoc.fr >>> >>>  www.egeni.org >>> >>>  www.isoc.fr >>> >>> >>> >>>  * La version française est ci-dessous >>> >>> >>> >>>  *La versión española está abajo >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>  Dear All, >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>  At its 22 December 2009 teleconference, the ALAC charged a small group >>> with >>>  the task of creating an initial white paper on the proposed process for >>> the >>>  selection of an ICANN At-Large Board Member to be distributed for >>>  wide-spread comment early in January 2010. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>  Please find attached a copy of the Director White Paper in EN and FR for >>>  review. The Spanish document will be available in the next few days. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>  The Director White Paper is also available for comment on wiki pages. >>> The >> >>  > Œportal page¹ is available at: >>> >>> >>> >>>  https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?director_white_paper. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>  All members of the At-Large community are encouraged to comment on the >>>  Director White Paper prior to the next Community Call on the At-Large >>>  Selection Process to be scheduled between 27-29 January 2010 (a Doodle >>> will >>>  be sent shortly). >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>  Comments will be accepted in any of the six UN languages. Please make >>> your >>>  comments directly on the wiki page using the "comment" button. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>  It is additionally requested that At-Large community members forward >>> this >>>  message to other relevant lists to distribute the call for comments on >>> the >>>  Director White Paper as widely as possible. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>  Regards, >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>  ** >>> >>> >>> >>>  Cher tous, >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>  À sa téléconférence du 22 décembre 2009, l'ALAC a chargé un petit groupe >>> de >>>  la tâche de créer un premier livre blanc sur le procédé proposé pour le >>>  choix d'un membre du conseil At-Large d'ICANN à distribuer pour le >>>  commentaire répandu tôt en janvier 2010. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>  Veuillez trouver ci-joint une copie du directeur livre blanc en en et >>> franc >>>  pour la revue.  Le document espagnol sera disponible en prochains jours. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>  Le directeur livre blanc est également disponible pour le commentaire >>> aux >>>  pages de wiki. Le page portique de `est disponible à : >>> >>>  https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?director_white_paper. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>  Tous les membres de la communauté At-Large sont encouragés à présenter >>> leurs >>>  observations sur le directeur livre blanc avant le prochain faire appel >>> de >>>  la Communauté au processus de sélection At-Large à programmer entre les >>> >>>  27-29 janvier 2010 (un Doodle sera envoyé sous peu). >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>  Des commentaires seront acceptés dans des six langues l'unes des de >>> l'ONU. >>> >>>  Veuillez formuler vos commentaires directement sur la page de wiki >>> utilisant >>>  le " ; comment" ; bouton. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>  On lui demande en plus que membre de la Communauté At-Large font suivre >>> à ce >>>  message d'autres listes appropriées pour distribuer l'appel pour des >>>  commentaires sur le directeur livre blanc aussi largement comme >>> possible. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>  Cordialment, >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>  ** >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>  Estimado todos, >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>  En su teleconferencia del 22 de diciembre de 2009, el ALAC encargó a un >>>  pequeño grupo de la tarea de crear un Libro Blanco inicial en el proceso >>>  propuesto para la selección de un miembro del Consejo At-Large de ICANN >>> que >>>  se distribuirá para el comentario extenso temprano en enero de 2010. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>  Encuentre por favor ató una copia del director Libro Blanco en el EN y >>> el >>>  franco para la revisión. El documento español estará disponible en los >>>  próximos días. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>  El director Libro Blanco está también disponible para el comentario en >>> las >>>  páginas del wiki. El page porta del `está disponible en: >>> >>>  https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?director_white_paper. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>  Animan a todos los miembros de la comunidad At-Large a comentar respecto >>> al >>>  director Libro Blanco antes de la llamada siguiente de la comunidad en >>> el >>>  proceso de selección At-Large que se programará entre el 27-29 de enero >>> de >>>  2010 (un Doodle será enviado pronto). >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>  Los comentarios serán aceptados en seis idiomas unas de los de la O.N.U. >>> >>>  Haga por favor sus comentarios directamente en la página del wiki usando >>> el >>>  " comment" botón. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>  Se pide además que los miembros de la Comunidad At-Large transmiten a >>> este >>>  mensaje otras listas relevantes para distribuir la llamada para los >>>  comentarios sobre el director Libro Blanco tan extensamente como sea >>>  posible. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>  Respetos, >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>  Heidi Ullrich, Matthias Langenegger, Gisella Gruber-White, Marilyn >>> Vernon, >>>  Kristina Nordström ICANN At-Large Staff >>> >>> >>> >>>  email: staff[at]atlarge.icann.org >>> >>>  website: www.atlarge.icann.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 >>> >>>  ____________________________________________________________ >>>  You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>  To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>>  For all list information and functions, see: >>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>>  Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> ________________________________________________ >> >> >> Rui Correia >> Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant >> Angola Liaison Consultant >> 2 Cutten St >> Horison >> Roodepoort-Johannesburg, >> South Africa >> Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 >> Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 >> _______________ >> áâãçéêíóôõúç >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>     governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >    governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- ________________________________________________ Rui Correia Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant Angola Liaison Consultant 2 Cutten St Horison Roodepoort-Johannesburg, South Africa Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 _______________ áâãçéêíóôõúç ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From puna_gb at yahoo.com Tue Jan 12 09:56:58 2010 From: puna_gb at yahoo.com (Gao Mosweu) Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 06:56:58 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] The ICANN Fellowship Program In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <408351.13985.qm@web31507.mail.mud.yahoo.com> The ICANN Fellowship Program, For me it is all really a matter of semantics Fellowship, sponsorship -  the past participants being called fellowship alumni... Really I think we should look at the good things that this initiative has done  - the cup is half full, that is how I look at it. I was one of the participants from the first fellowship round for the San Juan Meeting in June 2007. From that meeting alone, I learnt so much about ICANN, its processes, the community of people that make it all happen. For me it even became a launching pad for me to find my voice within my local community. It opened my eyes that a lot of people in my country do not know about Internet Governance, let alone the tremendous work that ICANN does. I became much more involved at the local community level, organised workshops on IG issues. I have since organised IPv6 training for local technicians, and made a presentation about ICANN at this training in the last year. I teach a group of part time students Ecommerce, and every year since I got involved with ICANN, each of them graduates from the course knowing at least about ICANN and its work around the world. Subsequent to the San Juan Meeting, I was at the Los Angeles meeting, and at the Paris Meeting as a mentor to first time fellows. I have also been able to get involved with the re-delegation process for our ccTLD – the .bw domain. I have been able to gather enough courage to walk up to the authorities in charge and challenge them to do something about it. I can tell you now that last year I submitted recommendations about the management or administration of the .bw domain... Guess what? Apparently a consultant from the west (a European country I think) had been hired previously to look into this specific issue, and came up with a 300 page document. It apparently did not render much in the way of way forward that was comprehensible, so in the end that same document I had prepared became the guiding document for further discussions! And the 300 page document had been shelved because nobody could really make sense of it. I personally think it was unfair for my country to have paid so much money for a report that they ultimately could not make sense of! No, I could not have done it without having been involved with ICANN... You could say that ICANN helped me to be the voice and the change I wanted to see. It helped me to gain enough confidence to tackle issues relating to the internet community in Botswana. Imagine, if it could help Botswana in the way it has, what about other countries? ICANN has helped me and my country in a phenomenal way through my fellowship participation! --- On Tue, 1/12/10, Rui Correia wrote: From: Rui Correia Subject: Re: [governance] TR: ICANN Fellowship Program To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Adam Peake" Date: Tuesday, January 12, 2010, 3:30 PM Adam, Fair enough. However, and using an example I was personally involved with - at Highway Africa (largest annual gathering of journalists from across Africa), a similar procedure is used, with people applying to attend with cost covered and some to take part in 5-day long professional courses after the conference (total 9-10 days), and yet, it is called merely a sponsorship. I could understand a three-month stint being called a fellowship - not the 3-day ICANN event. It is PR gold-spraying. As for the document being only in English, for EUR 4,500 ICANN could have had it translated into all 11 languages that are displayed in bar of the said document. In fact, EUR 3,000 would be enough, it it left out the part about "what is ICANN". Rui 2010/1/12 Adam Peake : > I suspect the intention has been to create something more than just a travel > support grant. The "fellows" are required to attend daily briefings while at > the ICANN meeting and to be active in meeting sessions, write a report, show > value they have taken back from the meeting.  By take back, I mean something > that has an input to a larger group (ccTLD, government, some community) so > their participation isn't just a one-off personal benefit. At least that's > my understanding. > > Very easy to give someone a ticket and cover their hotel costs and not put > any support programmes in place, and ICANN did that for a couple of years in > the early part of the decade (it had some value, but could have done more, I > know a few on this list who benefited.)  The Fellowship Program is trying to > do something more, and has good feedback so perhaps it's working. > > Adam > > > >> [Vanda - this is not directed at you; I can see it comes from the PR] >> >> I wonder who came up with this idiotic use o the word "fellowship" >> when referring to what is in fact a sponsorship to cover travel and >> accommodation (and "a stipend"). Then just to crown it, those who get >> the fellowships are called "alumni"! >> >> Must come from the same bright linguist who decided it was fine to use >> the word "itinerary" for an event programme! "Itinerary > Day 1 > Day >> 2" etc, all in the same venue! >> >> Rui >> >> >> >> 2010/1/12 Vanda UOL : >>> >>>  Dear all, Estimados amigos, Chers Amis >>> >>> >>> >>>  Please access >> >>  >   http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-11jan10-en.htm  to >>> >>>  analyze the opportunity to join ICANN meeting in Brussels next June. >>> >>> >>> >>>  Por favor vean en >>>  http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-11jan10-en.htm la >>>  oportunidad de participar en la conferencia de ICANN en Bruselas el >>> próximo >>>  Junio >>> >>> >>> >>>  Svp accès >>>  http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-11jan10-en.htm >>>  pour analyser l'occasion de joindre la réunion d'ICANN à Bruxelles juin >>>  prochain. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>  Thank you for your attention / Gracias por su atención / Merci pour >>> votre >>>  attention >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>  Vanda Scartezini >>> >>>  Fellowship Program Committee >>> >>>  ICANN Board ­ ALAC Liaison >>> >>>  www.executivasdeti.blogspot.com >>> >>> >>> >>>  -----Original Message----- >>>  From: Sébastien Bachollet [mailto:sebastien.bachollet at free.fr] >>>  Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 3:39 AM >>>  To: Sébastien Bachollet >>>  Subject: [governance] TR: [ALAC-Announce] Director White Paper - Request >>> for >>>  Comments >>> >>> >>> >>>  Dear all, >>> >>>  It is my pleasure to forward you this message of the At-Large advisory >>>  committee of ICANN. >>> >>>  Your comments are welcome preferably using the wiki comments (link in >>> the >>>  messages bellow). >>> >>>  Please forward it to you pears. >>> >>>  All the best >>> >>> >>> >>>  Chers amis, >>> >>>  Je vous transmet, avec plaisir, ce message du comité At-Large de >>> l'Icann. >>> >>>  Vos commentaires sont les bienvenus de préférence en utilisant les >>>  possibilités de commentaires sur le wiki (les liens dans les messages >>>  ci-dessous). >>> >>>  Merci de faire suivre ce message à vos collègues. >>> >>>  Amicalement >>> >>> >>> >>>  Estimado todos, >>> >>>  Es mi placer de transmitir este mensajes del Consejo At-Large de ICANN. >>> >>>  Sus comentarios son bienvenidos. >>> >>>  Gracias >>> >>> >>> >>>  Sébastien Bachollet >>> >>>  Président d'honneur - Isoc France >>> >>>  sebastien.bachollet at isoc.fr >>> >>>  www.egeni.org >>> >>>  www.isoc.fr >>> >>> >>> >>>  * La version française est ci-dessous >>> >>> >>> >>>  *La versión española está abajo >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>  Dear All, >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>  At its 22 December 2009 teleconference, the ALAC charged a small group >>> with >>>  the task of creating an initial white paper on the proposed process for >>> the >>>  selection of an ICANN At-Large Board Member to be distributed for >>>  wide-spread comment early in January 2010. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>  Please find attached a copy of the Director White Paper in EN and FR for >>>  review. The Spanish document will be available in the next few days. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>  The Director White Paper is also available for comment on wiki pages. >>> The >> >>  > Œportal page¹ is available at: >>> >>> >>> >>>  https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?director_white_paper. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>  All members of the At-Large community are encouraged to comment on the >>>  Director White Paper prior to the next Community Call on the At-Large >>>  Selection Process to be scheduled between 27-29 January 2010 (a Doodle >>> will >>>  be sent shortly). >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>  Comments will be accepted in any of the six UN languages. Please make >>> your >>>  comments directly on the wiki page using the "comment" button. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>  It is additionally requested that At-Large community members forward >>> this >>>  message to other relevant lists to distribute the call for comments on >>> the >>>  Director White Paper as widely as possible. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>  Regards, >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>  ** >>> >>> >>> >>>  Cher tous, >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>  À sa téléconférence du 22 décembre 2009, l'ALAC a chargé un petit groupe >>> de >>>  la tâche de créer un premier livre blanc sur le procédé proposé pour le >>>  choix d'un membre du conseil At-Large d'ICANN à distribuer pour le >>>  commentaire répandu tôt en janvier 2010. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>  Veuillez trouver ci-joint une copie du directeur livre blanc en en et >>> franc >>>  pour la revue.  Le document espagnol sera disponible en prochains jours. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>  Le directeur livre blanc est également disponible pour le commentaire >>> aux >>>  pages de wiki. Le page portique de `est disponible à : >>> >>>  https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?director_white_paper. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>  Tous les membres de la communauté At-Large sont encouragés à présenter >>> leurs >>>  observations sur le directeur livre blanc avant le prochain faire appel >>> de >>>  la Communauté au processus de sélection At-Large à programmer entre les >>> >>>  27-29 janvier 2010 (un Doodle sera envoyé sous peu). >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>  Des commentaires seront acceptés dans des six langues l'unes des de >>> l'ONU. >>> >>>  Veuillez formuler vos commentaires directement sur la page de wiki >>> utilisant >>>  le " ; comment" ; bouton. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>  On lui demande en plus que membre de la Communauté At-Large font suivre >>> à ce >>>  message d'autres listes appropriées pour distribuer l'appel pour des >>>  commentaires sur le directeur livre blanc aussi largement comme >>> possible. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>  Cordialment, >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>  ** >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>  Estimado todos, >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>  En su teleconferencia del 22 de diciembre de 2009, el ALAC encargó a un >>>  pequeño grupo de la tarea de crear un Libro Blanco inicial en el proceso >>>  propuesto para la selección de un miembro del Consejo At-Large de ICANN >>> que >>>  se distribuirá para el comentario extenso temprano en enero de 2010. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>  Encuentre por favor ató una copia del director Libro Blanco en el EN y >>> el >>>  franco para la revisión. El documento español estará disponible en los >>>  próximos días. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>  El director Libro Blanco está también disponible para el comentario en >>> las >>>  páginas del wiki. El page porta del `está disponible en: >>> >>>  https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?director_white_paper. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>  Animan a todos los miembros de la comunidad At-Large a comentar respecto >>> al >>>  director Libro Blanco antes de la llamada siguiente de la comunidad en >>> el >>>  proceso de selección At-Large que se programará entre el 27-29 de enero >>> de >>>  2010 (un Doodle será enviado pronto). >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>  Los comentarios serán aceptados en seis idiomas unas de los de la O.N.U. >>> >>>  Haga por favor sus comentarios directamente en la página del wiki usando >>> el >>>  " comment" botón. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>  Se pide además que los miembros de la Comunidad At-Large transmiten a >>> este >>>  mensaje otras listas relevantes para distribuir la llamada para los >>>  comentarios sobre el director Libro Blanco tan extensamente como sea >>>  posible. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>  Respetos, >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>  Heidi Ullrich, Matthias Langenegger, Gisella Gruber-White, Marilyn >>> Vernon, >>>  Kristina Nordström ICANN At-Large Staff >>> >>> >>> >>>  email: staff[at]atlarge.icann.org >>> >>>  website: www.atlarge.icann.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 >>> >>>  ____________________________________________________________ >>>  You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>  To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>>  For all list information and functions, see: >>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>>  Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> ________________________________________________ >> >> >> Rui Correia >> Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant >> Angola Liaison Consultant >> 2 Cutten St >> Horison >> Roodepoort-Johannesburg, >> South Africa >> Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 >> Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 >> _______________ >> áâãçéêíóôõúç >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>     governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >    governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- ________________________________________________ Rui Correia Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant Angola Liaison Consultant 2 Cutten St Horison Roodepoort-Johannesburg, South Africa Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 _______________ áâãçéêíóôõúç ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at psg.com Tue Jan 12 10:40:25 2010 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 16:40:25 +0100 Subject: [governance] The ICANN Fellowship Program In-Reply-To: <408351.13985.qm@web31507.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <408351.13985.qm@web31507.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <2BC1AD60-934B-4C52-AB1D-E6609A1202F2@psg.com> Hi, Well said. As someone who has not been terribly shy about saying all kinds of mean things in my blog about ICANN and some of its actions, i think this program, whatever you call it is very serious and very real - a lot more then just a ticket. And a good thing run by a very dedicated ICANN staffer I have spoken with many fellows and they are serious and take their fellowship in ICANN seriously and as a continuing thing. And I have seen several of them take up various leadership positons either around ICANN and its contributing bodies or in related areas. I hope no one is dissuaded from applying for this opportunity and recommend that anyone who has been reading about ICANN and who is invovled in IG, think about applying a. PS. sure having the application material in the 6 UN languages would be good idea. On 12 Jan 2010, at 15:56, Gao Mosweu wrote: > The ICANN Fellowship Program, > > For me it is all really a matter of semantics Fellowship, sponsorship - the past participants being called fellowship alumni... Really I think we should look at the good things that this initiative has done - the cup is half full, that is how I look at it. > > I was one of the participants from the first fellowship round for the San Juan Meeting in June 2007. From that meeting alone, I learnt so much about ICANN, its processes, the community of people that make it all happen. > > For me it even became a launching pad for me to find my voice within my local community. It opened my eyes that a lot of people in my country do not know about Internet Governance, let alone the tremendous work that ICANN does. > > I became much more involved at the local community level, organised workshops on IG issues. > > I have since organised IPv6 training for local technicians, and made a presentation about ICANN at this training in the last year. > > I teach a group of part time students Ecommerce, and every year since I got involved with ICANN, each of them graduates from the course knowing at least about ICANN and its work around the world. > > Subsequent to the San Juan Meeting, I was at the Los Angeles meeting, and at the Paris Meeting as a mentor to first time fellows. > > I have also been able to get involved with the re-delegation process for our ccTLD – the .bw domain. I have been able to gather enough courage to walk up to the authorities in charge and challenge them to do something about it. > > I can tell you now that last year I submitted recommendations about the management or administration of the .bw domain... Guess what? Apparently a consultant from the west (a European country I think) had been hired previously to look into this specific issue, and came up with a 300 page document. It apparently did not render much in the way of way forward that was comprehensible, so in the end that same document I had prepared became the guiding document for further discussions! And the 300 page document had been shelved because nobody could really make sense of it. I personally think it was unfair for my country to have paid so much money for a report that they ultimately could not make sense of! > > No, I could not have done it without having been involved with ICANN... You could say that ICANN helped me to be the voice and the change I wanted to see. It helped me to gain enough confidence to tackle issues relating to the internet community in Botswana. > > Imagine, if it could help Botswana in the way it has, what about other countries? > > ICANN has helped me and my country in a phenomenal way through my fellowship participation! > > --- On Tue, 1/12/10, Rui Correia wrote: > > From: Rui Correia > Subject: Re: [governance] TR: ICANN Fellowship Program > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Adam Peake" > Date: Tuesday, January 12, 2010, 3:30 PM > > Adam, > > Fair enough. > > However, and using an example I was personally involved with - at > Highway Africa (largest annual gathering of journalists from across > Africa), a similar procedure is used, with people applying to attend > with cost covered and some to take part in 5-day long professional > courses after the conference (total 9-10 days), and yet, it is called > merely a sponsorship. I could understand a three-month stint being > called a fellowship - not the 3-day ICANN event. > > It is PR gold-spraying. > > As for the document being only in English, for EUR 4,500 ICANN could > have had it translated into all 11 languages that are displayed in bar > of the said document. In fact, EUR 3,000 would be enough, it it left > out the part about "what is ICANN". > > Rui > > 2010/1/12 Adam Peake : > > I suspect the intention has been to create something more than just a travel > > support grant. The "fellows" are required to attend daily briefings while at > > the ICANN meeting and to be active in meeting sessions, write a report, show > > value they have taken back from the meeting. By take back, I mean something > > that has an input to a larger group (ccTLD, government, some community) so > > their participation isn't just a one-off personal benefit. At least that's > > my understanding. > > > > Very easy to give someone a ticket and cover their hotel costs and not put > > any support programmes in place, and ICANN did that for a couple of years in > > the early part of the decade (it had some value, but could have done more, I > > know a few on this list who benefited.) The Fellowship Program is trying to > > do something more, and has good feedback so perhaps it's working. > > > > Adam > > > > > > > >> [Vanda - this is not directed at you; I can see it comes from the PR] > >> > >> I wonder who came up with this idiotic use o the word "fellowship" > >> when referring to what is in fact a sponsorship to cover travel and > >> accommodation (and "a stipend"). Then just to crown it, those who get > >> the fellowships are called "alumni"! > >> > >> Must come from the same bright linguist who decided it was fine to use > >> the word "itinerary" for an event programme! "Itinerary > Day 1 > Day > >> 2" etc, all in the same venue! > >> > >> Rui > >> > >> > >> > >> 2010/1/12 Vanda UOL : > >>> > >>> Dear all, Estimados amigos, Chers Amis > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Please access > >> > >> > http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-11jan10-en.htm to > >>> > >>> analyze the opportunity to join ICANN meeting in Brussels next June. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Por favor vean en > >>> http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-11jan10-en.htm la > >>> oportunidad de participar en la conferencia de ICANN en Bruselas el > >>> próximo > >>> Junio > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Svp accès > >>> http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-11jan10-en.htm > >>> pour analyser l'occasion de joindre la réunion d'ICANN à Bruxelles juin > >>> prochain. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Thank you for your attention / Gracias por su atención / Merci pour > >>> votre > >>> attention > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Vanda Scartezini > >>> > >>> Fellowship Program Committee > >>> > >>> ICANN Board ALAC Liaison > >>> > >>> www.executivasdeti.blogspot.com > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: Sébastien Bachollet [mailto:sebastien.bachollet at free.fr] > >>> Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 3:39 AM > >>> To: Sébastien Bachollet > >>> Subject: [governance] TR: [ALAC-Announce] Director White Paper - Request > >>> for > >>> Comments > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Dear all, > >>> > >>> It is my pleasure to forward you this message of the At-Large advisory > >>> committee of ICANN. > >>> > >>> Your comments are welcome preferably using the wiki comments (link in > >>> the > >>> messages bellow). > >>> > >>> Please forward it to you pears. > >>> > >>> All the best > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Chers amis, > >>> > >>> Je vous transmet, avec plaisir, ce message du comité At-Large de > >>> l'Icann. > >>> > >>> Vos commentaires sont les bienvenus de préférence en utilisant les > >>> possibilités de commentaires sur le wiki (les liens dans les messages > >>> ci-dessous). > >>> > >>> Merci de faire suivre ce message à vos collègues. > >>> > >>> Amicalement > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Estimado todos, > >>> > >>> Es mi placer de transmitir este mensajes del Consejo At-Large de ICANN. > >>> > >>> Sus comentarios son bienvenidos. > >>> > >>> Gracias > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Sébastien Bachollet > >>> > >>> Président d'honneur - Isoc France > >>> > >>> sebastien.bachollet at isoc.fr > >>> > >>> www.egeni.org > >>> > >>> www.isoc.fr > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> * La version française est ci-dessous > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> *La versión española está abajo > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Dear All, > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> At its 22 December 2009 teleconference, the ALAC charged a small group > >>> with > >>> the task of creating an initial white paper on the proposed process for > >>> the > >>> selection of an ICANN At-Large Board Member to be distributed for > >>> wide-spread comment early in January 2010. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Please find attached a copy of the Director White Paper in EN and FR for > >>> review. The Spanish document will be available in the next few days. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> The Director White Paper is also available for comment on wiki pages. > >>> The > >> > >> > Œportal page¹ is available at: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?director_white_paper. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> All members of the At-Large community are encouraged to comment on the > >>> Director White Paper prior to the next Community Call on the At-Large > >>> Selection Process to be scheduled between 27-29 January 2010 (a Doodle > >>> will > >>> be sent shortly). > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Comments will be accepted in any of the six UN languages. Please make > >>> your > >>> comments directly on the wiki page using the "comment" button. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> It is additionally requested that At-Large community members forward > >>> this > >>> message to other relevant lists to distribute the call for comments on > >>> the > >>> Director White Paper as widely as possible. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Regards, > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> ** > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Cher tous, > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> À sa téléconférence du 22 décembre 2009, l'ALAC a chargé un petit groupe > >>> de > >>> la tâche de créer un premier livre blanc sur le procédé proposé pour le > >>> choix d'un membre du conseil At-Large d'ICANN à distribuer pour le > >>> commentaire répandu tôt en janvier 2010. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Veuillez trouver ci-joint une copie du directeur livre blanc en en et > >>> franc > >>> pour la revue. Le document espagnol sera disponible en prochains jours. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Le directeur livre blanc est également disponible pour le commentaire > >>> aux > >>> pages de wiki. Le page portique de `est disponible à : > >>> > >>> https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?director_white_paper. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Tous les membres de la communauté At-Large sont encouragés à présenter > >>> leurs > >>> observations sur le directeur livre blanc avant le prochain faire appel > >>> de > >>> la Communauté au processus de sélection At-Large à programmer entre les > >>> > >>> 27-29 janvier 2010 (un Doodle sera envoyé sous peu). > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Des commentaires seront acceptés dans des six langues l'unes des de > >>> l'ONU. > >>> > >>> Veuillez formuler vos commentaires directement sur la page de wiki > >>> utilisant > >>> le " ; comment" ; bouton. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On lui demande en plus que membre de la Communauté At-Large font suivre > >>> à ce > >>> message d'autres listes appropriées pour distribuer l'appel pour des > >>> commentaires sur le directeur livre blanc aussi largement comme > >>> possible. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Cordialment, > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> ** > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Estimado todos, > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> En su teleconferencia del 22 de diciembre de 2009, el ALAC encargó a un > >>> pequeño grupo de la tarea de crear un Libro Blanco inicial en el proceso > >>> propuesto para la selección de un miembro del Consejo At-Large de ICANN > >>> que > >>> se distribuirá para el comentario extenso temprano en enero de 2010. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Encuentre por favor ató una copia del director Libro Blanco en el EN y > >>> el > >>> franco para la revisión. El documento español estará disponible en los > >>> próximos días. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> El director Libro Blanco está también disponible para el comentario en > >>> las > >>> páginas del wiki. El page porta del `está disponible en: > >>> > >>> https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?director_white_paper. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Animan a todos los miembros de la comunidad At-Large a comentar respecto > >>> al > >>> director Libro Blanco antes de la llamada siguiente de la comunidad en > >>> el > >>> proceso de selección At-Large que se programará entre el 27-29 de enero > >>> de > >>> 2010 (un Doodle será enviado pronto). > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Los comentarios serán aceptados en seis idiomas unas de los de la O.N.U. > >>> > >>> Haga por favor sus comentarios directamente en la página del wiki usando > >>> el > >>> " comment" botón. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Se pide además que los miembros de la Comunidad At-Large transmiten a > >>> este > >>> mensaje otras listas relevantes para distribuir la llamada para los > >>> comentarios sobre el director Libro Blanco tan extensamente como sea > >>> posible. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Respetos, > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Heidi Ullrich, Matthias Langenegger, Gisella Gruber-White, Marilyn > >>> Vernon, > >>> Kristina Nordström ICANN At-Large Staff > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> email: staff[at]atlarge.icann.org > >>> > >>> website: www.atlarge.icann.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 > >>> > >>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >>> > >>> For all list information and functions, see: > >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >>> > >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> ________________________________________________ > >> > >> > >> Rui Correia > >> Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant > >> Angola Liaison Consultant > >> 2 Cutten St > >> Horison > >> Roodepoort-Johannesburg, > >> South Africa > >> Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 > >> Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 > >> _______________ > >> áâãçéêíóôõúç > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >> > >> For all list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >> > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > -- > ________________________________________________ > > > Rui Correia > Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant > Angola Liaison Consultant > 2 Cutten St > Horison > Roodepoort-Johannesburg, > South Africa > Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 > Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 > _______________ > áâãçéêíóôõúç > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Tue Jan 12 11:11:47 2010 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 16:11:47 +0000 Subject: [governance] TR: ICANN Fellowship Program In-Reply-To: References: <013001ca9382$c12a8020$437f8060$@com.br> Message-ID: In message , at 15:30:48 on Tue, 12 Jan 2010, Rui Correia writes >I could understand a three-month stint being >called a fellowship - not the 3-day ICANN event. Is this a subset of the ICANN meeting (which is six days long, now that the day before the day-with-the-opening-ceremony has a pretty full programme). -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Tue Jan 12 12:39:40 2010 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 09:39:40 -0800 (PST) Subject: Aw: Re: Aw: Re: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <971001.22992.qm@web83906.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> (of course I followed the logic damnit - I could take offense at your categorization -- but how silly that would be, your point is well made sir*)   I have many reasons that governments should not do things. But mere size of the undertaking does not rank up there.   In essence Yahuda I see two governments everywhere. The duly elected officialdom that is democratically or by force put into position to tax and spend and curb and regulate --- And then there are/is us. The governance of action by logic, the greatest good and even a battle over morality. (never perfect - save that perfection is in the attempt and striving)  So we know the first group exists and even enlists, not to be ignored. Obedience to the law is the greatest freedom and all that Abe nonsense.  However we exist also - thank whoever - and it is our calling if you will to infect and influence the former.  So as you did, to cut off argument here, to say it is too hard or results in dependent slavery is apropo of nothing.   The value is true - neutrality is a better option for both search and net. Now you propose we do nothing in light of this truth -- I propose we advocate and help guide likeminded in governance and supply them with tools such as Parminders logic and Gersteins and Rolands comments.   Of course since i address your good comments I give you the highest respect and in fact hope that others learn from your input.         *Extreme positions are not succeeded by moderate ones, but by contrary extreme positions.  Friedrich Nietzsche  "The budget should be balanced, the Treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed lest Rome become bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance." - Cicero - 55 BC --- On Tue, 1/12/10, Yehuda Katz wrote: From: Yehuda Katz Subject: Aw: Re: Aw: Re: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Date: Tuesday, January 12, 2010, 2:14 AM I beg to differ  Eric, Perhapes I should have posted Michael & Rolands comments together (below here), so that you may follow the logic. ..."Roland Perry wrote, à la Michael Gurstein: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/arc/governance/2010-01/msg00049.html In message , at 05:28:08 on Thu, 7 Jan 2010, Michael Gurstein writes >Well, as Margaret Thatcher (in)famously said at one point, "there is no >society" (and thus presumably no "social/public interest") and then she and >her accolytes proceeded to ensure through policy and process that her wish >was made flesh to the continuing detriment of all.     "I think we've been through a period where too many people have     been given to understand that if they have a problem, it's the     government's job to cope with it. 'I have a problem, I'll get a     grant.' 'I'm homeless, the government must house me.' They're     casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no     such thing as society." So it's nothing to do with "social/public interest", but whether or not people can expect a magic financial crutch to support them in their adversity. It's almost exactly the same set of issues as the current USA healthcare debate. I wonder how many people on this list would wish that governments got themselves organised, and [attempted to] sort out all the perceived ills on the Internet, on the grounds that they believe the current mechanisms were failing their collective citizens?  ... - ..."Roland Perry wrote: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/arc/governance/2010-01/msg00055.html ... That's a misrepresentation of the Thatcherite doctrine. The UK continued with policies that were much more socialist than many other countries (Nationalised Health and Education, widespread welfare system etc). Her statement, which is basically "There's no such thing as a Disney-esque Fairy Godmother" did not deny the possibility that the State should continue to organise a very wide range of state-run benefits, and collect large amounts of taxation to fund them! ... - ..."Roland Perry wrote: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/arc/governance/2010-01/msg00070.html In message <4B46D0F8.101 at itforchange.net>, at 12:00:16 on Fri, 8 Jan 2010, Parminder writes: >there is another ideology opposed to this one which believes that there is at >present large scale social injustice which has to be corrected by strong >positive measures for social justice - which often involves redistributive >measures which you call as 'magic financial crutch'. Just to be clear, I was describing what I believe to be Margaret Thatcher's views, when she made her much misquoted statements about "society". That was many years ago, and I don't necessarily agree with the philosophy either then, or now. But I do feel that if you are going to criticise someone, the least you can do first is properly understand what it is you are criticising. ..." - Just to be clear Eric,    "Thatcher's Views" and any Goverment with ONE+Plus BILLION PEOPLE are going to have to venture off into the Magic Kingdom of Fairy God Mothers (or the 'Land of Bailouts & Voodoo Economics') in order to FUND the "Entitlements". And the Chinese proved my point. Roland and I are just being 'practical & pargmatic' about the economics surrounding the 'Request of Rights' this List deems to advance. If it were economically possible to do, it would have been done by now. So go ahead Eric, Fart in the Hurricane. -- ..." Eric Dierker wrote: >Faulty logic Yehuda. >Mere numbers and size are not reasons large governments do not do things.  >Perhaps you would do yourself a favor and study bureaucrats. Perhapes You should study India, 'They' (Bureaucrats) are going to look you in the face, shake their heads, ah-ha, ah-ha,... and not do a damn thing about it, Because there is no way to do it. They don't have the structure or the economic resources to Fulfill the Rights that you so elequently impose upon them, by the swift touch of your electronic keyboard, sharp tongue, and first-world station in life. Adios Amigo ;-) --- On Fri, 1/8/10, Yehuda Katz wrote: From: Yehuda Katz Subject: Aw: Re: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Date: Friday, January 8, 2010, 6:55 PM >> >>Hurray for you Parminder! >> >>That was exactly my conncerns, when You'all were pushing for "Entiltlements" as >>I put it on Aug 2009 (Thu, 27th)*  through the IGC**: Statement by IGC >>supporting rights and principles . >> >>And it is exactly why the Chinese did not want it pursued [Try providing >>Entiltlements (Fulfill the Rights) for 1.3 Billion Chinese and then another 1.3 >>Indians], Governments weren't designed to handle the load. >> >>I'll go alittle further too say, And that's why I'm calling for something new >>(A new Government Design). - Ref: *  Right's Entitlements - ?How to Fund? per Yehuda Katz [governance] Right's Entitlements - ?How to Fund? http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/arc/governance/2009-08/msg00325.html ** Concensus Call per Lisa Horner FINAL STATEMENT (V6) – for consensus call http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/arc/governance/2009-09/msg00136.html ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Tue Jan 12 14:44:14 2010 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 11:44:14 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] The ICANN Fellowship Program In-Reply-To: <2BC1AD60-934B-4C52-AB1D-E6609A1202F2@psg.com> Message-ID: <283233.36775.qm@web83913.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> I have been critical of the Fellowship program since it's inception.  I would like to believe that the critiques thrashed out in the GNSO and particularly the GA over the last five years have aided in defining and restructuring of the program.   I do not like what I think is "tokenism" in the program.    But make no mistake, it is a very good program and has done a lot of very good work.  Engaging in the program and applying and supporting it is a very good idea.   Eric --- On Tue, 1/12/10, Avri Doria wrote: From: Avri Doria Subject: Re: [governance] The ICANN Fellowship Program To: "IGC" Date: Tuesday, January 12, 2010, 3:40 PM Hi, Well said. As someone who has not been terribly shy about saying all kinds of mean things in my blog about ICANN and some of its actions, i think this program, whatever you call it is very serious and very real - a lot more then just a ticket.  And a good thing run by a very dedicated ICANN staffer I have spoken with many fellows and they are serious and take their fellowship in ICANN seriously and as a continuing thing.  And I have seen several of them take up various leadership positons either around ICANN and its contributing bodies or in related areas. I hope no one is dissuaded from applying for this opportunity and recommend that anyone who has been reading about ICANN and who is invovled in IG, think about applying a. PS. sure having the application material in the 6 UN languages would be  good idea. On 12 Jan 2010, at 15:56, Gao Mosweu wrote: > The ICANN Fellowship Program, > > For me it is all really a matter of semantics Fellowship, sponsorship -  the past participants being called fellowship alumni... Really I think we should look at the good things that this initiative has done  - the cup is half full, that is how I look at it. > > I was one of the participants from the first fellowship round for the San Juan Meeting in June 2007. From that meeting alone, I learnt so much about ICANN, its processes, the community of people that make it all happen. > > For me it even became a launching pad for me to find my voice within my local community. It opened my eyes that a lot of people in my country do not know about Internet Governance, let alone the tremendous work that ICANN does. > > I became much more involved at the local community level, organised workshops on IG issues. > > I have since organised IPv6 training for local technicians, and made a presentation about ICANN at this training in the last year.  > > I teach a group of part time students Ecommerce, and every year since I got involved with ICANN, each of them graduates from the course knowing at least about ICANN and its work around the world. > > Subsequent to the San Juan Meeting, I was at the Los Angeles meeting, and at the Paris Meeting as a mentor to first time fellows. > > I have also been able to get involved with the re-delegation process for our ccTLD – the .bw domain. I have been able to gather enough courage to walk up to the authorities in charge and challenge them to do something about it. > > I can tell you now that last year I submitted recommendations about the management or administration of the .bw domain... Guess what? Apparently a consultant from the west (a European country I think) had been hired previously to look into this specific issue, and came up with a 300 page document. It apparently did not render much in the way of way forward that was comprehensible, so in the end that same document I had prepared became the guiding document for further discussions! And the 300 page document had been shelved because nobody could really make sense of it. I personally think it was unfair for my country to have paid so much money for a report that they ultimately could not make sense of! > > No, I could not have done it without having been involved with ICANN... You could say that ICANN helped me to be the voice and the change I wanted to see. It helped me to gain enough confidence to tackle issues relating to the internet community in Botswana. > > Imagine, if it could help Botswana in the way it has, what about other countries? > > ICANN has helped me and my country in a phenomenal way through my fellowship participation! > > --- On Tue, 1/12/10, Rui Correia wrote: > > From: Rui Correia > Subject: Re: [governance] TR: ICANN Fellowship Program > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Adam Peake" > Date: Tuesday, January 12, 2010, 3:30 PM > > Adam, > > Fair enough. > > However, and using an example I was personally involved with - at > Highway Africa (largest annual gathering of journalists from across > Africa), a similar procedure is used, with people applying to attend > with cost covered and some to take part in 5-day long professional > courses after the conference (total 9-10 days), and yet, it is called > merely a sponsorship. I could understand a three-month stint being > called a fellowship - not the 3-day ICANN event. > > It is PR gold-spraying. > > As for the document being only in English, for EUR 4,500 ICANN could > have had it translated into all 11 languages that are displayed in bar > of the said document. In fact, EUR 3,000 would be enough, it it left > out the part about "what is ICANN". > > Rui > > 2010/1/12 Adam Peake : > > I suspect the intention has been to create something more than just a travel > > support grant. The "fellows" are required to attend daily briefings while at > > the ICANN meeting and to be active in meeting sessions, write a report, show > > value they have taken back from the meeting.  By take back, I mean something > > that has an input to a larger group (ccTLD, government, some community) so > > their participation isn't just a one-off personal benefit. At least that's > > my understanding. > > > > Very easy to give someone a ticket and cover their hotel costs and not put > > any support programmes in place, and ICANN did that for a couple of years in > > the early part of the decade (it had some value, but could have done more, I > > know a few on this list who benefited.)  The Fellowship Program is trying to > > do something more, and has good feedback so perhaps it's working. > > > > Adam > > > > > > > >> [Vanda - this is not directed at you; I can see it comes from the PR] > >> > >> I wonder who came up with this idiotic use o the word "fellowship" > >> when referring to what is in fact a sponsorship to cover travel and > >> accommodation (and "a stipend"). Then just to crown it, those who get > >> the fellowships are called "alumni"! > >> > >> Must come from the same bright linguist who decided it was fine to use > >> the word "itinerary" for an event programme! "Itinerary > Day 1 > Day > >> 2" etc, all in the same venue! > >> > >> Rui > >> > >> > >> > >> 2010/1/12 Vanda UOL : > >>> > >>>  Dear all, Estimados amigos, Chers Amis > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>  Please access > >> > >>  >   http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-11jan10-en.htm  to > >>> > >>>  analyze the opportunity to join ICANN meeting in Brussels next June. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>  Por favor vean en > >>>  http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-11jan10-en.htm la > >>>  oportunidad de participar en la conferencia de ICANN en Bruselas el > >>> próximo > >>>  Junio > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>  Svp accès > >>>  http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-11jan10-en.htm > >>>  pour analyser l'occasion de joindre la réunion d'ICANN à Bruxelles juin > >>>  prochain. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>  Thank you for your attention / Gracias por su atención / Merci pour > >>> votre > >>>  attention > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>  Vanda Scartezini > >>> > >>>  Fellowship Program Committee > >>> > >>>  ICANN Board  ALAC Liaison > >>> > >>>  www.executivasdeti.blogspot.com > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>  -----Original Message----- > >>>  From: Sébastien Bachollet [mailto:sebastien.bachollet at free.fr] > >>>  Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 3:39 AM > >>>  To: Sébastien Bachollet > >>>  Subject: [governance] TR: [ALAC-Announce] Director White Paper - Request > >>> for > >>>  Comments > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>  Dear all, > >>> > >>>  It is my pleasure to forward you this message of the At-Large advisory > >>>  committee of ICANN. > >>> > >>>  Your comments are welcome preferably using the wiki comments (link in > >>> the > >>>  messages bellow). > >>> > >>>  Please forward it to you pears. > >>> > >>>  All the best > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>  Chers amis, > >>> > >>>  Je vous transmet, avec plaisir, ce message du comité At-Large de > >>> l'Icann. > >>> > >>>  Vos commentaires sont les bienvenus de préférence en utilisant les > >>>  possibilités de commentaires sur le wiki (les liens dans les messages > >>>  ci-dessous). > >>> > >>>  Merci de faire suivre ce message à vos collègues. > >>> > >>>  Amicalement > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>  Estimado todos, > >>> > >>>  Es mi placer de transmitir este mensajes del Consejo At-Large de ICANN. > >>> > >>>  Sus comentarios son bienvenidos. > >>> > >>>  Gracias > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>  Sébastien Bachollet > >>> > >>>  Président d'honneur - Isoc France > >>> > >>>  sebastien.bachollet at isoc.fr > >>> > >>>  www.egeni.org > >>> > >>>  www.isoc.fr > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>  * La version française est ci-dessous > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>  *La versión española está abajo > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>  Dear All, > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>  At its 22 December 2009 teleconference, the ALAC charged a small group > >>> with > >>>  the task of creating an initial white paper on the proposed process for > >>> the > >>>  selection of an ICANN At-Large Board Member to be distributed for > >>>  wide-spread comment early in January 2010. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>  Please find attached a copy of the Director White Paper in EN and FR for > >>>  review. The Spanish document will be available in the next few days. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>  The Director White Paper is also available for comment on wiki pages. > >>> The > >> > >>  > Œportal page¹ is available at: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>  https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?director_white_paper. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>  All members of the At-Large community are encouraged to comment on the > >>>  Director White Paper prior to the next Community Call on the At-Large > >>>  Selection Process to be scheduled between 27-29 January 2010 (a Doodle > >>> will > >>>  be sent shortly). > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>  Comments will be accepted in any of the six UN languages. Please make > >>> your > >>>  comments directly on the wiki page using the "comment" button. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>  It is additionally requested that At-Large community members forward > >>> this > >>>  message to other relevant lists to distribute the call for comments on > >>> the > >>>  Director White Paper as widely as possible. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>  Regards, > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>  ** > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>  Cher tous, > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>  À sa téléconférence du 22 décembre 2009, l'ALAC a chargé un petit groupe > >>> de > >>>  la tâche de créer un premier livre blanc sur le procédé proposé pour le > >>>  choix d'un membre du conseil At-Large d'ICANN à distribuer pour le > >>>  commentaire répandu tôt en janvier 2010. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>  Veuillez trouver ci-joint une copie du directeur livre blanc en en et > >>> franc > >>>  pour la revue.  Le document espagnol sera disponible en prochains jours. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>  Le directeur livre blanc est également disponible pour le commentaire > >>> aux > >>>  pages de wiki. Le page portique de `est disponible à : > >>> > >>>  https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?director_white_paper. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>  Tous les membres de la communauté At-Large sont encouragés à présenter > >>> leurs > >>>  observations sur le directeur livre blanc avant le prochain faire appel > >>> de > >>>  la Communauté au processus de sélection At-Large à programmer entre les > >>> > >>>  27-29 janvier 2010 (un Doodle sera envoyé sous peu). > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>  Des commentaires seront acceptés dans des six langues l'unes des de > >>> l'ONU. > >>> > >>>  Veuillez formuler vos commentaires directement sur la page de wiki > >>> utilisant > >>>  le " ; comment" ; bouton. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>  On lui demande en plus que membre de la Communauté At-Large font suivre > >>> à ce > >>>  message d'autres listes appropriées pour distribuer l'appel pour des > >>>  commentaires sur le directeur livre blanc aussi largement comme > >>> possible. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>  Cordialment, > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>  ** > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>  Estimado todos, > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>  En su teleconferencia del 22 de diciembre de 2009, el ALAC encargó a un > >>>  pequeño grupo de la tarea de crear un Libro Blanco inicial en el proceso > >>>  propuesto para la selección de un miembro del Consejo At-Large de ICANN > >>> que > >>>  se distribuirá para el comentario extenso temprano en enero de 2010. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>  Encuentre por favor ató una copia del director Libro Blanco en el EN y > >>> el > >>>  franco para la revisión. El documento español estará disponible en los > >>>  próximos días. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>  El director Libro Blanco está también disponible para el comentario en > >>> las > >>>  páginas del wiki. El page porta del `está disponible en: > >>> > >>>  https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?director_white_paper. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>  Animan a todos los miembros de la comunidad At-Large a comentar respecto > >>> al > >>>  director Libro Blanco antes de la llamada siguiente de la comunidad en > >>> el > >>>  proceso de selección At-Large que se programará entre el 27-29 de enero > >>> de > >>>  2010 (un Doodle será enviado pronto). > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>  Los comentarios serán aceptados en seis idiomas unas de los de la O.N.U. > >>> > >>>  Haga por favor sus comentarios directamente en la página del wiki usando > >>> el > >>>  " comment" botón. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>  Se pide además que los miembros de la Comunidad At-Large transmiten a > >>> este > >>>  mensaje otras listas relevantes para distribuir la llamada para los > >>>  comentarios sobre el director Libro Blanco tan extensamente como sea > >>>  posible. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>  Respetos, > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>  Heidi Ullrich, Matthias Langenegger, Gisella Gruber-White, Marilyn > >>> Vernon, > >>>  Kristina Nordström ICANN At-Large Staff > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>  email: staff[at]atlarge.icann.org > >>> > >>>  website: www.atlarge.icann.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 > >>> > >>>  ____________________________________________________________ > >>>  You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org > >>>  To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >>> > >>>  For all list information and functions, see: > >>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >>> > >>>  Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> ________________________________________________ > >> > >> > >> Rui Correia > >> Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant > >> Angola Liaison Consultant > >> 2 Cutten St > >> Horison > >> Roodepoort-Johannesburg, > >> South Africa > >> Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 > >> Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 > >> _______________ > >> áâãçéêíóôõúç > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>     governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >> > >> For all list information and functions, see: > >>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >> > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >    governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > >    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > -- > ________________________________________________ > > > Rui Correia > Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant > Angola Liaison Consultant > 2 Cutten St > Horison > Roodepoort-Johannesburg, > South Africa > Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 > Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 > _______________ > áâãçéêíóôõúç > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >      governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au Tue Jan 12 15:10:19 2010 From: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au (David Goldstein) Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 12:10:19 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] TR: ICANN Fellowship Program In-Reply-To: References: <013001ca9382$c12a8020$437f8060$@com.br> Message-ID: <64314.24175.qm@web58908.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Rui, Buy a dictionary and look up the word fellowship before making these silly assertions. David ----- Original Message ---- From: Rui Correia To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Adam Peake Sent: Wed, 13 January, 2010 12:30:48 AM Subject: Re: [governance] TR: ICANN Fellowship Program Adam, Fair enough. However, and using an example I was personally involved with - at Highway Africa (largest annual gathering of journalists from across Africa), a similar procedure is used, with people applying to attend with cost covered and some to take part in 5-day long professional courses after the conference (total 9-10 days), and yet, it is called merely a sponsorship. I could understand a three-month stint being called a fellowship - not the 3-day ICANN event. It is PR gold-spraying. As for the document being only in English, for EUR 4,500 ICANN could have had it translated into all 11 languages that are displayed in bar of the said document. In fact, EUR 3,000 would be enough, it it left out the part about "what is ICANN". Rui 2010/1/12 Adam Peake : > I suspect the intention has been to create something more than just a travel > support grant. The "fellows" are required to attend daily briefings while at > the ICANN meeting and to be active in meeting sessions, write a report, show > value they have taken back from the meeting. By take back, I mean something > that has an input to a larger group (ccTLD, government, some community) so > their participation isn't just a one-off personal benefit. At least that's > my understanding. > > Very easy to give someone a ticket and cover their hotel costs and not put > any support programmes in place, and ICANN did that for a couple of years in > the early part of the decade (it had some value, but could have done more, I > know a few on this list who benefited.) The Fellowship Program is trying to > do something more, and has good feedback so perhaps it's working. > > Adam > > > >> [Vanda - this is not directed at you; I can see it comes from the PR] >> >> I wonder who came up with this idiotic use o the word "fellowship" >> when referring to what is in fact a sponsorship to cover travel and >> accommodation (and "a stipend"). Then just to crown it, those who get >> the fellowships are called "alumni"! >> >> Must come from the same bright linguist who decided it was fine to use >> the word "itinerary" for an event programme! "Itinerary > Day 1 > Day >> 2" etc, all in the same venue! >> >> Rui >> >> >> >> 2010/1/12 Vanda UOL : >>> >>> Dear all, Estimados amigos, Chers Amis >>> >>> >>> >>> Please access >> >> > http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-11jan10-en.htm to >>> >>> analyze the opportunity to join ICANN meeting in Brussels next June. >>> >>> >>> >>> Por favor vean en >>> http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-11jan10-en.htm la >>> oportunidad de participar en la conferencia de ICANN en Bruselas el >>> próximo >>> Junio >>> >>> >>> >>> Svp accès >>> http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-11jan10-en.htm >>> pour analyser l'occasion de joindre la réunion d'ICANN à Bruxelles juin >>> prochain. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Thank you for your attention / Gracias por su atención / Merci pour >>> votre >>> attention >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Vanda Scartezini >>> >>> Fellowship Program Committee >>> >>> ICANN Board ­ ALAC Liaison >>> >>> www.executivasdeti.blogspot.com >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Sébastien Bachollet [mailto:sebastien.bachollet at free.fr] >>> Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 3:39 AM >>> To: Sébastien Bachollet >>> Subject: [governance] TR: [ALAC-Announce] Director White Paper - Request >>> for >>> Comments >>> >>> >>> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> It is my pleasure to forward you this message of the At-Large advisory >>> committee of ICANN. >>> >>> Your comments are welcome preferably using the wiki comments (link in >>> the >>> messages bellow). >>> >>> Please forward it to you pears. >>> >>> All the best >>> >>> >>> >>> Chers amis, >>> >>> Je vous transmet, avec plaisir, ce message du comité At-Large de >>> l'Icann. >>> >>> Vos commentaires sont les bienvenus de préférence en utilisant les >>> possibilités de commentaires sur le wiki (les liens dans les messages >>> ci-dessous). >>> >>> Merci de faire suivre ce message à vos collègues. >>> >>> Amicalement >>> >>> >>> >>> Estimado todos, >>> >>> Es mi placer de transmitir este mensajes del Consejo At-Large de ICANN. >>> >>> Sus comentarios son bienvenidos. >>> >>> Gracias >>> >>> >>> >>> Sébastien Bachollet >>> >>> Président d'honneur - Isoc France >>> >>> sebastien.bachollet at isoc.fr >>> >>> www.egeni.org >>> >>> www.isoc.fr >>> >>> >>> >>> * La version française est ci-dessous >>> >>> >>> >>> *La versión española está abajo >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Dear All, >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> At its 22 December 2009 teleconference, the ALAC charged a small group >>> with >>> the task of creating an initial white paper on the proposed process for >>> the >>> selection of an ICANN At-Large Board Member to be distributed for >>> wide-spread comment early in January 2010. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Please find attached a copy of the Director White Paper in EN and FR for >>> review. The Spanish document will be available in the next few days. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> The Director White Paper is also available for comment on wiki pages. >>> The >> >> > Œportal page¹ is available at: >>> >>> >>> >>> https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?director_white_paper. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> All members of the At-Large community are encouraged to comment on the >>> Director White Paper prior to the next Community Call on the At-Large >>> Selection Process to be scheduled between 27-29 January 2010 (a Doodle >>> will >>> be sent shortly). >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Comments will be accepted in any of the six UN languages. Please make >>> your >>> comments directly on the wiki page using the "comment" button. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> It is additionally requested that At-Large community members forward >>> this >>> message to other relevant lists to distribute the call for comments on >>> the >>> Director White Paper as widely as possible. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ** >>> >>> >>> >>> Cher tous, >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> À sa téléconférence du 22 décembre 2009, l'ALAC a chargé un petit groupe >>> de >>> la tâche de créer un premier livre blanc sur le procédé proposé pour le >>> choix d'un membre du conseil At-Large d'ICANN à distribuer pour le >>> commentaire répandu tôt en janvier 2010. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Veuillez trouver ci-joint une copie du directeur livre blanc en en et >>> franc >>> pour la revue. Le document espagnol sera disponible en prochains jours. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Le directeur livre blanc est également disponible pour le commentaire >>> aux >>> pages de wiki. Le page portique de `est disponible à : >>> >>> https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?director_white_paper. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Tous les membres de la communauté At-Large sont encouragés à présenter >>> leurs >>> observations sur le directeur livre blanc avant le prochain faire appel >>> de >>> la Communauté au processus de sélection At-Large à programmer entre les >>> >>> 27-29 janvier 2010 (un Doodle sera envoyé sous peu). >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Des commentaires seront acceptés dans des six langues l'unes des de >>> l'ONU. >>> >>> Veuillez formuler vos commentaires directement sur la page de wiki >>> utilisant >>> le " ; comment" ; bouton. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On lui demande en plus que membre de la Communauté At-Large font suivre >>> à ce >>> message d'autres listes appropriées pour distribuer l'appel pour des >>> commentaires sur le directeur livre blanc aussi largement comme >>> possible. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Cordialment, >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ** >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Estimado todos, >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> En su teleconferencia del 22 de diciembre de 2009, el ALAC encargó a un >>> pequeño grupo de la tarea de crear un Libro Blanco inicial en el proceso >>> propuesto para la selección de un miembro del Consejo At-Large de ICANN >>> que >>> se distribuirá para el comentario extenso temprano en enero de 2010. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Encuentre por favor ató una copia del director Libro Blanco en el EN y >>> el >>> franco para la revisión. El documento español estará disponible en los >>> próximos días. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> El director Libro Blanco está también disponible para el comentario en >>> las >>> páginas del wiki. El page porta del `está disponible en: >>> >>> https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?director_white_paper. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Animan a todos los miembros de la comunidad At-Large a comentar respecto >>> al >>> director Libro Blanco antes de la llamada siguiente de la comunidad en >>> el >>> proceso de selección At-Large que se programará entre el 27-29 de enero >>> de >>> 2010 (un Doodle será enviado pronto). >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Los comentarios serán aceptados en seis idiomas unas de los de la O.N.U. >>> >>> Haga por favor sus comentarios directamente en la página del wiki usando >>> el >>> " comment" botón. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Se pide además que los miembros de la Comunidad At-Large transmiten a >>> este >>> mensaje otras listas relevantes para distribuir la llamada para los >>> comentarios sobre el director Libro Blanco tan extensamente como sea >>> posible. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Respetos, >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Heidi Ullrich, Matthias Langenegger, Gisella Gruber-White, Marilyn >>> Vernon, >>> Kristina Nordström ICANN At-Large Staff >>> >>> >>> >>> email: staff[at]atlarge.icann.org >>> >>> website: www.atlarge.icann.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 >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> ________________________________________________ >> >> >> Rui Correia >> Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant >> Angola Liaison Consultant >> 2 Cutten St >> Horison >> Roodepoort-Johannesburg, >> South Africa >> Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 >> Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 >> _______________ >> áâãçéêíóôõúç >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- ________________________________________________ Rui Correia Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant Angola Liaison Consultant 2 Cutten St Horison Roodepoort-Johannesburg, South Africa Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 _______________ áâãçéêíóôõúç ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t __________________________________________________________________________________ See what's on at the movies in your area. Find out now: http://au.movies.yahoo.com/session-times/ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nursesacrosstheborders at yahoo.com Tue Jan 12 15:29:10 2010 From: nursesacrosstheborders at yahoo.com (NURSES ACROSS THE BORDERS) Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 12:29:10 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] ICANN no. 37 NAIROBI | 7-12 March 2010 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <377622.45007.qm@web34308.mail.mud.yahoo.com> I will be attending the Fellowship Program as one of those shortlisted. I will welcome any contribution on ANY issue you may want (re)presented at the Fellowship. Regards. Pastor Peters OMORAGBON Executive President/CEO Nurses Across the Borders Humanitarian Initiative-Inc.-(Nigeria & U.S.A) An NGO On Special Consultative Status with The Economic and Social Council of the United Nations-(ECOSOC) Member(OBSERVER),United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) URL: www.nursesacrosstheborders.org NABHI as affiliate of the United Nations is poised to uphold the TENETS of the CHARTERS of the UN. THIS it pledges to promote and publicise for enhanced Sustainable Developmet. WE believe in a World of Law and Order, Peace and Security with RESPECT for Fundamental Human Rights. NABHI IS NOT A VISA PROCUREMENT AGENCY NOR IS IT AN INTERNATIONAL RECRUITMENT AGENCY --- On Mon, 1/11/10, Yehuda Katz wrote: > From: Yehuda Katz > Subject: [governance] ICANN no. 37 NAIROBI | 7-12 March 2010 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Date: Monday, January 11, 2010, 1:06 AM > Time is running short for ICANN no. > 37 NAIROBI | 7-12 March 2010 > http://nbo.icann.org/ > > Any IGC / CPSR Mailist Members going ? > Any Statements or Paper Presentaions? > > - > > ALAC Scheadule: > https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?at_large_nairobi_schedule > > - > > AFRALO-ICANN At Large Africa > https://st.icann.org/afralo/index.cgi?action=recent_changes > > - > > EURALO-ICANN At Large Europe > https://st.icann.org/euralo/index.cgi?action=recent_changes > > - > > ASIAPAC-ICANN At Large Asia Pacific > https://st.icann.org/asiapac/index.cgi?action=recent_changes > > - > > NARALO-ICANN At Large North America > https://st.icann.org/naralo/index.cgi?action=recent_changes > > - > > LAC RALO > https://st.icann.org/lacralo/index.cgi?action=recent_changes > > - > > At Large Advisory Committee > https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi > > https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?action=recent_changes > > - > > GNSO Council Workspace > https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi > > https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?action=recent_changes > > -- > > Diplo Internet Governance.org > http://www.diplointernetgovernance.org > > http://www.diplointernetgovernance.org/video/icann-nairobi > > --- > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >      governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From correia.rui at gmail.com Tue Jan 12 16:05:38 2010 From: correia.rui at gmail.com (Rui Correia) Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 23:05:38 +0200 Subject: [governance] TR: ICANN Fellowship Program In-Reply-To: <64314.24175.qm@web58908.mail.re1.yahoo.com> References: <013001ca9382$c12a8020$437f8060$@com.br> <64314.24175.qm@web58908.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Yes, David Guess I'll ask ICANN to by me one - they can justify it as a Fellowship. I'll then look u the word, and once I know the meaning, I'll call myself an alumnus. Rui 2010/1/12 David Goldstein : > Rui, > > Buy a dictionary and look up the word fellowship before making these silly assertions. > > David > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: Rui Correia > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Adam Peake > Sent: Wed, 13 January, 2010 12:30:48 AM > Subject: Re: [governance] TR: ICANN Fellowship Program > > Adam, > > Fair enough. > > However, and using an example I was personally involved with - at > Highway Africa (largest annual gathering of journalists from across > Africa), a similar procedure is used, with people applying to attend > with cost covered and some to take part in 5-day long professional > courses after the conference (total 9-10 days), and yet, it is called > merely a sponsorship. I could understand a three-month stint being > called a fellowship - not the 3-day ICANN event. > > It is PR gold-spraying. > > As for the document being only in English, for EUR 4,500 ICANN could > have had it translated into all 11 languages that are displayed in bar > of the said document. In fact, EUR 3,000 would be enough, it it left > out the part about "what is ICANN". > > Rui > > 2010/1/12 Adam Peake : >> I suspect the intention has been to create something more than just a travel >> support grant. The "fellows" are required to attend daily briefings while at >> the ICANN meeting and to be active in meeting sessions, write a report, show >> value they have taken back from the meeting.  By take back, I mean something >> that has an input to a larger group (ccTLD, government, some community) so >> their participation isn't just a one-off personal benefit. At least that's >> my understanding. >> >> Very easy to give someone a ticket and cover their hotel costs and not put >> any support programmes in place, and ICANN did that for a couple of years in >> the early part of the decade (it had some value, but could have done more, I >> know a few on this list who benefited.)  The Fellowship Program is trying to >> do something more, and has good feedback so perhaps it's working. >> >> Adam >> >> >> >>> [Vanda - this is not directed at you; I can see it comes from the PR] >>> >>> I wonder who came up with this idiotic use o the word "fellowship" >>> when referring to what is in fact a sponsorship to cover travel and >>> accommodation (and "a stipend"). Then just to crown it, those who get >>> the fellowships are called "alumni"! >>> >>> Must come from the same bright linguist who decided it was fine to use >>> the word "itinerary" for an event programme! "Itinerary > Day 1 > Day >>> 2" etc, all in the same venue! >>> >>> Rui >>> >>> >>> >>> 2010/1/12 Vanda UOL : >>>> >>>>  Dear all, Estimados amigos, Chers Amis >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  Please access >>> >>>  >   http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-11jan10-en.htm  to >>>> >>>>  analyze the opportunity to join ICANN meeting in Brussels next June. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  Por favor vean en >>>>  http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-11jan10-en.htm la >>>>  oportunidad de participar en la conferencia de ICANN en Bruselas el >>>> próximo >>>>  Junio >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  Svp accès >>>>  http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-11jan10-en.htm >>>>  pour analyser l'occasion de joindre la réunion d'ICANN à Bruxelles juin >>>>  prochain. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  Thank you for your attention / Gracias por su atención / Merci pour >>>> votre >>>>  attention >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  Vanda Scartezini >>>> >>>>  Fellowship Program Committee >>>> >>>>  ICANN Board ­ ALAC Liaison >>>> >>>>  www.executivasdeti.blogspot.com >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  -----Original Message----- >>>>  From: Sébastien Bachollet [mailto:sebastien.bachollet at free.fr] >>>>  Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 3:39 AM >>>>  To: Sébastien Bachollet >>>>  Subject: [governance] TR: [ALAC-Announce] Director White Paper - Request >>>> for >>>>  Comments >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  Dear all, >>>> >>>>  It is my pleasure to forward you this message of the At-Large advisory >>>>  committee of ICANN. >>>> >>>>  Your comments are welcome preferably using the wiki comments (link in >>>> the >>>>  messages bellow). >>>> >>>>  Please forward it to you pears. >>>> >>>>  All the best >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  Chers amis, >>>> >>>>  Je vous transmet, avec plaisir, ce message du comité At-Large de >>>> l'Icann. >>>> >>>>  Vos commentaires sont les bienvenus de préférence en utilisant les >>>>  possibilités de commentaires sur le wiki (les liens dans les messages >>>>  ci-dessous). >>>> >>>>  Merci de faire suivre ce message à vos collègues. >>>> >>>>  Amicalement >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  Estimado todos, >>>> >>>>  Es mi placer de transmitir este mensajes del Consejo At-Large de ICANN. >>>> >>>>  Sus comentarios son bienvenidos. >>>> >>>>  Gracias >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  Sébastien Bachollet >>>> >>>>  Président d'honneur - Isoc France >>>> >>>>  sebastien.bachollet at isoc.fr >>>> >>>>  www.egeni.org >>>> >>>>  www.isoc.fr >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  * La version française est ci-dessous >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  *La versión española está abajo >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  Dear All, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  At its 22 December 2009 teleconference, the ALAC charged a small group >>>> with >>>>  the task of creating an initial white paper on the proposed process for >>>> the >>>>  selection of an ICANN At-Large Board Member to be distributed for >>>>  wide-spread comment early in January 2010. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  Please find attached a copy of the Director White Paper in EN and FR for >>>>  review. The Spanish document will be available in the next few days. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  The Director White Paper is also available for comment on wiki pages. >>>> The >>> >>>  > Œportal page¹ is available at: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?director_white_paper. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  All members of the At-Large community are encouraged to comment on the >>>>  Director White Paper prior to the next Community Call on the At-Large >>>>  Selection Process to be scheduled between 27-29 January 2010 (a Doodle >>>> will >>>>  be sent shortly). >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  Comments will be accepted in any of the six UN languages. Please make >>>> your >>>>  comments directly on the wiki page using the "comment" button. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  It is additionally requested that At-Large community members forward >>>> this >>>>  message to other relevant lists to distribute the call for comments on >>>> the >>>>  Director White Paper as widely as possible. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  Regards, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  ** >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  Cher tous, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  À sa téléconférence du 22 décembre 2009, l'ALAC a chargé un petit groupe >>>> de >>>>  la tâche de créer un premier livre blanc sur le procédé proposé pour le >>>>  choix d'un membre du conseil At-Large d'ICANN à distribuer pour le >>>>  commentaire répandu tôt en janvier 2010. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  Veuillez trouver ci-joint une copie du directeur livre blanc en en et >>>> franc >>>>  pour la revue.  Le document espagnol sera disponible en prochains jours. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  Le directeur livre blanc est également disponible pour le commentaire >>>> aux >>>>  pages de wiki. Le page portique de `est disponible à : >>>> >>>>  https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?director_white_paper. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  Tous les membres de la communauté At-Large sont encouragés à présenter >>>> leurs >>>>  observations sur le directeur livre blanc avant le prochain faire appel >>>> de >>>>  la Communauté au processus de sélection At-Large à programmer entre les >>>> >>>>  27-29 janvier 2010 (un Doodle sera envoyé sous peu). >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  Des commentaires seront acceptés dans des six langues l'unes des de >>>> l'ONU. >>>> >>>>  Veuillez formuler vos commentaires directement sur la page de wiki >>>> utilisant >>>>  le " ; comment" ; bouton. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  On lui demande en plus que membre de la Communauté At-Large font suivre >>>> à ce >>>>  message d'autres listes appropriées pour distribuer l'appel pour des >>>>  commentaires sur le directeur livre blanc aussi largement comme >>>> possible. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  Cordialment, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  ** >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  Estimado todos, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  En su teleconferencia del 22 de diciembre de 2009, el ALAC encargó a un >>>>  pequeño grupo de la tarea de crear un Libro Blanco inicial en el proceso >>>>  propuesto para la selección de un miembro del Consejo At-Large de ICANN >>>> que >>>>  se distribuirá para el comentario extenso temprano en enero de 2010. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  Encuentre por favor ató una copia del director Libro Blanco en el EN y >>>> el >>>>  franco para la revisión. El documento español estará disponible en los >>>>  próximos días. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  El director Libro Blanco está también disponible para el comentario en >>>> las >>>>  páginas del wiki. El page porta del `está disponible en: >>>> >>>>  https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?director_white_paper. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  Animan a todos los miembros de la comunidad At-Large a comentar respecto >>>> al >>>>  director Libro Blanco antes de la llamada siguiente de la comunidad en >>>> el >>>>  proceso de selección At-Large que se programará entre el 27-29 de enero >>>> de >>>>  2010 (un Doodle será enviado pronto). >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  Los comentarios serán aceptados en seis idiomas unas de los de la O.N.U. >>>> >>>>  Haga por favor sus comentarios directamente en la página del wiki usando >>>> el >>>>  " comment" botón. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  Se pide además que los miembros de la Comunidad At-Large transmiten a >>>> este >>>>  mensaje otras listas relevantes para distribuir la llamada para los >>>>  comentarios sobre el director Libro Blanco tan extensamente como sea >>>>  posible. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  Respetos, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  Heidi Ullrich, Matthias Langenegger, Gisella Gruber-White, Marilyn >>>> Vernon, >>>>  Kristina Nordström ICANN At-Large Staff >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  email: staff[at]atlarge.icann.org >>>> >>>>  website: www.atlarge.icann.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 >>>> >>>>  ____________________________________________________________ >>>>  You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>>  To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>> >>>>  For all list information and functions, see: >>>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>> >>>>  Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> ________________________________________________ >>> >>> >>> Rui Correia >>> Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant >>> Angola Liaison Consultant >>> 2 Cutten St >>> Horison >>> Roodepoort-Johannesburg, >>> South Africa >>> Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 >>> Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 >>> _______________ >>> áâãçéêíóôõúç >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>    governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > -- > ________________________________________________ > > > Rui Correia > Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant > Angola Liaison Consultant > 2 Cutten St > Horison > Roodepoort-Johannesburg, > South Africa > Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 > Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 > _______________ > áâãçéêíóôõúç > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >    governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > >      __________________________________________________________________________________ > See what's on at the movies in your area. Find out now: http://au.movies.yahoo.com/session-times/ > -- ________________________________________________ Rui Correia Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant Angola Liaison Consultant 2 Cutten St Horison Roodepoort-Johannesburg, South Africa Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 _______________ áâãçéêíóôõúç ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Tue Jan 12 17:16:46 2010 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 14:16:46 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] TR: ICANN Fellowship Program In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <608806.63975.qm@web83911.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Rui and David,   Sometimes language does not fit your dictionaries so well.  I first noticed the term itinerary while in Paris in 1975. Did not think about it much. It was used to show us the general schedule of events. Yes it was misused but everyone knew what it meant and there were at least 10 languages attending. Saw it again at a trade-show in Hanoi, 2001 and again at SunMicro with a Stanford affiliation seminar/webinar conference. As I thought about it -- I saw it quite a bit in the 80's and 90's from Telluride to Tel Aviv.   This particular word seemed to get it's legs in the tourism to business tourism and into the event planning lingo as it was generally understood in areas where the conferences would take place do to surrounding economies based on international tourism.   Fellowship actually has the same basic transborder understandings. Mainly due to the international exchange student tourism model.   So fastidious arguments regarding exact definitions are really not helpful in making contributions to governance. --- On Tue, 1/12/10, Uri Corrie wrote: From: Rui Correia Subject: Re: [governance] TR: ICANN Fellowship Program To: "David Goldstein" , governance at lists.cpsr.org Date: Tuesday, January 12, 2010, 9:05 PM Yes, David Guess I'll ask ICANN to by me one - they can justify it as a Fellowship. I'll then look u the word, and once I know the meaning, I'll call myself an alumnus. Rui 2010/1/12 David Goldstein : > Rui, > > Buy a dictionary and look up the word fellowship before making these silly assertions. > > David > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: Rui Correia > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Adam Peake > Sent: Wed, 13 January, 2010 12:30:48 AM > Subject: Re: [governance] TR: ICANN Fellowship Program > > Adam, > > Fair enough. > > However, and using an example I was personally involved with - at > Highway Africa (largest annual gathering of journalists from across > Africa), a similar procedure is used, with people applying to attend > with cost covered and some to take part in 5-day long professional > courses after the conference (total 9-10 days), and yet, it is called > merely a sponsorship. I could understand a three-month stint being > called a fellowship - not the 3-day ICANN event. > > It is PR gold-spraying. > > As for the document being only in English, for EUR 4,500 ICANN could > have had it translated into all 11 languages that are displayed in bar > of the said document. In fact, EUR 3,000 would be enough, it it left > out the part about "what is ICANN". > > Rui > > 2010/1/12 Adam Peake : >> I suspect the intention has been to create something more than just a travel >> support grant. The "fellows" are required to attend daily briefings while at >> the ICANN meeting and to be active in meeting sessions, write a report, show >> value they have taken back from the meeting.  By take back, I mean something >> that has an input to a larger group (ccTLD, government, some community) so >> their participation isn't just a one-off personal benefit. At least that's >> my understanding. >> >> Very easy to give someone a ticket and cover their hotel costs and not put >> any support programmes in place, and ICANN did that for a couple of years in >> the early part of the decade (it had some value, but could have done more, I >> know a few on this list who benefited.)  The Fellowship Program is trying to >> do something more, and has good feedback so perhaps it's working. >> >> Adam >> >> >> >>> [Vanda - this is not directed at you; I can see it comes from the PR] >>> >>> I wonder who came up with this idiotic use o the word "fellowship" >>> when referring to what is in fact a sponsorship to cover travel and >>> accommodation (and "a stipend"). Then just to crown it, those who get >>> the fellowships are called "alumni"! >>> >>> Must come from the same bright linguist who decided it was fine to use >>> the word "itinerary" for an event programme! "Itinerary > Day 1 > Day >>> 2" etc, all in the same venue! >>> >>> Rui >>> >>> >>> >>> 2010/1/12 Vanda UOL : >>>> >>>>  Dear all, Estimados amigos, Chers Amis >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  Please access >>> >>>  >   http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-11jan10-en.htm  to >>>> >>>>  analyze the opportunity to join ICANN meeting in Brussels next June. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  Por favor vean en >>>>  http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-11jan10-en.htm la >>>>  oportunidad de participar en la conferencia de ICANN en Bruselas el >>>> próximo >>>>  Junio >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  Svp accès >>>>  http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-11jan10-en.htm >>>>  pour analyser l'occasion de joindre la réunion d'ICANN à Bruxelles juin >>>>  prochain. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  Thank you for your attention / Gracias por su atención / Merci pour >>>> votre >>>>  attention >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  Vanda Scartezini >>>> >>>>  Fellowship Program Committee >>>> >>>>  ICANN Board ­ ALAC Liaison >>>> >>>>  www.executivasdeti.blogspot.com >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  -----Original Message----- >>>>  From: Sébastien Bachollet [mailto:sebastien.bachollet at free.fr] >>>>  Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 3:39 AM >>>>  To: Sébastien Bachollet >>>>  Subject: [governance] TR: [ALAC-Announce] Director White Paper - Request >>>> for >>>>  Comments >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  Dear all, >>>> >>>>  It is my pleasure to forward you this message of the At-Large advisory >>>>  committee of ICANN. >>>> >>>>  Your comments are welcome preferably using the wiki comments (link in >>>> the >>>>  messages bellow). >>>> >>>>  Please forward it to you pears. >>>> >>>>  All the best >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  Chers amis, >>>> >>>>  Je vous transmet, avec plaisir, ce message du comité At-Large de >>>> l'Icann. >>>> >>>>  Vos commentaires sont les bienvenus de préférence en utilisant les >>>>  possibilités de commentaires sur le wiki (les liens dans les messages >>>>  ci-dessous). >>>> >>>>  Merci de faire suivre ce message à vos collègues. >>>> >>>>  Amicalement >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  Estimado todos, >>>> >>>>  Es mi placer de transmitir este mensajes del Consejo At-Large de ICANN. >>>> >>>>  Sus comentarios son bienvenidos. >>>> >>>>  Gracias >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  Sébastien Bachollet >>>> >>>>  Président d'honneur - Isoc France >>>> >>>>  sebastien.bachollet at isoc.fr >>>> >>>>  www.egeni.org >>>> >>>>  www.isoc.fr >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  * La version française est ci-dessous >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  *La versión española está abajo >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  Dear All, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  At its 22 December 2009 teleconference, the ALAC charged a small group >>>> with >>>>  the task of creating an initial white paper on the proposed process for >>>> the >>>>  selection of an ICANN At-Large Board Member to be distributed for >>>>  wide-spread comment early in January 2010. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  Please find attached a copy of the Director White Paper in EN and FR for >>>>  review. The Spanish document will be available in the next few days. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  The Director White Paper is also available for comment on wiki pages. >>>> The >>> >>>  > Œportal page¹ is available at: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?director_white_paper. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  All members of the At-Large community are encouraged to comment on the >>>>  Director White Paper prior to the next Community Call on the At-Large >>>>  Selection Process to be scheduled between 27-29 January 2010 (a Doodle >>>> will >>>>  be sent shortly). >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  Comments will be accepted in any of the six UN languages. Please make >>>> your >>>>  comments directly on the wiki page using the "comment" button. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  It is additionally requested that At-Large community members forward >>>> this >>>>  message to other relevant lists to distribute the call for comments on >>>> the >>>>  Director White Paper as widely as possible. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  Regards, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  ** >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  Cher tous, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  À sa téléconférence du 22 décembre 2009, l'ALAC a chargé un petit groupe >>>> de >>>>  la tâche de créer un premier livre blanc sur le procédé proposé pour le >>>>  choix d'un membre du conseil At-Large d'ICANN à distribuer pour le >>>>  commentaire répandu tôt en janvier 2010. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  Veuillez trouver ci-joint une copie du directeur livre blanc en en et >>>> franc >>>>  pour la revue.  Le document espagnol sera disponible en prochains jours. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  Le directeur livre blanc est également disponible pour le commentaire >>>> aux >>>>  pages de wiki. Le page portique de `est disponible à : >>>> >>>>  https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?director_white_paper. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  Tous les membres de la communauté At-Large sont encouragés à présenter >>>> leurs >>>>  observations sur le directeur livre blanc avant le prochain faire appel >>>> de >>>>  la Communauté au processus de sélection At-Large à programmer entre les >>>> >>>>  27-29 janvier 2010 (un Doodle sera envoyé sous peu). >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  Des commentaires seront acceptés dans des six langues l'unes des de >>>> l'ONU. >>>> >>>>  Veuillez formuler vos commentaires directement sur la page de wiki >>>> utilisant >>>>  le " ; comment" ; bouton. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  On lui demande en plus que membre de la Communauté At-Large font suivre >>>> à ce >>>>  message d'autres listes appropriées pour distribuer l'appel pour des >>>>  commentaires sur le directeur livre blanc aussi largement comme >>>> possible. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  Cordialment, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  ** >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  Estimado todos, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  En su teleconferencia del 22 de diciembre de 2009, el ALAC encargó a un >>>>  pequeño grupo de la tarea de crear un Libro Blanco inicial en el proceso >>>>  propuesto para la selección de un miembro del Consejo At-Large de ICANN >>>> que >>>>  se distribuirá para el comentario extenso temprano en enero de 2010. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  Encuentre por favor ató una copia del director Libro Blanco en el EN y >>>> el >>>>  franco para la revisión. El documento español estará disponible en los >>>>  próximos días. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  El director Libro Blanco está también disponible para el comentario en >>>> las >>>>  páginas del wiki. El page porta del `está disponible en: >>>> >>>>  https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?director_white_paper. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  Animan a todos los miembros de la comunidad At-Large a comentar respecto >>>> al >>>>  director Libro Blanco antes de la llamada siguiente de la comunidad en >>>> el >>>>  proceso de selección At-Large que se programará entre el 27-29 de enero >>>> de >>>>  2010 (un Doodle será enviado pronto). >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  Los comentarios serán aceptados en seis idiomas unas de los de la O.N.U. >>>> >>>>  Haga por favor sus comentarios directamente en la página del wiki usando >>>> el >>>>  " comment" botón. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  Se pide además que los miembros de la Comunidad At-Large transmiten a >>>> este >>>>  mensaje otras listas relevantes para distribuir la llamada para los >>>>  comentarios sobre el director Libro Blanco tan extensamente como sea >>>>  posible. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  Respetos, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  Heidi Ullrich, Matthias Langenegger, Gisella Gruber-White, Marilyn >>>> Vernon, >>>>  Kristina Nordström ICANN At-Large Staff >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>  email: staff[at]atlarge.icann.org >>>> >>>>  website: www.atlarge.icann.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 >>>> >>>>  ____________________________________________________________ >>>>  You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>>  To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>> >>>>  For all list information and functions, see: >>>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>> >>>>  Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> ________________________________________________ >>> >>> >>> Rui Correia >>> Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant >>> Angola Liaison Consultant >>> 2 Cutten St >>> Horison >>> Roodepoort-Johannesburg, >>> South Africa >>> Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 >>> Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 >>> _______________ >>> áâãçéêíóôõúç >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>    governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > -- > ________________________________________________ > > > Rui Correia > Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant > Angola Liaison Consultant > 2 Cutten St > Horison > Roodepoort-Johannesburg, > South Africa > Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 > Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 > _______________ > áâãçéêíóôõúç > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >    governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > >      __________________________________________________________________________________ > See what's on at the movies in your area. Find out now: http://au.movies.yahoo.com/session-times/ > -- ________________________________________________ Rui Correia Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant Angola Liaison Consultant 2 Cutten St Horison Roodepoort-Johannesburg, South Africa Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 _______________ áâãçéêíóôõúç ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From tracyhackshaw at gmail.com Tue Jan 12 23:52:01 2010 From: tracyhackshaw at gmail.com (Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google) Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 00:52:01 -0400 Subject: [governance] Haiti Message-ID: <808a83f61001122052w128fe544u689e3548873e5c8a@mail.gmail.com> Say a prayer for our brothers & sisters in Haiti - they just got an IXP going ... now this ... some donation and other relief resources can be found here http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/abraham/detail??blogid=95&entry_id=55157 Can we do anything to help? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From tracyhackshaw at gmail.com Tue Jan 12 23:56:59 2010 From: tracyhackshaw at gmail.com (Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google) Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 00:56:59 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: Haiti In-Reply-To: <808a83f61001122052w128fe544u689e3548873e5c8a@mail.gmail.com> References: <808a83f61001122052w128fe544u689e3548873e5c8a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <808a83f61001122056n5059862boada832becd1689a9@mail.gmail.com> The power of the Internet and Web 2.0 ... Twitter feeds are providing rich sources of info ... this site has even more donation links and rapidly growing links to Facebook and other Social Media dealing with the Haitian crisis http://www.whatgives.com/2010/01/12/helping-haiti/ On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 12:52 AM, Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google < tracyhackshaw at gmail.com> wrote: > Say a prayer for our brothers & sisters in Haiti - they just got an IXP > going ... now this ... some donation and other relief resources can be found > here > http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/abraham/detail??blogid=95&entry_id=55157 > > Can we do anything to help? > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Jan 13 05:27:43 2010 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 11:27:43 +0100 Subject: [governance] Google to stop censoring in China, may pull out Message-ID: Of interest, if you've not seen... http://news.cnet.com/8301-30684_3-10433538-265.html?tag=nl.e498 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Wed Jan 13 06:29:05 2010 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 07:29:05 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: Haiti In-Reply-To: <808a83f61001122056n5059862boada832becd1689a9@mail.gmail.com> References: <808a83f61001122052w128fe544u689e3548873e5c8a@mail.gmail.com> <808a83f61001122056n5059862boada832becd1689a9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: This does, however, also point to the continuing value of the "old" technology - the vhf radio that we always used to depend on in the Caribbean when disaster struck. That seems to have been the medium for some of the very first information to get to the outside world. If anyone receives news about people - for example Max Larsen who presented a paper in Egypt or Stephane Bruno who worked with the IXP or Raymond Noel but lots of others - please share. Deirdre 2010/1/13 Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google : > The power of the Internet and Web 2.0 ... Twitter feeds are providing rich > sources of info ... this site has even more donation links and rapidly > growing links to Facebook and other Social Media dealing with the Haitian > crisis http://www.whatgives.com/2010/01/12/helping-haiti/ > > On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 12:52 AM, Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google > wrote: >> >> Say a prayer for our brothers & sisters in Haiti - they just got an IXP >> going ... now this ... some donation and other relief resources can be found >> here http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/abraham/detail??blogid=95&entry_id=55157 >> Can we do anything to help? > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gpaque at gmail.com Wed Jan 13 09:03:34 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 09:33:34 -0430 Subject: [governance] IGC Written Contribution for IGF, deadline Jan 15 Message-ID: <4B4DD2B6.8090101@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 goldstein.roxana at gmail.com Wed Jan 13 09:34:42 2010 From: goldstein.roxana at gmail.com (Roxana Goldstein) Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 11:34:42 -0300 Subject: [governance] IGC Written Contribution for IGF, deadline Jan 15 In-Reply-To: <4B4DD2B6.8090101@gmail.com> References: <4B4DD2B6.8090101@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4ca4162f1001130634q66f445ecida59a6db611d991e@mail.gmail.com> that's ok for me Ginger, as we are in a harry. please send the IRP DC statement as soon as you can, in order to read it and send opinions. Thanksa lot. best, Roxana 2010/1/13 Ginger Paque > Hello everyone, and the best of wishes for 2010. > > Fouad recently pointed out that the work of the IGC coordinators is to > facilitate and help the IGC to work towards consensus. Jeremy and I cannot > dictate what the group should do, as of course you all know. > > I do not perceive a move towards an IGC written statement for January 15th, > so I would appreciate reading your opinions on whether to ask the IRP DC if > we can sign on supporting their statement, which looks very much in line > with IGC principles. I will post it here as soon as it comes out. > Discussions late last year reminded us that one of the functions of the IGC > is to support the initiatives of member organizations when appropriate and > agreed, and I think this may be one of those occasions. > > In general, what do you think? > > Then perhaps we can give Jeremy and others time to prepare a statement for > the OC in February, which is very soon anyway. > > Thanks everyone. > 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 lmcknigh at syr.edu Wed Jan 13 12:18:58 2010 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 12:18:58 -0500 Subject: [governance] IGC Written Contribution for IGF, deadline Jan 15 In-Reply-To: <4ca4162f1001130634q66f445ecida59a6db611d991e@mail.gmail.com> References: <4B4DD2B6.8090101@gmail.com>,<4ca4162f1001130634q66f445ecida59a6db611d991e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE014DEFE4CD@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Ginger, I agree and also agree the IRP statement (draft) is worthy of support from IGC. And timely. Lee _______________________________________ From: Roxana Goldstein [goldstein.roxana at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 9:34 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ginger Paque Subject: Re: [governance] IGC Written Contribution for IGF, deadline Jan 15 that's ok for me Ginger, as we are in a harry. please send the IRP DC statement as soon as you can, in order to read it and send opinions. Thanksa lot. best, Roxana 2010/1/13 Ginger Paque > Hello everyone, and the best of wishes for 2010. Fouad recently pointed out that the work of the IGC coordinators is to facilitate and help the IGC to work towards consensus. Jeremy and I cannot dictate what the group should do, as of course you all know. I do not perceive a move towards an IGC written statement for January 15th, so I would appreciate reading your opinions on whether to ask the IRP DC if we can sign on supporting their statement, which looks very much in line with IGC principles. I will post it here as soon as it comes out. Discussions late last year reminded us that one of the functions of the IGC is to support the initiatives of member organizations when appropriate and agreed, and I think this may be one of those occasions. In general, what do you think? Then perhaps we can give Jeremy and others time to prepare a statement for the OC in February, which is very soon anyway. Thanks everyone. 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 jeremy at ciroap.org Wed Jan 13 12:36:48 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 17:36:48 +0000 Subject: [governance] Our IGF survey results Message-ID: <27DC5EA3-6E77-4936-83F2-DDFBAFAE166B@ciroap.org> I am back online at last. I apologise for my inconvenient absence, which has made it harder for us to meet the 15 January deadline for written contributions on the next phase for the IGF that will be reflected in the synthesis paper for the February consultations. However, here I am posting the results of the online survey. In the next email, I will post a draft statement based on these results. There were 36 responses to the survey; 26 full, and 10 partial (since no questions were compulsory). This amounts to about a quarter of our membership, which isn't bad at all in my opinion. I didn't activate the strictest level of checking for duplicate entries, because this was not a formal poll. However, there are no obvious signs of survey stacking. Anyway, without further ado, here is a summary of the responses: 1. Is the Secretariat provided by the United Nations? - All but three respondents who answered the question said YES. This seems like a rough consensus. 2. To whom is the Secretariat directly accountable? - We had a roughly even split between those who thought it should be accountable to the UN Secretary General, as present, and those who thought that it should be accountable to the MAG. Thus, there is no consensus on this point, but there is what I would call a "significant" minority view in favour of change, which might be worthy of note. 3. How is the MAG (by whatever name) selected? - A large majority of respondents felt that the stakeholders, either directly or through a nominating committee, should select MAG members. However, six respondents felt that, as now, the Secretariat should do so (the "black box" approach). 4. How is the MAG composed? - All but two respondents who answered this question felt that there should be either full equality, or greater equality than at present, in the number of stakeholder group representatives on the MAG. This seems like a pretty strong "rough consensus" for change. 5. Whom do the MAG members represent? - The majority felt that they should represent their stakeholder groups - more than three times as many as those who thought that they should represent themselves. So this is a fairly strong result, though falling short of consensus. 6. By whom should the MAG be chaired? - About twice as many thought it should appoint its own chair/s, as those who thought the Secretariat should appoint the chair. However, since there were a good number holding each point of view, it does not seem we are likely to develop a consensus on this point. 7. How should the MAG make decisions? - Again, we do not have a strong agreement here. As many thought that voting should be used as thought that there should be a consensus between individuals. Slightly more popular (by five) was the view that the consensus should be between stakeholder groups rather than between individuals. 8. What should be the transparency of MAG deliberations? - A majority of those who responded sought an improvement in the level of transparency, to include at least a public mailing list, and anonymised transcripts of discussions (and within this group, a majority would have gone further and required recordings or full transcripts). So whilst there is not a consensus on this, it is a significant view perhaps worth recording. 9. Who is responsible for determining the IGF's structure and processes? - Five thought that the Secretariat (or "the UN" in one case) should do so. Everyone else who answered thought this was a task for the MAG or the open consultation meetings. I feel that perhaps we can write some wording reflecting this that would meet with rough consensus. 10. Who is responsible for writing (beyond just compiling) briefing documents? - No clear agreement here. As many thought that the Secretariat should do so as those who thought it should be a more democratic procedure. 11. Who is responsible for writing (beyond just compiling) written outputs? - A very similar result was obtained as to the preceding question. In other words, there is no likely consensus here. 12. How can such outputs be expressed in a case where a consensus exists? - A sizable majority of those who responded, though not to the rough consensus level, thought that recommendations, declarations or statements would be appropriate. Seven thought that we should just have a Chairman's summary or similar. I will draft some wording to fairly reflect this result. 13. How is intersessional preparatory work of the IGF to be performed? - Most thought the IGF should have online tools and intersessional meetings to enable an ongoing work program to be undertaken. A lesser number (six) thought it was sufficient to rely on the dynamic coalitions (and perhaps other working groups that might be created for this purpose). However only one said there was no need for any intersessional work. So we clearly have a rough consensus on that already. 14. How are outputs of the dynamic coalitions or working groups transmitted to the IGF after consensus is reached on them internally? - A similar result, with only one respondent dissenting from the view that the dynamic coalitions or working groups should put their output before the IGF at large. More people thought that this should be done via the MAG than those who thought it should be done directly to the IGF in plenary session. 15. What criteria apply to the recognition of these groups? - Everyone who responded thought that their membership should be open and their processes democratic. Most thought their composition should also be multi-stakeholder, and hardly anyone thought there should be a limit of one group per issue area. This represents an existing rough consensus on the first two points. 16. Who is responsible for assessing the consensus of the IGF at large? - No strong agreement here, though the most popular answer was that the MAG should do so. 17. What working processes are used to promote such consensus? - About three-quarters of those who responded thought that either small group moderated democratic deliberation, or something like roundtables, should be used. However we do not have strong agreement about the assessment of the consensus of the IGF, so I am not going to use this result in our statement. 18. How are outputs of the IGF transmitted to external institutions? - Again, about three quarters of those who responded said that its outputs should be transmitted via the MAG and/or the media, with other answers including "Secretariat publications", "summary statements", and "the Web site". 19. How is the agenda for the IGF set? - Only one said that the Secretariat should do so, and one said the MAG acting alone should. Everyone else who responded felt that the stakeholders, either directly or through the filter of the MAG, should set the IGF's agenda. This is a rough consensus answer. 20. How are workshops selected? - An equal number thought that the topics should be pre-selected during the agenda-setting phase, as those who thought that workshop proposals should be invited, either with or without duplicates being eliminated by the MAG. Thus there is no easy room for consensus here. So, I'm pleased that the survey suggests that there is quite a broad agreement already on some basic reforms for the IGF. In case anyone would like to audit the results, I can give you an administrative login to the survey site so that you can review them in detail (including nice graphs and raw files you can download into a statistical program). -- 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 gpaque at gmail.com Wed Jan 13 12:37:05 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 13:07:05 -0430 Subject: [governance] IGC Written Contribution for IGF, deadline Jan 15 In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE014DEFE4CD@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <4B4DD2B6.8090101@gmail.com>,<4ca4162f1001130634q66f445ecida59a6db611d991e@mail.gmail.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE014DEFE4CD@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4B4E04C1.50008@gmail.com> Thanks, Roxana and Lee for your emails. Everyone... I have copied below the thread from the IRP Mailing list, that refers to their progress on a statement for the IGF OC for Feb., to be submitted as a written contribution by January 15th. This gives you an idea of where they are going. I will post the final draft when it is posted on the IRP list. I am not suggesting that we opine as to the content of the IRP statement. If anyone wants to do that, they should do so on the IRP list. All we will do is either support their statement or not, depending on IGC consensus. Thanks, gp [Fwd: Re: [IRP] IRP Statement to Open Consultation for IGF 2010] Dear Lisa and all, I'm comfortable with all the suggestions to the statement presented so far, but I feel deeply concerned with the adoption of the term "users" as a general category. Who are the everyday Internet users? I think we should stress the importance of assuring diversity of voices, of regional and linguistical representation, the participation of underepresented groups, etc, etc, but I see the proposal of bringing the "everyday internet users" to the IGF quite dangerous. Besides, I guess everyone who goes to the IGF is an everyday internet user. best, Graciela Lisa Horner escreveu: > Everyone, please send your ideas through for the Open Consultations. We > should focus on practical suggestions for the 2010 agenda. It's really > important that we get our ideas in now, before the agenda is agreed and > it's too late. We need your ideas NOW as we need to draft a statement > and get it submitted by the 15th. > > I guess if no one has anything to add, we should keep it short and > succinct, focusing on human rights rather than the process issues. > > In addition to my previous comments, I'd like to add another... > > The IGF (including regional and international) needs to find ways of > better involving everyday internet users in the discussions, and of > improving participation from developing countries. This is particularly > important if we are to uphold human rights in and through IG - users > need to know what their rights are and how to claim them, as well as > contribute to the formation of policies that affect them. > > In terms of practical suggestions of how this might happen.... > A main session on what users need from the IGF, including discussion of > how to better include users in any future incarnations of the IGF? > Session organizers agreeing to consult with users, and explaining how > they have on feedback forms/in session reports? > National IGFs formalizing participation from users, including outreach > and information campaign? > Setting up some kind of portal/interface for everyday users to explain > ideas and needs? > More focus on the discussion RE funding for a wider range of > participants. > > Any thoughts? > > Lisa > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: M I Franklin [mailto:cos02mf at gold.ac.uk] > Sent: 11 January 2010 10:29 > To: Lisa Horner; irp > Subject: Re: [IRP] IRP Statement to Open Consultation for IGF 2010 > > Dear All > > Thanks Lisa for these comments. > > Anyone else have anything to add? > > Cheers > MF > > --On 08 January 2010 11:30 +0000 Lisa Horner > > wrote: > > >> Thanks for taking the lead with this Marianne. Some very quick notes >> below...would be good to hear people's thoughts and have a discussion >> about the options... >> >> 1) Contributions that take stock of last year's IGF in Sharm el Sheikh >> >> - Overall, the meeting was well organized. I think things have >> > improved > >> each year. >> - Remote participation seemed to work well. However, workshop >> organizers weren't given much support on how to use it properly and >> technicians weren't always on hand. More information in advance would >> be useful. >> - A wide range of stakeholders in the plenary sessions reaffirmed the >> importance of upholding human rights in the internet age. The >> > challenge > >> now is to focus on how that can actually be achieved in practice, and >> what roles different stakeholders can/should play. >> - Discussions, especially in plenary, seemed to be distracted by the >> issue of whether the IGF should continue, and if so, how. (does anyone >> have an update on the status of those discussions?) >> - Links between the main sessions and the workshops still weren't >> > great. > >> - Main sessions based around the "traditional" categories of openness, >> diversity etc felt a bit stale. The new themes introduced were >> refreshing. >> - main sessions without a large number of panelists worked better, but >> we need to find better ways of ensuring that wider plenary discussion >> remains coherent, dynamic and inclusive. >> >> 2) Suggestions for the agenda and format of the Vilnius meeting. >> >> - Rather than having main sessions based around broad themes, could >> > more > >> specific questions or policy dilemmas be proposed in advance, that >> people can debate in advance and suggest specific solutions to? >> >> - Related to the previous point, having sessions that look at a "human >> rights agenda" or "development agenda for IG" I think would be more >> useful than broad themes such as openness and diversity. I think >> > these > >> debates have been had in previous open consultations, but I haven't >> > been > >> able to keep up with everything...does anyone have any insights on >> > this? > >> As a coalition, we should probably discuss whether it's realistic to >> propose a human rights main session...could we propose a development >> main session, and then push for HRs to be a major part of that. >> > Should > >> we be proposing development/HRs as an overarching theme again? >> >> - Again related to previous point, the coalition should propose that >> > it > >> participates in the organization of the main session related to >> "openness" or development/HRs/Privacy. >> >> - Can we suggest ways of linking the national, regional and >> international IGFs better together? It would probably be useful if >> > this > >> could be done in a thematic way, for example with feedback from each >> > IGF > >> on "openness" being collected beforehand and reported back in the >> openness session. Would require work though - no resources to do it?? >> >> - Can we suggest ways of linking the workshops better to the main >> sessions? There was no formal feedback session last year, and >> > workshop > >> organizers weren't given a formal opportunity to feedback in the main >> sessions as far as I'm aware. >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org >> [mailto:irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org] On Behalf >> > Of > >> M I Franklin >> Sent: 07 January 2010 18:50 >> To: irp >> Subject: [IRP] IRP Statement to Open Consultation for IGF 2010 >> >> Dear All >> >> Greetings. To follow on from Max's speed-of-light sending out of the >> minutes of today's IRP phone-conference, this email is a call for >> contributions to a statement from the DC as part of the open >> consultations >> in preparation for Vilnius later this year. >> >> Fouad's invitation for ideas and comments for the MAG meetings is >> > pasted > >> below fyi so the DC statement also contributes to this side of the >> process; >> point 4 in particular. >> >> In short, the IRP statement can cover: >> >> >> Time is short, so we need your comments by Monday at the latest. I >> > will > >> then cobble up a first draft for one more round. The statement has to >> > be > >> ready to go by 15 January. >> >> All input welcome on either or both of the two aspects above. >> >> Thanks. >> ciao >> MF >> >> --On Thursday, January 07, 2010 6:08 +0500 Fouad Bajwa >> wrote: >> >> >>> Dear Friends, >>> >>> As you are all aware about the IGF Open Consultation and MAG meetings >>> in February 2010, I would like to request those people that cannot >>> participate but would like to be heard to forward their interventions >>> so that we can read and extend them on the floor during the Open >>> Consultation. I further request statements to be brief, concise and >>> > to > >>> the point as the floor has to be passed on to the wide participation >>> during the consultation. >>> >>> As for the MAG, we have a strong Civil Society MAG group including >>> myself. The MAG is responsible for suggesting the design/organization >>> of the IGF2010. IF you have concerns regarding the programming of the >>> IGF2010, you can forward your statements for intervention to me so >>> that they can be shared amongst our other team members. Once again, >>> the requirement for being brief, concise and to the point applies >>> > here > >>> as well! >>> >>> Ideas for interventions can involve statements such as but not >>> > limited > >> to: >> >>> 1. Issues surfaced during the IGF2009 in Sharam. >>> 2. Developing Country Participation/Inclusion Issues. >>> 3. Main Program / Main Theme Issues for IGF2010. >>> 4. Human Rights Issues/Rights on the Internet Issues. >>> 5. Development Agenda for Internet Governance Issues. >>> 6. Youth and Gender Participation Issues. >>> >>> For your convenience and live correspondence, I will be available on >>> Skype (ID:fouadbajwa , kindly don't forget to introduce yourself >>> please while adding me) throughout the three days of meetings (1 day >>> open consultation + 2 days MAG meetings). >>> >>> I look forward to assisting your interventions. >>> >>> -- >>> 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 >>> _______________________________________________ >>> IRP mailing list >>> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org >>> >>> > http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/listinfo.cgi/irp-internetri > >> g >> >>> htsandprinciples.org >>> >> >> Dr Marianne Franklin >> Reader >> Convener of the Transnational Communications & Global Media Program >> Media & Communications >> Goldsmiths, University of London >> New Cross >> London SE14 6NW >> United Kingdom >> Tel (direct): #44 (0)207 919-7072 >> Fax: #44 (0) 207 919-7616 >> email: m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk >> http://www.goldsmiths.ac.uk/media-communications/staff/franklin.php >> >> > http://www.goldsmiths.ac.uk/pg/ma-transnational-communications-global-me > >> dia.php >> >> _______________________________________________ >> IRP mailing list >> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org >> >> > http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/listinfo.cgi/irp-internetri > >> ghtsandprinciples.org >> _______________________________________________ >> IRP mailing list >> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org >> >> > http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/listinfo.cgi/irp-internetri > g > >> htsandprinciples.org >> > > > > Dr Marianne Franklin > Reader > Convener of the Transnational Communications & Global Media Program > Media & Communications > Goldsmiths, University of London > New Cross > London SE14 6NW > United Kingdom > Tel (direct): #44 (0)207 919-7072 > Fax: #44 (0) 207 919-7616 > email: m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk > http://www.goldsmiths.ac.uk/media-communications/staff/franklin.php > http://www.goldsmiths.ac.uk/pg/ma-transnational-communications-global-me > dia.php > _______________________________________________ > IRP mailing list > IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org > http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/listinfo.cgi/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org > > -- _______________________________________________ IRP mailing list IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/listinfo.cgi/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org Lee W McKnight wrote: > Ginger, > > I agree and also agree the IRP statement (draft) is worthy of support from IGC. And timely. > > Lee > _______________________________________ > From: Roxana Goldstein [goldstein.roxana at gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 9:34 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ginger Paque > Subject: Re: [governance] IGC Written Contribution for IGF, deadline Jan 15 > > that's ok for me Ginger, as we are in a harry. please send the IRP DC statement as soon as you can, in order to read it and send opinions. Thanksa lot. > best, > Roxana > > > > 2010/1/13 Ginger Paque > > Hello everyone, and the best of wishes for 2010. > > Fouad recently pointed out that the work of the IGC coordinators is to facilitate and help the IGC to work towards consensus. Jeremy and I cannot dictate what the group should do, as of course you all know. > > I do not perceive a move towards an IGC written statement for January 15th, so I would appreciate reading your opinions on whether to ask the IRP DC if we can sign on supporting their statement, which looks very much in line with IGC principles. I will post it here as soon as it comes out. Discussions late last year reminded us that one of the functions of the IGC is to support the initiatives of member organizations when appropriate and agreed, and I think this may be one of those occasions. > > In general, what do you think? > > Then perhaps we can give Jeremy and others time to prepare a statement for the OC in February, which is very soon anyway. > > Thanks everyone. > 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 From jeremy at ciroap.org Wed Jan 13 13:35:19 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 18:35:19 +0000 Subject: [governance] PLEASE RESPOND - draft statement on reform of the IGF Message-ID: <3D0F6E7C-3D02-4CAB-964F-13974AB7C9E6@ciroap.org> Below is my suggestion for a short statement based on the survey results that I just posted to the list. If we cannot obtain consensus on this statement swiftly, then we will have more time between now and 9 February to keep working. However, since it is a fairly "minimalist" statement, I hope that reaching a rough consensus soon will be possible. If initial responses to the statement below are broadly favourable, I will ask Ginger if she agrees that we can quickly make a consensus call, which according to the Charter gives the group another 48 hours for discussion before the coordinators declare whether a rough consensus has been achieved. Whilst this cuts it fine for the 15 January deadline, we will be able to ask the Secretariat for a short extension if it seems likely that a consensus can be reached. --- begins --- The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) is a global coalition of civil society and non governmental organisations and individuals actively involved the UN’s Internet Governance Forum (IGF) process. Formed during the lead up to the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), our mission is to provide a forum for discussion, advocacy, action, and for representation of civil society contributions in Internet governance processes. More about our coalition can be found at http://www.igcaucus.org. The IGC strongly supports the continuation of the IGF as a multi-stakeholder forum for the discussion of Internet-related public policy issues. However if, as we hope, the forum's mandate is to be extended for a further term, there are a number of adjustments that we believe should be taken into account, continuing the IGF's pattern of incremental improvement since its inauguration in 2006. None of these suggestions would fundamentally alter the IGF as an institution; thus for example, we believe it should remain situated within the United Nations system, with a Secretariat provided by the UN. However given that the IGF is not a traditional governmental organisation, it is important to ensure that its Secretariat and MAG are adequately accountable to the IGF's non-governmental stakeholders. Within the IGC, there are various views on how this can be best assured. Some believe that the Secretariat should have a level of accountability to the MAG. Others feel that it would improve the MAG's accountability if its members were taken to represent the stakeholder groups (but not the particular stakeholders) who appointed them. But one question on which the IGC is in clear agreement is that the composition of the MAG itself should be more evenly divided between the stakeholder groups, rather than being slanted towards particular stakeholder groups as it is at present. Many also believe that the stakeholders should have a more direct role in the selection of MAG members, and that MAG discussions should be more transparent - for example, perhaps it could revisit the idea of a second, open mailing list, on which the MAG and Secretariat can discuss their operations publicly. One particular aspect of the IGF's operations in which the participation of stakeholders could be improved is in the making of decisions relating to the IGF's structure and processes. Many of the IGC's members believe that the MAG, drawing on input received at open consultation meetings, ought to exercise a greater influence than in the past on decisions about the future structure and processes of the IGF. A second aspect in which there is room for improvement in the accountability of the IGF to its stakeholders is in setting the substantive agenda of IGF meetings. Although at present this responsibility falls to the MAG, the IGC was surprised that the very strongly and widely expressed views of stakeholders from civil society as to the importance of a human rights agenda for the IGF was not reflected in the agenda set by the MAG for the Sharm el Sheikh meeting. The IGC also believes that the IGF ought to improve its orientation towards the development of tangible outputs, even if these do not amount to recommendations, declarations or statements (though many of our members would support outputs of such kinds). Whatever form its outputs take, efforts should be taken to ensure that they are transmitted to relevant external institutions, either by the MAG directly, through publications on the IGF's Web site, or through the media as appropriate. Similarly, there is a strong view within the IGC that in order to maximise its effectiveness, the IGF should have an intersessional work program, rather than being limited to a single annual meeting. Many of our members believe that this should include the development of an ongoing work program for the IGF as a whole, to be carried on through online tools and intersessional and regional meetings. Others believe that the main responsibility for intersessional work can be left to dynamic coalitions (and perhaps other issue-specific working groups). In that case, it is widely accepted that there should be a better mechanism than at present for these groups to present their outputs to the IGF as a whole. This would require the IGF to begin to set more stringent standards for such groups, including open membership, democratic processes, and perhaps multi-stakeholder composition. We thank you for the opportunity to present you with these thoughts, which reflect a "rough consensus" of our several hundred members from civil society, with a wide spread of geographic and gender representation. We look forward to continuing to constructively engage with and participate in the IGF over the course of its renewed term. -- 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 david.souter at runbox.com Wed Jan 13 13:48:42 2010 From: david.souter at runbox.com (David Souter) Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 18:48:42 -0000 Subject: [governance] PLEASE RESPOND - draft statement on reform of the IGF In-Reply-To: <3D0F6E7C-3D02-4CAB-964F-13974AB7C9E6@ciroap.org> References: <3D0F6E7C-3D02-4CAB-964F-13974AB7C9E6@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <08b201ca9481$07c2cf20$17486d60$@souter@runbox.com> Dear Jeremy: I think there is a question here about IGC membership and how the IGC presents itself. According to the Charter, "the members of the IGC are individuals, acting in personal capacity, who subscribe to the charter of the caucus. All members are equal and have the same rights and duties." Can it really, therefore, introduce itself as "a global coalition of civil society and non governmental organisations and individuals", as in the preamble to this draft? If asked, which "civil society and non governmental organisations" would we say are part of the IGC? David Souter Message sent by: David Souter Managing Director, ict Development Associates ltd Visiting Professor in Communications Management, Business School, University of Strathclyde Visiting Senior Fellow, Department of Media and Communications, London School of Economics Associate of the International Institute for Sustainable Development 145 Lower Camden, Chislehurst, Kent, BR7 5JD (+44) (0)20 8467 1148 (fixed line) (+44) (0)7764 819974 (cellular line) From: Jeremy Malcolm [mailto:jeremy at ciroap.org] Sent: 13 January 2010 18:35 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] PLEASE RESPOND - draft statement on reform of the IGF Below is my suggestion for a short statement based on the survey results that I just posted to the list. If we cannot obtain consensus on this statement swiftly, then we will have more time between now and 9 February to keep working. However, since it is a fairly "minimalist" statement, I hope that reaching a rough consensus soon will be possible. If initial responses to the statement below are broadly favourable, I will ask Ginger if she agrees that we can quickly make a consensus call, which according to the Charter gives the group another 48 hours for discussion before the coordinators declare whether a rough consensus has been achieved. Whilst this cuts it fine for the 15 January deadline, we will be able to ask the Secretariat for a short extension if it seems likely that a consensus can be reached. --- begins --- The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) is a global coalition of civil society and non governmental organisations and individuals actively involved the UN's Internet Governance Forum (IGF) process. Formed during the lead up to the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), our mission is to provide a forum for discussion, advocacy, action, and for representation of civil society contributions in Internet governance processes. More about our coalition can be found at http://www.igcaucus.org. The IGC strongly supports the continuation of the IGF as a multi-stakeholder forum for the discussion of Internet-related public policy issues. However if, as we hope, the forum's mandate is to be extended for a further term, there are a number of adjustments that we believe should be taken into account, continuing the IGF's pattern of incremental improvement since its inauguration in 2006. None of these suggestions would fundamentally alter the IGF as an institution; thus for example, we believe it should remain situated within the United Nations system, with a Secretariat provided by the UN. However given that the IGF is not a traditional governmental organisation, it is important to ensure that its Secretariat and MAG are adequately accountable to the IGF's non-governmental stakeholders. Within the IGC, there are various views on how this can be best assured. Some believe that the Secretariat should have a level of accountability to the MAG. Others feel that it would improve the MAG's accountability if its members were taken to represent the stakeholder groups (but not the particular stakeholders) who appointed them. But one question on which the IGC is in clear agreement is that the composition of the MAG itself should be more evenly divided between the stakeholder groups, rather than being slanted towards particular stakeholder groups as it is at present. Many also believe that the stakeholders should have a more direct role in the selection of MAG members, and that MAG discussions should be more transparent - for example, perhaps it could revisit the idea of a second, open mailing list, on which the MAG and Secretariat can discuss their operations publicly. One particular aspect of the IGF's operations in which the participation of stakeholders could be improved is in the making of decisions relating to the IGF's structure and processes. Many of the IGC's members believe that the MAG, drawing on input received at open consultation meetings, ought to exercise a greater influence than in the past on decisions about the future structure and processes of the IGF. A second aspect in which there is room for improvement in the accountability of the IGF to its stakeholders is in setting the substantive agenda of IGF meetings. Although at present this responsibility falls to the MAG, the IGC was surprised that the very strongly and widely expressed views of stakeholders from civil society as to the importance of a human rights agenda for the IGF was not reflected in the agenda set by the MAG for the Sharm el Sheikh meeting. The IGC also believes that the IGF ought to improve its orientation towards the development of tangible outputs, even if these do not amount to recommendations, declarations or statements (though many of our members would support outputs of such kinds). Whatever form its outputs take, efforts should be taken to ensure that they are transmitted to relevant external institutions, either by the MAG directly, through publications on the IGF's Web site, or through the media as appropriate. Similarly, there is a strong view within the IGC that in order to maximise its effectiveness, the IGF should have an intersessional work program, rather than being limited to a single annual meeting. Many of our members believe that this should include the development of an ongoing work program for the IGF as a whole, to be carried on through online tools and intersessional and regional meetings. Others believe that the main responsibility for intersessional work can be left to dynamic coalitions (and perhaps other issue-specific working groups). In that case, it is widely accepted that there should be a better mechanism than at present for these groups to present their outputs to the IGF as a whole. This would require the IGF to begin to set more stringent standards for such groups, including open membership, democratic processes, and perhaps multi-stakeholder composition. We thank you for the opportunity to present you with these thoughts, which reflect a "rough consensus" of our several hundred members from civil society, with a wide spread of geographic and gender representation. We look forward to continuing to constructively engage with and participate in the IGF over the course of its renewed term. -- 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 Jan 13 14:13:57 2010 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 06:13:57 +1100 Subject: [governance] PLEASE RESPOND - draft statement on reform of the In-Reply-To: <3D0F6E7C-3D02-4CAB-964F-13974AB7C9E6@ciroap.org> Message-ID: HI Jeremy, a couple of small comments ­ but generally I support the statement. >But one question on which the IGC is in clear agreement is that the composition of the MAG itself should be more evenly divided between the stakeholder groups, rather than being slanted towards >particular stakeholder groups as it is at present. Many also believe that the stakeholders should have a more direct role in the selection of MAG members, and that MAG discussions should be more >transparent - for example, perhaps it could revisit the idea of a second, open mailing list, on which the MAG and Secretariat can discuss their operations publicly. I think we have discussed the second mailing list concept before and there is very little evidence from other organisations that have done this that the open mailing list will get used. People default to the closed list, I have seen this happen in a few organisations. I would leave that example out. >A second aspect in which there is room for improvement in the accountability of the IGF to its stakeholders is in setting the substantive agenda of IGF meetings. Although at present this responsibility >falls to the MAG, the IGC was surprised that the very strongly and widely expressed views of stakeholders from civil society as to the importance of a human rights agenda for the IGF was not reflected >in the agenda set by the MAG for the Sharm el Sheikh meeting. It wasn¹t just civil society ­ the concept had wide support from other stakeholders including some governments as well ­ I would say ³civil society and other stakeholders² From: Jeremy Malcolm Reply-To: , Jeremy Malcolm Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 18:35:19 +0000 To: Subject: [governance] PLEASE RESPOND - draft statement on reform of the IGF Below is my suggestion for a short statement based on the survey results that I just posted to the list. If we cannot obtain consensus on this statement swiftly, then we will have more time between now and 9 February to keep working. However, since it is a fairly "minimalist" statement, I hope that reaching a rough consensus soon will be possible. If initial responses to the statement below are broadly favourable, I will ask Ginger if she agrees that we can quickly make a consensus call, which according to the Charter gives the group another 48 hours for discussion before the coordinators declare whether a rough consensus has been achieved. Whilst this cuts it fine for the 15 January deadline, we will be able to ask the Secretariat for a short extension if it seems likely that a consensus can be reached. --- begins --- The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) is a global coalition of civil society and non governmental organisations and individuals actively involved the UN¹s Internet Governance Forum (IGF) process. Formed during the lead up to the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), our mission is to provide a forum for discussion, advocacy, action, and for representation of civil society contributions in Internet governance processes. More about our coalition can be found at http://www.igcaucus.org . The IGC strongly supports the continuation of the IGF as a multi-stakeholder forum for the discussion of Internet-related public policy issues. However if, as we hope, the forum's mandate is to be extended for a further term, there are a number of adjustments that we believe should be taken into account, continuing the IGF's pattern of incremental improvement since its inauguration in 2006. None of these suggestions would fundamentally alter the IGF as an institution; thus for example, we believe it should remain situated within the United Nations system, with a Secretariat provided by the UN. However given that the IGF is not a traditional governmental organisation, it is important to ensure that its Secretariat and MAG are adequately accountable to the IGF's non-governmental stakeholders. Within the IGC, there are various views on how this can be best assured. Some believe that the Secretariat should have a level of accountability to the MAG. Others feel that it would improve the MAG's accountability if its members were taken to represent the stakeholder groups (but not the particular stakeholders) who appointed them. But one question on which the IGC is in clear agreement is that the composition of the MAG itself should be more evenly divided between the stakeholder groups, rather than being slanted towards particular stakeholder groups as it is at present. Many also believe that the stakeholders should have a more direct role in the selection of MAG members, and that MAG discussions should be more transparent - for example, perhaps it could revisit the idea of a second, open mailing list, on which the MAG and Secretariat can discuss their operations publicly. One particular aspect of the IGF's operations in which the participation of stakeholders could be improved is in the making of decisions relating to the IGF's structure and processes. Many of the IGC's members believe that the MAG, drawing on input received at open consultation meetings, ought to exercise a greater influence than in the past on decisions about the future structure and processes of the IGF. A second aspect in which there is room for improvement in the accountability of the IGF to its stakeholders is in setting the substantive agenda of IGF meetings. Although at present this responsibility falls to the MAG, the IGC was surprised that the very strongly and widely expressed views of stakeholders from civil society as to the importance of a human rights agenda for the IGF was not reflected in the agenda set by the MAG for the Sharm el Sheikh meeting. The IGC also believes that the IGF ought to improve its orientation towards the development of tangible outputs, even if these do not amount to recommendations, declarations or statements (though many of our members would support outputs of such kinds). Whatever form its outputs take, efforts should be taken to ensure that they are transmitted to relevant external institutions, either by the MAG directly, through publications on the IGF's Web site, or through the media as appropriate. Similarly, there is a strong view within the IGC that in order to maximise its effectiveness, the IGF should have an intersessional work program, rather than being limited to a single annual meeting. Many of our members believe that this should include the development of an ongoing work program for the IGF as a whole, to be carried on through online tools and intersessional and regional meetings. Others believe that the main responsibility for intersessional work can be left to dynamic coalitions (and perhaps other issue-specific working groups). In that case, it is widely accepted that there should be a better mechanism than at present for these groups to present their outputs to the IGF as a whole. This would require the IGF to begin to set more stringent standards for such groups, including open membership, democratic processes, and perhaps multi-stakeholder composition. We thank you for the opportunity to present you with these thoughts, which reflect a "rough consensus" of our several hundred members from civil society, with a wide spread of geographic and gender representation. We look forward to continuing to constructively engage with and participate in the IGF over the course of its renewed term. -- 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 Wed Jan 13 14:24:09 2010 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 22:24:09 +0300 Subject: [governance] PLEASE RESPOND - draft statement on reform of the In-Reply-To: <3001387034883581355@unknownmsgid> References: <3D0F6E7C-3D02-4CAB-964F-13974AB7C9E6@ciroap.org> <3001387034883581355@unknownmsgid> Message-ID: David, On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 9:48 PM, David Souter wrote: > Dear Jeremy: > > > > I think there is a question here about IGC membership and how the IGC > presents itself. > > > > According to the Charter, “the members of the IGC are individuals, acting in > personal capacity, who subscribe to the charter of the caucus.  All members > are equal and have the same rights and duties.” > > > > Can it really, therefore, introduce itself as “a global coalition of civil > society and non governmental organisations and individuals”, as in the > preamble to this draft? > I also object to this (and to a variety of other things in the statement). The full sentence reads: "The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) is a global coalition of civil society and non governmental organisations and individuals actively involved the UN’s Internet Governance Forum (IGF) process." I thought the caucus was about Internet Governance and not about talking about Internet Governance. Aligning ourselves solely with the IGF is tantamount to saying we don't really DO Internet Governance. As discussed previously (ad nauseum) I have a more generous definition of CS than some on this list, so I don't think that the MAG is "slanted towards particular stakeholder groups". Nor do I think that the IGF "ought to improve its orientation towards the development of tangible outputs". I think the national and regional IGFs are the "intersessional work program". In addition, I hardly think that your survey methodology (already critiqued by others) is the basis for even "rough" consensus. On the whole, I have to say no to this statement. -- 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 jeanette at wzb.eu Wed Jan 13 14:32:46 2010 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 19:32:46 +0000 Subject: [governance] PLEASE RESPOND - draft statement on reform of the In-Reply-To: <3D0F6E7C-3D02-4CAB-964F-13974AB7C9E6@ciroap.org> References: <3D0F6E7C-3D02-4CAB-964F-13974AB7C9E6@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <4B4E1FDE.8010608@wzb.eu> Hi Jeremy, thank you for drafting this statement. Parts of it I support, others I don't agree with or think they are based on wrong assumptions. Would it make sense to briefly discuss it paragraph by paragraph to find out which elements find general support? jeanette Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > Below is my suggestion for a short statement based on the survey results > that I just posted to the list. If we cannot obtain consensus on this > statement swiftly, then we will have more time between now and 9 > February to keep working. However, since it is a fairly "minimalist" > statement, I hope that reaching a rough consensus soon will be possible. > > If initial responses to the statement below are broadly favourable, I > will ask Ginger if she agrees that we can quickly make a consensus call, > which according to the Charter gives the group another 48 hours for > discussion before the coordinators declare whether a rough consensus has > been achieved. Whilst this cuts it fine for the 15 January deadline, we > will be able to ask the Secretariat for a short extension if it seems > likely that a consensus can be reached. > > --- begins --- > > The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) is a global coalition of civil > society and non governmental organisations and individuals actively > involved the UN’s Internet Governance Forum (IGF) process. Formed during > the lead up to the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), our > mission is to provide a forum for discussion, advocacy, action, and for > representation of civil society contributions in Internet governance > processes. More about our coalition can be found at > http://www.igcaucus.org . > > The IGC strongly supports the continuation of the IGF as a > multi-stakeholder forum for the discussion of Internet-related public > policy issues. However if, as we hope, the forum's mandate is to be > extended for a further term, there are a number of adjustments that we > believe should be taken into account, continuing the IGF's pattern of > incremental improvement since its inauguration in 2006. None of these > suggestions would fundamentally alter the IGF as an institution; thus > for example, we believe it should remain situated within the United > Nations system, with a Secretariat provided by the UN. > > However given that the IGF is not a traditional governmental > organisation, it is important to ensure that its Secretariat and MAG are > adequately accountable to the IGF's non-governmental stakeholders. > Within the IGC, there are various views on how this can be best > assured. Some believe that the Secretariat should have a level of > accountability to the MAG. Others feel that it would improve the MAG's > accountability if its members were taken to represent the stakeholder > groups (but not the particular stakeholders) who appointed them. > > But one question on which the IGC is in clear agreement is that the > composition of the MAG itself should be more evenly divided between the > stakeholder groups, rather than being slanted towards particular > stakeholder groups as it is at present. Many also believe that the > stakeholders should have a more direct role in the selection of MAG > members, and that MAG discussions should be more transparent - for > example, perhaps it could revisit the idea of a second, open mailing > list, on which the MAG and Secretariat can discuss their operations > publicly. > > One particular aspect of the IGF's operations in which the participation > of stakeholders could be improved is in the making of decisions relating > to the IGF's structure and processes. Many of the IGC's members believe > that the MAG, drawing on input received at open consultation meetings, > ought to exercise a greater influence than in the past on decisions > about the future structure and processes of the IGF. > > A second aspect in which there is room for improvement in the > accountability of the IGF to its stakeholders is in setting the > substantive agenda of IGF meetings. Although at present this > responsibility falls to the MAG, the IGC was surprised that the very > strongly and widely expressed views of stakeholders from civil society > as to the importance of a human rights agenda for the IGF was not > reflected in the agenda set by the MAG for the Sharm el Sheikh meeting. > > The IGC also believes that the IGF ought to improve its orientation > towards the development of tangible outputs, even if these do not amount > to recommendations, declarations or statements (though many of our > members would support outputs of such kinds). Whatever form its outputs > take, efforts should be taken to ensure that they are transmitted to > relevant external institutions, either by the MAG directly, through > publications on the IGF's Web site, or through the media as appropriate. > > Similarly, there is a strong view within the IGC that in order to > maximise its effectiveness, the IGF should have an intersessional work > program, rather than being limited to a single annual meeting. Many of > our members believe that this should include the development of an > ongoing work program for the IGF as a whole, to be carried on through > online tools and intersessional and regional meetings. > > Others believe that the main responsibility for intersessional work can > be left to dynamic coalitions (and perhaps other issue-specific working > groups). In that case, it is widely accepted that there should be a > better mechanism than at present for these groups to present their > outputs to the IGF as a whole. This would require the IGF to begin to > set more stringent standards for such groups, including open membership, > democratic processes, and perhaps multi-stakeholder composition. > > We thank you for the opportunity to present you with these thoughts, > which reflect a "rough consensus" of our several hundred members from > civil society, with a wide spread of geographic and gender > representation. We look forward to continuing to constructively engage > with and participate in the IGF over the course of its renewed term. > > -- > > *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 lmcknigh at syr.edu Wed Jan 13 14:59:05 2010 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 14:59:05 -0500 Subject: [governance] PLEASE RESPOND - draft statement on reform of the In-Reply-To: <4B4E1FDE.8010608@wzb.eu> References: <3D0F6E7C-3D02-4CAB-964F-13974AB7C9E6@ciroap.org>,<4B4E1FDE.8010608@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE014DEFE4D2@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> I agree with Jeanette's suggested paragraph by paragraph approach. 9 February is probably a more plausible target. Lee ________________________________________ From: Jeanette Hofmann [jeanette at wzb.eu] Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 2:32 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeremy Malcolm Subject: Re: [governance] PLEASE RESPOND - draft statement on reform of the Hi Jeremy, thank you for drafting this statement. Parts of it I support, others I don't agree with or think they are based on wrong assumptions. Would it make sense to briefly discuss it paragraph by paragraph to find out which elements find general support? jeanette Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > Below is my suggestion for a short statement based on the survey results > that I just posted to the list. If we cannot obtain consensus on this > statement swiftly, then we will have more time between now and 9 > February to keep working. However, since it is a fairly "minimalist" > statement, I hope that reaching a rough consensus soon will be possible. > > If initial responses to the statement below are broadly favourable, I > will ask Ginger if she agrees that we can quickly make a consensus call, > which according to the Charter gives the group another 48 hours for > discussion before the coordinators declare whether a rough consensus has > been achieved. Whilst this cuts it fine for the 15 January deadline, we > will be able to ask the Secretariat for a short extension if it seems > likely that a consensus can be reached. > > --- begins --- > > The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) is a global coalition of civil > society and non governmental organisations and individuals actively > involved the UN’s Internet Governance Forum (IGF) process. Formed during > the lead up to the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), our > mission is to provide a forum for discussion, advocacy, action, and for > representation of civil society contributions in Internet governance > processes. More about our coalition can be found at > http://www.igcaucus.org . > > The IGC strongly supports the continuation of the IGF as a > multi-stakeholder forum for the discussion of Internet-related public > policy issues. However if, as we hope, the forum's mandate is to be > extended for a further term, there are a number of adjustments that we > believe should be taken into account, continuing the IGF's pattern of > incremental improvement since its inauguration in 2006. None of these > suggestions would fundamentally alter the IGF as an institution; thus > for example, we believe it should remain situated within the United > Nations system, with a Secretariat provided by the UN. > > However given that the IGF is not a traditional governmental > organisation, it is important to ensure that its Secretariat and MAG are > adequately accountable to the IGF's non-governmental stakeholders. > Within the IGC, there are various views on how this can be best > assured. Some believe that the Secretariat should have a level of > accountability to the MAG. Others feel that it would improve the MAG's > accountability if its members were taken to represent the stakeholder > groups (but not the particular stakeholders) who appointed them. > > But one question on which the IGC is in clear agreement is that the > composition of the MAG itself should be more evenly divided between the > stakeholder groups, rather than being slanted towards particular > stakeholder groups as it is at present. Many also believe that the > stakeholders should have a more direct role in the selection of MAG > members, and that MAG discussions should be more transparent - for > example, perhaps it could revisit the idea of a second, open mailing > list, on which the MAG and Secretariat can discuss their operations > publicly. > > One particular aspect of the IGF's operations in which the participation > of stakeholders could be improved is in the making of decisions relating > to the IGF's structure and processes. Many of the IGC's members believe > that the MAG, drawing on input received at open consultation meetings, > ought to exercise a greater influence than in the past on decisions > about the future structure and processes of the IGF. > > A second aspect in which there is room for improvement in the > accountability of the IGF to its stakeholders is in setting the > substantive agenda of IGF meetings. Although at present this > responsibility falls to the MAG, the IGC was surprised that the very > strongly and widely expressed views of stakeholders from civil society > as to the importance of a human rights agenda for the IGF was not > reflected in the agenda set by the MAG for the Sharm el Sheikh meeting. > > The IGC also believes that the IGF ought to improve its orientation > towards the development of tangible outputs, even if these do not amount > to recommendations, declarations or statements (though many of our > members would support outputs of such kinds). Whatever form its outputs > take, efforts should be taken to ensure that they are transmitted to > relevant external institutions, either by the MAG directly, through > publications on the IGF's Web site, or through the media as appropriate. > > Similarly, there is a strong view within the IGC that in order to > maximise its effectiveness, the IGF should have an intersessional work > program, rather than being limited to a single annual meeting. Many of > our members believe that this should include the development of an > ongoing work program for the IGF as a whole, to be carried on through > online tools and intersessional and regional meetings. > > Others believe that the main responsibility for intersessional work can > be left to dynamic coalitions (and perhaps other issue-specific working > groups). In that case, it is widely accepted that there should be a > better mechanism than at present for these groups to present their > outputs to the IGF as a whole. This would require the IGF to begin to > set more stringent standards for such groups, including open membership, > democratic processes, and perhaps multi-stakeholder composition. > > We thank you for the opportunity to present you with these thoughts, > which reflect a "rough consensus" of our several hundred members from > civil society, with a wide spread of geographic and gender > representation. We look forward to continuing to constructively engage > with and participate in the IGF over the course of its renewed term. > > -- > > *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 jeanette at wzb.eu Wed Jan 13 15:11:29 2010 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 20:11:29 +0000 Subject: [governance] PLEASE RESPOND - draft statement on reform of the In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE014DEFE4D2@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <3D0F6E7C-3D02-4CAB-964F-13974AB7C9E6@ciroap.org>,<4B4E1FDE.8010608@wzb.eu> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE014DEFE4D2@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4B4E28F1.3030702@wzb.eu> Ok, why don't we start right away. I leave out the intro, which can be improved later I think. The first substantial para is the following: The IGC strongly supports the continuation of the IGF as a multi-stakeholder forum for the discussion of Internet-related public policy issues. However if, as we hope, the forum's mandate is to be extended for a further term, there are a number of adjustments that we believe should be taken into account, continuing the IGF's pattern of incremental improvement since its inauguration in 2006. None of these suggestions would fundamentally alter the IGF as an institution; thus for example, we believe it should remain situated within the United Nations system, with a Secretariat provided by the UN. I agree with the spirit of this paragraph but would suggest that we try to be a bit more specific with regard to "situated within the United Nations system, with a Secretariat provided by the UN" since the present wording would support a new arrangement within the UN. For example, under the auspices of the ITU. Perhaps we could say something to the effect that "the IGF, including its secretariat should remain situated within United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA". jeanette Lee W McKnight wrote: > I agree with Jeanette's suggested paragraph by paragraph approach. > > 9 February is probably a more plausible target. > > Lee > ________________________________________ > From: Jeanette Hofmann [jeanette at wzb.eu] > Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 2:32 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeremy Malcolm > Subject: Re: [governance] PLEASE RESPOND - draft statement on reform of the > > Hi Jeremy, thank you for drafting this statement. Parts of it I support, > others I don't agree with or think they are based on wrong assumptions. > Would it make sense to briefly discuss it paragraph by paragraph to find > out which elements find general support? > > jeanette > > Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> Below is my suggestion for a short statement based on the survey results >> that I just posted to the list. If we cannot obtain consensus on this >> statement swiftly, then we will have more time between now and 9 >> February to keep working. However, since it is a fairly "minimalist" >> statement, I hope that reaching a rough consensus soon will be possible. >> >> If initial responses to the statement below are broadly favourable, I >> will ask Ginger if she agrees that we can quickly make a consensus call, >> which according to the Charter gives the group another 48 hours for >> discussion before the coordinators declare whether a rough consensus has >> been achieved. Whilst this cuts it fine for the 15 January deadline, we >> will be able to ask the Secretariat for a short extension if it seems >> likely that a consensus can be reached. >> >> --- begins --- >> >> The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) is a global coalition of civil >> society and non governmental organisations and individuals actively >> involved the UN’s Internet Governance Forum (IGF) process. Formed during >> the lead up to the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), our >> mission is to provide a forum for discussion, advocacy, action, and for >> representation of civil society contributions in Internet governance >> processes. More about our coalition can be found at >> http://www.igcaucus.org . >> >> The IGC strongly supports the continuation of the IGF as a >> multi-stakeholder forum for the discussion of Internet-related public >> policy issues. However if, as we hope, the forum's mandate is to be >> extended for a further term, there are a number of adjustments that we >> believe should be taken into account, continuing the IGF's pattern of >> incremental improvement since its inauguration in 2006. None of these >> suggestions would fundamentally alter the IGF as an institution; thus >> for example, we believe it should remain situated within the United >> Nations system, with a Secretariat provided by the UN. >> >> However given that the IGF is not a traditional governmental >> organisation, it is important to ensure that its Secretariat and MAG are >> adequately accountable to the IGF's non-governmental stakeholders. >> Within the IGC, there are various views on how this can be best >> assured. Some believe that the Secretariat should have a level of >> accountability to the MAG. Others feel that it would improve the MAG's >> accountability if its members were taken to represent the stakeholder >> groups (but not the particular stakeholders) who appointed them. >> >> But one question on which the IGC is in clear agreement is that the >> composition of the MAG itself should be more evenly divided between the >> stakeholder groups, rather than being slanted towards particular >> stakeholder groups as it is at present. Many also believe that the >> stakeholders should have a more direct role in the selection of MAG >> members, and that MAG discussions should be more transparent - for >> example, perhaps it could revisit the idea of a second, open mailing >> list, on which the MAG and Secretariat can discuss their operations >> publicly. >> >> One particular aspect of the IGF's operations in which the participation >> of stakeholders could be improved is in the making of decisions relating >> to the IGF's structure and processes. Many of the IGC's members believe >> that the MAG, drawing on input received at open consultation meetings, >> ought to exercise a greater influence than in the past on decisions >> about the future structure and processes of the IGF. >> >> A second aspect in which there is room for improvement in the >> accountability of the IGF to its stakeholders is in setting the >> substantive agenda of IGF meetings. Although at present this >> responsibility falls to the MAG, the IGC was surprised that the very >> strongly and widely expressed views of stakeholders from civil society >> as to the importance of a human rights agenda for the IGF was not >> reflected in the agenda set by the MAG for the Sharm el Sheikh meeting. >> >> The IGC also believes that the IGF ought to improve its orientation >> towards the development of tangible outputs, even if these do not amount >> to recommendations, declarations or statements (though many of our >> members would support outputs of such kinds). Whatever form its outputs >> take, efforts should be taken to ensure that they are transmitted to >> relevant external institutions, either by the MAG directly, through >> publications on the IGF's Web site, or through the media as appropriate. >> >> Similarly, there is a strong view within the IGC that in order to >> maximise its effectiveness, the IGF should have an intersessional work >> program, rather than being limited to a single annual meeting. Many of >> our members believe that this should include the development of an >> ongoing work program for the IGF as a whole, to be carried on through >> online tools and intersessional and regional meetings. >> >> Others believe that the main responsibility for intersessional work can >> be left to dynamic coalitions (and perhaps other issue-specific working >> groups). In that case, it is widely accepted that there should be a >> better mechanism than at present for these groups to present their >> outputs to the IGF as a whole. This would require the IGF to begin to >> set more stringent standards for such groups, including open membership, >> democratic processes, and perhaps multi-stakeholder composition. >> >> We thank you for the opportunity to present you with these thoughts, >> which reflect a "rough consensus" of our several hundred members from >> civil society, with a wide spread of geographic and gender >> representation. We look forward to continuing to constructively engage >> with and participate in the IGF over the course of its renewed term. >> >> -- >> >> *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 jeremy at ciroap.org Wed Jan 13 15:18:58 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 20:18:58 +0000 Subject: [governance] PLEASE RESPOND - draft statement on reform of the In-Reply-To: References: <3D0F6E7C-3D02-4CAB-964F-13974AB7C9E6@ciroap.org> <3001387034883581355@unknownmsgid> Message-ID: <00D8C04A-2172-4FF0-9F8A-1F4732472F6B@ciroap.org> On 13/01/2010, at 7:24 PM, McTim wrote: > David, > > On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 9:48 PM, David Souter wrote: >> Dear Jeremy: >> >> I think there is a question here about IGC membership and how the IGC >> presents itself. >> >> According to the Charter, “the members of the IGC are individuals, acting in >> personal capacity, who subscribe to the charter of the caucus. All members >> are equal and have the same rights and duties.” >> >> Can it really, therefore, introduce itself as “a global coalition of civil >> society and non governmental organisations and individuals”, as in the >> preamble to this draft? FWIW, this preamble was taken verbatim from a previous statement made in June last year. But even so, please suggest specific improvements. -- 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 Wed Jan 13 16:09:03 2010 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 22:09:03 +0100 Subject: [governance] PLEASE RESPOND - draft statement on reform of the In-Reply-To: <4B4E1FDE.8010608@wzb.eu> References: <3D0F6E7C-3D02-4CAB-964F-13974AB7C9E6@ciroap.org> <4B4E1FDE.8010608@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <4B644B4B-BF2B-4927-A511-E4B114DECC61@graduateinstitute.ch> On Jan 13, 2010, at 8:32 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > Hi Jeremy, thank you for drafting this statement. Parts of it I support, others I don't agree with or think they are based on wrong assumptions. > Would it make sense to briefly discuss it paragraph by paragraph to find out which elements find general support? I agree with Jeanette's points and suggestion of para by para discussion (of course, as with any other statement we've ever done, we aren't limited to these paragraphs if people want to suggest other language/topics). 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 david.souter at runbox.com Wed Jan 13 17:09:04 2010 From: david.souter at runbox.com (David Souter) Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 22:09:04 -0000 Subject: [governance] Draft statement - preamble In-Reply-To: <00D8C04A-2172-4FF0-9F8A-1F4732472F6B@ciroap.org> References: <3D0F6E7C-3D02-4CAB-964F-13974AB7C9E6@ciroap.org> <3001387034883581355@unknownmsgid> <00D8C04A-2172-4FF0-9F8A-1F4732472F6B@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <0e4301ca949d$04ed0920$0ec71b60$@souter@runbox.com> My point about the preamble is simply this: If the IGC is an association of individuals, it should not represent itself as a coalition of organisations - a description which it could not sustain if it were challenged. I would suggest something like "an association of individuals in civil society who are actively engaged in internet governance and the IGF." But there are many formulations that would work. David Souter Message sent by: David Souter Managing Director, ict Development Associates ltd Visiting Professor in Communications Management, Business School, University of Strathclyde Visiting Senior Fellow, Department of Media and Communications, London School of Economics Associate of the International Institute for Sustainable Development   145 Lower Camden, Chislehurst, Kent, BR7 5JD (+44) (0)20 8467 1148 (fixed line) (+44) (0)7764 819974 (cellular line) -----Original Message----- From: Jeremy Malcolm [mailto:jeremy at ciroap.org] Sent: 13 January 2010 20:19 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; McTim Subject: Re: [governance] PLEASE RESPOND - draft statement on reform of the On 13/01/2010, at 7:24 PM, McTim wrote: > David, > > On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 9:48 PM, David Souter wrote: >> Dear Jeremy: >> >> I think there is a question here about IGC membership and how the IGC >> presents itself. >> >> According to the Charter, “the members of the IGC are individuals, acting in >> personal capacity, who subscribe to the charter of the caucus. All members >> are equal and have the same rights and duties.” >> >> Can it really, therefore, introduce itself as “a global coalition of civil >> society and non governmental organisations and individuals”, as in the >> preamble to this draft? FWIW, this preamble was taken verbatim from a previous statement made in June last year. But even so, please suggest specific improvements. -- 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 cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Wed Jan 13 21:48:40 2010 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 18:48:40 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] PLEASE RESPOND - draft statement on reform of the In-Reply-To: <4B4E28F1.3030702@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <232209.84381.qm@web83901.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Mandatory language is appropriate:  "the IGF, including its secretariat {should } shall remain situated within United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA)" --- On Wed, 1/13/10, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: From: Jeanette Hofmann Subject: Re: [governance] PLEASE RESPOND - draft statement on reform of the To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Lee W McKnight" Date: Wednesday, January 13, 2010, 8:11 PM Ok, why don't we start right away. I leave out the intro, which can be improved later I think. The first substantial para is the following: The IGC strongly supports the continuation of the IGF as a multi-stakeholder forum for the discussion of Internet-related public policy issues.  However if, as we hope, the forum's mandate is to be extended for a further term, there are a number of adjustments that we believe should be taken into account, continuing the IGF's pattern of incremental improvement since its inauguration in 2006.  None of these suggestions would fundamentally alter the IGF as an institution; thus for example, we believe it should remain situated within the United Nations system, with a Secretariat provided by the UN. I agree with the spirit of this paragraph but would suggest that we try to be a bit more specific with regard to "situated within the United Nations system, with a Secretariat provided by the UN" since the present wording would support a new arrangement within the UN. For example, under the auspices of the ITU.  Perhaps we could say something to the effect that "the IGF, including its secretariat should remain situated within United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA". jeanette Lee W McKnight wrote: > I agree with Jeanette's suggested paragraph by paragraph approach. > 9 February is probably a more plausible target. > > Lee > ________________________________________ > From: Jeanette Hofmann [jeanette at wzb.eu] > Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 2:32 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeremy Malcolm > Subject: Re: [governance] PLEASE RESPOND - draft statement on reform of the > > Hi Jeremy, thank you for drafting this statement. Parts of it I support, > others I don't agree with or think they are based on wrong assumptions. > Would it make sense to briefly discuss it paragraph by paragraph to find > out which elements find general support? > > jeanette > > Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> Below is my suggestion for a short statement based on the survey results >> that I just posted to the list.  If we cannot obtain consensus on this >> statement swiftly, then we will have more time between now and 9 >> February to keep working.  However, since it is a fairly "minimalist" >> statement, I hope that reaching a rough consensus soon will be possible. >> >> If initial responses to the statement below are broadly favourable, I >> will ask Ginger if she agrees that we can quickly make a consensus call, >> which according to the Charter gives the group another 48 hours for >> discussion before the coordinators declare whether a rough consensus has >> been achieved.  Whilst this cuts it fine for the 15 January deadline, we >> will be able to ask the Secretariat for a short extension if it seems >> likely that a consensus can be reached. >> >> --- begins --- >> >> The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) is a global coalition of civil >> society and non governmental organisations and individuals actively >> involved the UN’s Internet Governance Forum (IGF) process. Formed during >> the lead up to the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), our >> mission is to provide a forum for discussion, advocacy, action, and for >> representation of civil society contributions in Internet governance >> processes. More about our coalition can be found at >> http://www.igcaucus.org . >> >> The IGC strongly supports the continuation of the IGF as a >> multi-stakeholder forum for the discussion of Internet-related public >> policy issues.  However if, as we hope, the forum's mandate is to be >> extended for a further term, there are a number of adjustments that we >> believe should be taken into account, continuing the IGF's pattern of >> incremental improvement since its inauguration in 2006.  None of these >> suggestions would fundamentally alter the IGF as an institution; thus >> for example, we believe it should remain situated within the United >> Nations system, with a Secretariat provided by the UN. >> >> However given that the IGF is not a traditional governmental >> organisation, it is important to ensure that its Secretariat and MAG are >> adequately accountable to the IGF's non-governmental stakeholders. >>  Within the IGC, there are various views on how this can be best >> assured.  Some believe that the Secretariat should have a level of >> accountability to the MAG.  Others feel that it would improve the MAG's >> accountability if its members were taken to represent the stakeholder >> groups (but not the particular stakeholders) who appointed them. >> >> But one question on which the IGC is in clear agreement is that the >> composition of the MAG itself should be more evenly divided between the >> stakeholder groups, rather than being slanted towards particular >> stakeholder groups as it is at present.  Many also believe that the >> stakeholders should have a more direct role in the selection of MAG >> members, and that MAG discussions should be more transparent - for >> example, perhaps it could revisit the idea of a second, open mailing >> list, on which the MAG and Secretariat can discuss their operations >> publicly. >> >> One particular aspect of the IGF's operations in which the participation >> of stakeholders could be improved is in the making of decisions relating >> to the IGF's structure and processes.  Many of the IGC's members believe >> that the MAG, drawing on input received at open consultation meetings, >> ought to exercise a greater influence than in the past on decisions >> about the future structure and processes of the IGF. >> >> A second aspect in which there is room for improvement in the >> accountability of the IGF to its stakeholders is in setting the >> substantive agenda of IGF meetings.  Although at present this >> responsibility falls to the MAG, the IGC was surprised that the very >> strongly and widely expressed views of stakeholders from civil society >> as to the importance of a human rights agenda for the IGF was not >> reflected in the agenda set by the MAG for the Sharm el Sheikh meeting. >> >> The IGC also believes that the IGF ought to improve its orientation >> towards the development of tangible outputs, even if these do not amount >> to recommendations, declarations or statements (though many of our >> members would support outputs of such kinds).  Whatever form its outputs >> take, efforts should be taken to ensure that they are transmitted to >> relevant external institutions, either by the MAG directly, through >> publications on the IGF's Web site, or through the media as appropriate. >> >> Similarly, there is a strong view within the IGC that in order to >> maximise its effectiveness, the IGF should have an intersessional work >> program, rather than being limited to a single annual meeting.  Many of >> our members believe that this should include the development of an >> ongoing work program for the IGF as a whole, to be carried on through >> online tools and intersessional and regional meetings. >> >> Others believe that the main responsibility for intersessional work can >> be left to dynamic coalitions (and perhaps other issue-specific working >> groups).  In that case, it is widely accepted that there should be a >> better mechanism than at present for these groups to present their >> outputs to the IGF as a whole.  This would require the IGF to begin to >> set more stringent standards for such groups, including open membership, >> democratic processes, and perhaps multi-stakeholder composition. >> >> We thank you for the opportunity to present you with these thoughts, >> which reflect a "rough consensus" of our several hundred members from >> civil society, with a wide spread of geographic and gender >> representation.  We look forward to continuing to constructively engage >> with and participate in the IGF over the course of its renewed term. >> >> -- >> >> *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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Wed Jan 13 21:53:35 2010 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 18:53:35 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] PLEASE RESPOND - draft statement on reform of the In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <89118.58319.qm@web83902.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> As an advocate of open and noncensored membership and lists -- I still much agree with these statements, they are consistent with my understanding and my hopes: --- On Wed, 1/13/10, Ian Peter wrote: HI Jeremy, a couple of small comments – but generally I support the statement. I think we have discussed the second mailing list concept before and there is very little evidence from other organisations that have done this that the open mailing list will get used. People default to the closed list, I have seen this happen in a few organisations. I would leave that example out. It wasn’t just civil society – the concept had wide support from other stakeholders including some governments as well – I would say “civil society and other stakeholders” From: Jeremy Malcolm Reply-To: , Jeremy Malcolm Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 18:35:19 +0000 To: Subject: [governance] PLEASE RESPOND - draft statement on reform of the IGF Below is my suggestion for a short statement based on the survey results that I just posted to the list.  If we cannot obtain consensus on this statement swiftly, then we will have more time between now and 9 February to keep working.  However, since it is a fairly "minimalist" statement, I hope that reaching a rough consensus soon will be possible. If initial responses to the statement below are broadly favourable, I will ask Ginger if she agrees that we can quickly make a consensus call, which according to the Charter gives the group another 48 hours for discussion before the coordinators declare whether a rough consensus has been achieved.  Whilst this cuts it fine for the 15 January deadline, we will be able to ask the Secretariat for a short extension if it seems likely that a consensus can be reached. --- begins --- The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) is a global coalition of civil society and non governmental organisations and individuals actively involved the UN’s Internet Governance Forum (IGF) process. Formed during the lead up to the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), our mission is to provide a forum for discussion, advocacy, action, and for representation of civil society contributions in Internet governance processes. More about our coalition can be found at http://www.igcaucus.org . The IGC strongly supports the continuation of the IGF as a multi-stakeholder forum for the discussion of Internet-related public policy issues.  However if, as we hope, the forum's mandate is to be extended for a further term, there are a number of adjustments that we believe should be taken into account, continuing the IGF's pattern of incremental improvement since its inauguration in 2006.  None of these suggestions would fundamentally alter the IGF as an institution; thus for example, we believe it should remain situated within the United Nations system, with a Secretariat provided by the UN. However given that the IGF is not a traditional governmental organisation, it is important to ensure that its Secretariat and MAG are adequately accountable to the IGF's non-governmental stakeholders.  Within the IGC, there are various views on how this can be best assured.  Some believe that the Secretariat should have a level of accountability to the MAG.  Others feel that it would improve the MAG's accountability if its members were taken to represent the stakeholder groups (but not the particular stakeholders) who appointed them. But one question on which the IGC is in clear agreement is that the composition of the MAG itself should be more evenly divided between the stakeholder groups, rather than being slanted towards particular stakeholder groups as it is at present.  Many also believe that the stakeholders should have a more direct role in the selection of MAG members, and that MAG discussions should be more transparent - for example, perhaps it could revisit the idea of a second, open mailing list, on which the MAG and Secretariat can discuss their operations publicly. One particular aspect of the IGF's operations in which the participation of stakeholders could be improved is in the making of decisions relating to the IGF's structure and processes.  Many of the IGC's members believe that the MAG, drawing on input received at open consultation meetings, ought to exercise a greater influence than in the past on decisions about the future structure and processes of the IGF. A second aspect in which there is room for improvement in the accountability of the IGF to its stakeholders is in setting the substantive agenda of IGF meetings.  Although at present this responsibility falls to the MAG, the IGC was surprised that the very strongly and widely expressed views of stakeholders from civil society as to the importance of a human rights agenda for the IGF was not reflected in the agenda set by the MAG for the Sharm el Sheikh meeting. The IGC also believes that the IGF ought to improve its orientation towards the development of tangible outputs, even if these do not amount to recommendations, declarations or statements (though many of our members would support outputs of such kinds).  Whatever form its outputs take, efforts should be taken to ensure that they are transmitted to relevant external institutions, either by the MAG directly, through publications on the IGF's Web site, or through the media as appropriate. Similarly, there is a strong view within the IGC that in order to maximise its effectiveness, the IGF should have an intersessional work program, rather than being limited to a single annual meeting.  Many of our members believe that this should include the development of an ongoing work program for the IGF as a whole, to be carried on through online tools and intersessional and regional meetings. Others believe that the main responsibility for intersessional work can be left to dynamic coalitions (and perhaps other issue-specific working groups).  In that case, it is widely accepted that there should be a better mechanism than at present for these groups to present their outputs to the IGF as a whole.  This would require the IGF to begin to set more stringent standards for such groups, including open membership, democratic processes, and perhaps multi-stakeholder composition. We thank you for the opportunity to present you with these thoughts, which reflect a "rough consensus" of our several hundred members from civil society, with a wide spread of geographic and gender representation.  We look forward to continuing to constructively engage with and participate in the IGF over the course of its renewed term. -- Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 CI is 50 Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010. Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer rights around the world. http://www.consumersinternational.org/50 Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -----Inline Attachment Follows----- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Wed Jan 13 22:14:41 2010 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 19:14:41 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Draft statement - preamble In-Reply-To: <0e4301ca949d$04ed0920$0ec71b60$@souter@runbox.com> Message-ID: <866005.43232.qm@web83915.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Point well spoken, I suggest:    "an association of individuals of the international civil society who are actively engaged in the foundations and formulation of internet governance and the IGF."   (I recognize this may be a bit at odds with McTims indicated belief that we are actively involved in governing, but maybe I am wrong) --- On Wed, 1/13/10, David Souter wrote: My point about the preamble is simply this:  If the IGC is an association of individuals, it should not represent itself as a coalition of organisations - a description which it could not sustain if it were challenged.  I would suggest something like "an association of individuals in civil society who are actively engaged in internet governance and the IGF."  But there are many formulations that would work. David Souter Message sent by: David Souter Managing Director, ict Development Associates ltd Visiting Professor in Communications Management, Business School, University of Strathclyde Visiting Senior Fellow, Department of Media and Communications, London School of Economics Associate of the International Institute for Sustainable Development   145 Lower Camden, Chislehurst, Kent, BR7 5JD (+44) (0)20 8467 1148 (fixed line) (+44) (0)7764 819974 (cellular line) -----Original Message----- From: Jeremy Malcolm [mailto:jeremy at ciroap.org] Sent: 13 January 2010 20:19 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; McTim Subject: Re: [governance] PLEASE RESPOND - draft statement on reform of the On 13/01/2010, at 7:24 PM, McTim wrote: > David, > > On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 9:48 PM, David Souter wrote: >> Dear Jeremy: >> >> I think there is a question here about IGC membership and how the IGC >> presents itself. >> >> According to the Charter, “the members of the IGC are individuals, acting in >> personal capacity, who subscribe to the charter of the caucus.  All members >> are equal and have the same rights and duties.” >> >> Can it really, therefore, introduce itself as “a global coalition of civil >> society and non governmental organisations and individuals”, as in the >> preamble to this draft? FWIW, this preamble was taken verbatim from a previous statement made in June last year.  But even so, please suggest specific improvements. -- 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 dogwallah at gmail.com Wed Jan 13 22:58:47 2010 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 06:58:47 +0300 Subject: [governance] Draft statement - preamble In-Reply-To: <866005.43232.qm@web83915.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> References: <866005.43232.qm@web83915.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 6:14 AM, Eric Dierker wrote: > Point well spoken, I suggest: > > "an association of individuals of the international civil society who > are actively engaged in the foundations and formulation of internet > governance and the IGF." > > (I recognize this may be a bit at odds with McTims indicated belief that we > are actively involved in governing, but maybe I am wrong) > More of a belief that we SHOULD be involved in actual IG issues, but that we focus on meta-IG instead. -- 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 cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Thu Jan 14 00:20:00 2010 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 21:20:00 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Draft statement - preamble In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <242998.67600.qm@web83901.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> I think the "we" here is correct. Not only in the should but also in the "do". But I also see that as individuals and not as this cadre. It would be nice to think that we all "fellowship" here and then return better for it to our respective areas of contribution to governance.   It appears to me that this list influenced Avri in her chairing of the ICANN naming group. I know I have given advice how to work within some governance and without based upon knowledge gleened here. Also in the reverse it is true that my work against some governments and with others has influenced my contributions here. Most academic types here seem to "float" ideas here that I later see in papers. I believe that our contributions and input(advice?) reaches ears intended when those in the throws of bad governance air the travesties here.   But at this point I dare say that giving us a seat in any group of a government would be more a distraction and impediment than a tool for progress.  The most powerful voice and position in any governance that is ligitimate, is reason. As is seen, even amoung us, our leaders are but trusted servants. We follow for the sake of a civil society and respectful interface in keeping with UN tradition and in furtherance of Universal Rights. --- On Thu, 1/14/10, McTim wrote: From: McTim Subject: Re: [governance] Draft statement - preamble To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Eric Dierker" Cc: "David Souter" , "Jeremy Malcolm" Date: Thursday, January 14, 2010, 3:58 AM On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 6:14 AM, Eric Dierker wrote: Point well spoken, I suggest:    "an association of individuals of the international civil society who are actively engaged in the foundations and formulation of internet governance and the IGF."   (I recognize this may be a bit at odds with McTims indicated belief that we are actively involved in governing, but maybe I am wrong) More of a belief that we SHOULD be involved in actual IG  issues, but that we focus on meta-IG instead. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel -----Inline Attachment Follows----- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Thu Jan 14 04:42:41 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 17:42:41 +0800 Subject: [governance] PLEASE RESPOND - draft statement on reform of the IGF In-Reply-To: <954259bd1001131334n5967ed18k5559d75162669309@mail.gmail.com> References: <3D0F6E7C-3D02-4CAB-964F-13974AB7C9E6@ciroap.org> <954259bd1001131334n5967ed18k5559d75162669309@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 22:34:55 +0100, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > Hi Jeremy, > > Just one (I hope constructive) comment on the interesting draft you > circulated. The title currently is : "Statement on the reform of the IGF". > > I believe the use of the term "reform" sends a message that could be > misinterpreted and/or exploited by actors that strongly oppose the IGF Thanks for this point. The title was more of a working title for our use, not specifically to be used when the document is submitted. Thus, the word "reform" is not used in the body text. Thus we can, I agree, submit it under a more neutral title such as "Submission of the IGC in taking stock of the Sharm el Sheikh meeting of the IGF". > A few minor suggested edits (*in blue* with suppressed words in red) are > also included in the text. They usually are pointers to coded words in the > UN language or the governmental discussions and it's important for you to > have them in mind. Thanks, and thanks also to those who have commented on the preamble and paragraph 1 so far. Please, anyone, feel free to move on to paragraphs 2, 3 and following. I will compile all the suggested changes (where compatible) in a day or two and re-circulate. -- JEREMY MALCOLM Project Coordinator CONSUMERS INTERNATIONAL-KL OFFICE for Asia Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Mob: +60 12 282 5895 Fax: +60 3 7726 8599 www.consumersinternational.org Consumers International (CI) is the only independent global campaigning voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international consumer movement to help protect and empower consumers everywhere. For more information, visit www.consumersinternational.org. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From bdelachapelle at gmail.com Thu Jan 14 05:49:52 2010 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 11:49:52 +0100 Subject: [governance] Draft statement - preamble In-Reply-To: <-3875464128345134693@unknownmsgid> References: <3D0F6E7C-3D02-4CAB-964F-13974AB7C9E6@ciroap.org> <3001387034883581355@unknownmsgid> <00D8C04A-2172-4FF0-9F8A-1F4732472F6B@ciroap.org> <-3875464128345134693@unknownmsgid> Message-ID: <954259bd1001140249q7f53940ewd3d92c917b97cfa7@mail.gmail.com> Dear all, Interesting exchange as usual. A suggestion below regarding formulation of the Preamble and its transformation into a point at the end of the document under the title : "About the Internet Governance Caucus". plus some more general remarks. 1. We have had recurring discussions on the nature of this list between very open debate space and the development of advocacy positions. The delicate balance between the two complementary dimensions is important to preserve. In that context, the way the IGC presents itself in such contributions to the IGF has an impact. The following description is the first paragraph of the Charter : *"The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) was originally created by individual and organizational civil society actors who came together in the context of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) to promote global public interest objectives in Internet governance policy making."* I have always believed that this notion of *the promotion of the global public interest* (and the necessary work to define what it exactly is) is what actually unites the participants of the Caucus, and not their belonging to one type of organization or another. The value of this space is its *inclusiveness *: criteria for participation is only the endorsement of such values. As the Charter states : *"The members of the IGC are individuals, acting in personal capacity, who subscribe to the charter of the caucus. All members are equal* and have the same rights and duties." Major credibility factors for external actors are the diversity of the membership, the sheer amount of subscribers (more than 400) even if much fewer actually post, and above all, the quality of the contributions that result from intense exchanges. I would therefore suggest that we do not lose too much time on the question of the Preamble. The presentation of the IGC woudl be better placed in the end under the title : "About the IGC". The Internet Governance Caucus is a well-established brand and this is common practice for contributions. Leveraging the Charter's first sentences, the paragraph could read : *About the Internet Governance Caucus* The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) was originally created by individual and organizational civil society actors who came together in the context of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) to promote global public interest objectives in Internet governance policy making. It now comprises more than 400 individual subscribers to its mailing list, who have subscribed to its Charter. More information is available at : http://www.igcaucus.org. 2. This spirit of inclusion is the very spirit of the Internet Governance Forum. And it should be of no surprise, given the influence of the IGC and many of its members in the creation of the IGF itself, and since 2006, in the open consultations and the MAG discussions that have helped shape the current IGF working methods. The IGF can and should be continuously improved, as it has already in its first four years. In suggesting such improvements, it is important for the IGC to balance the recognition of the achievements this innovation already represents and the constructive impatience regarding what can be further accomplished. The co-coordinators have a fundamental responsibility in ensuring such a balance that truly reflect the broad consensus among all participants. I trust this is what Jeremy is trying to accomplish here. 3. Finally, I'd like to highlight Eric Dierker's point regarding *the influence discussions on this list have in broader circles*. Let's not forget that a lot of actors, including governments and businesses are actually subscribed to the list - even if they do not post. In many cases, I've had exchanges with government colleagues and people from other circles who were perfectly aware of the arguments exchanged and - consciously or unconsciously - integrated them in their own analyzes. This is good and should be kept in mind. I hope this helps. Best Bertrand On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 11:09 PM, David Souter wrote: > My point about the preamble is simply this: If the IGC is an association > of > individuals, it should not represent itself as a coalition of organisations > - a description which it could not sustain if it were challenged. I would > suggest something like "an association of individuals in civil society who > are actively engaged in internet governance and the IGF." But there are > many formulations that would work. > > David Souter > > > Message sent by: > > David Souter > Managing Director, ict Development Associates ltd > Visiting Professor in Communications Management, Business School, > University > of Strathclyde > Visiting Senior Fellow, Department of Media and Communications, London > School of Economics > Associate of the International Institute for Sustainable Development > > 145 Lower Camden, Chislehurst, Kent, BR7 5JD > (+44) (0)20 8467 1148 (fixed line) > (+44) (0)7764 819974 (cellular line) > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeremy Malcolm [mailto:jeremy at ciroap.org] > Sent: 13 January 2010 20:19 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; McTim > Subject: Re: [governance] PLEASE RESPOND - draft statement on reform of the > > On 13/01/2010, at 7:24 PM, McTim wrote: > > > David, > > > > On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 9:48 PM, David Souter > wrote: > >> Dear Jeremy: > >> > >> I think there is a question here about IGC membership and how the IGC > >> presents itself. > >> > >> According to the Charter, “the members of the IGC are individuals, > acting > in > >> personal capacity, who subscribe to the charter of the caucus. All > members > >> are equal and have the same rights and duties.” > >> > >> Can it really, therefore, introduce itself as “a global coalition of > civil > >> society and non governmental organisations and individuals”, as in the > >> preamble to this draft? > > FWIW, this preamble was taken verbatim from a previous statement made in > June last year. But even so, please suggest specific improvements. > > -- > 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. > > -- ____________________ 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 gpaque at gmail.com Thu Jan 14 06:33:13 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 07:03:13 -0430 Subject: [governance] Text of IRP Statement to Open Consultation for IGF 2010: Call for IGC consensus about support--please opine! Message-ID: <4B4F00F9.30500@gmail.com> Hello all: this is the current draft of the IRP contribution, which is up for Consensus for IGC support. There will be a "tightened" draft later, probably this afternoon, but this appears to be the essence of the statement. Please read it carefully, and advise whether the IGC should sign on in support of this statement. This is independent of any IGC statement. We need to do this quickly if we want to ask the IRP to add our signature to their written contribution. Please post. Open Consultation IGF 2010 INTERNET RIGHTS AND PRINCIPLES DYNAMIC COALITION Statement The IRP Dynamic Coalition would like to contribute to the Open Consultation for IGF 2010 in two areas: observations for taking stock of IGF 2009 and suggestions for the format and agenda of the Vilnius meeting. The comments below are organised under [..] themes, under which we take stock of IGF 2009 and then offer practical suggestions for the format and planning of IGF 2010. 1) General Organization: Generally speaking coalition members found the meeting to be well organised, with signs of continued progress in all aspects. Coalition members who were participating in or who organised workshops would like to commend the organisers for their good work in this regard, particularly given the relatively limited budget and resources available to the IGF. Some specific concerns include: a. Discussions, especially in plenary sessions tended to become diverted into the issue of whether the IGF should continue, and if so, how. We think it is time to move on and to keep these issues from overwhelming the topics in hand. b. Continuity and more explicit links between the main sessions and the workshops could have been stronger. Clear links in the program by cross-referencing of session/workshop themes and titles is one way to create these links before the meeting. During and after the meeting, we would like to see formal feedback opportunities put in place and integrated into the stocktaking; from organizers and/or moderators of both main sessions and workshops. c. Main sessions based around the "traditional" themes of openness, diversity, and such like started to feel a bit repetitive particularly in relation to the freshness of new themes introduced onto the program. The need for continuity and depth needs to be balanced by new themes as well d. Some panels in main sessions were overloaded with panellists. This always means less time for a wider plenary discussion. Moderators of larger sessions need to find ways to ensure that discussion actually takes place and when it does it dynamic and inclusive. To this end we would suggest that there is an upper limit set on the number of panellists and/or length of formal presentations. Moreover that enough time is set aside for discussion. It is important that contributions from the floor, and remote participants get enough time to have their say and be adequately responded to by panellists and other participants. e. Rather than having main sessions based around broad themes, we think this year is the moment to broach more specific questions or policy dilemmas. These can be proposed in advance with an eye to opening up the discussion about specific solutions before the actual session. 2) Remote Participation: On the whole the facilities for remote participation seemed to work well. However, there are some specific issues that we think need to be attended to this year to ensure fuller and more diverse participation in the IGF. a. Workshop organisers were not given enough support in good time or enough information on how to use the technology provided properly. When technical hitches did occur, there were not enough technicians on hand so many moderators found themselves doing DIY instead. This is unprofessional and causes delays and loss of focus for everyone. More information in advance from IGF HQ would be useful. But also during the event, and given the importance of enabling remote participation but also having it run smoothly, the need for more dedicated staff in this respect is indispensable. b. We would also suggest, in line with suggestions from the Remote Participation Working Group (RPWG), that Workshops include both a moderator on-the-ground and an online moderator in their planning. Some-one needs to monitor remote participation, in partnership with the workshop moderator, in order to streamline, filter and facilitate remote participation in the proceedings; e.g. by gathering text-based comments, setting up a queue for spoken interventions, or having remote participants be given the floor en bloc if this is more practicable. We would also urge all moderators to understand the many remote participants are doing this at difficult times of their 24 hour day and that time-lags require careful attention be paid to timing responses and requests by moderators on the ground. c. The above points underscore our support for proposals to organise adequate guidelines as well as a brief training session/module/virtual tour for all moderators before the IGF meeting. During the meeting is not the time to experiment. 3) Emerging Key themes: A wide range of stakeholders in the plenary sessions reaffirmed the importance of upholding human rights in the internet age. However these sentiments tended to be expressed in general rather than specific terms. a. The challenge for this coming year is to focus on how upholding human rights can be achieved in practice; what roles different stakeholders can or should play in this regard, and how these play out more specifically in different Internet governance issue-areas. b. With this in mind we would like to see not only workshops but also main sessions that look more closely at what a "human rights agenda" or "development agenda: for Internet Governance might actually look like. Discussions around broad themes such as openness and diversity have already taken place. It is time to get down to specifics and we do not see why these specifics always have to be covered in workshop sessions. 4) Participation: Increasing diversity in terms of cultural, regional, and linguistic representation remains a core issue for a number of dynamic coalitions. Our comments and suggestions about continuing to improve remote participation technically and organizationally relate to these concerns. Practically there is a need to a. Setting up coherent - vertical and lateral - links between discussions and themes from national, regional and international IGFs better, during the meetings as well as in the record of these various meetings. At present the public record is piecemeal and not easily accessible. We recognise that this is process that needs dedicated time and resources to do so and urge the IGF to put aside some resources for this. b. Find more ways to open up the meetings to lay-participants. By this we mean that preparatory consultations, main sessions, and specialised workshops need to be more accessible not only to 'everyday internet users' but also for any communities or groups from areas where the Internet is either less extensive or who have other communication priorities. ********************************************************************88 Dr Marianne Franklin Reader Convener of the Transnational Communications & Global Media Program Media & Communications Goldsmiths, University of London New Cross London SE14 6NW United Kingdom Tel (direct): #44 (0)207 919-7072 Fax: #44 (0) 207 919-7616 email: m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk http://www.goldsmiths.ac.uk/media-communications/staff/franklin.php http://www.goldsmiths.ac.uk/pg/ma-transnational-communications-global-media.php ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From b.schombe at gmail.com Thu Jan 14 07:21:28 2010 From: b.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin SCHOMBE) Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 13:21:28 +0100 Subject: [governance] Draft statement - preamble In-Reply-To: <954259bd1001140249q7f53940ewd3d92c917b97cfa7@mail.gmail.com> References: <3D0F6E7C-3D02-4CAB-964F-13974AB7C9E6@ciroap.org> <3001387034883581355@unknownmsgid> <00D8C04A-2172-4FF0-9F8A-1F4732472F6B@ciroap.org> <-3875464128345134693@unknownmsgid> <954259bd1001140249q7f53940ewd3d92c917b97cfa7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Among those members with few post, evereaday I am online and follow all contributions but my english is not fluent to allow me for a regular contributing. Major credibility factors for external actors are the diversity of the membership, the sheer amount of subscribers (more than 400) even if much fewer actually post, and above all, the quality of the contributions that result from intense exchanges. Baudouin 2010/1/14, Bertrand de La Chapelle : > > Dear all, > > Interesting exchange as usual. A suggestion below regarding formulation of > the Preamble and its transformation into a point at the end of the document > under the title : "About the Internet Governance Caucus". plus some more > general remarks. > > 1. We have had recurring discussions on the nature of this list between > very open debate space and the development of advocacy positions. The > delicate balance between the two complementary dimensions is important to > preserve. > > In that context, the way the IGC presents itself in such contributions to > the IGF has an impact. The following description is the first paragraph of > the Charter : > > *"The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) was originally created by > individual and organizational civil society actors who came together in the > context of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) to promote > global public interest objectives in Internet governance policy making."* > > I have always believed that this notion of *the promotion of the global > public interest* (and the necessary work to define what it exactly is) is > what actually unites the participants of the Caucus, and not their belonging > to one type of organization or another. > > The value of this space is its *inclusiveness *: criteria for > participation is only the endorsement of such values. As the Charter states > : > *"The members of the IGC are individuals, acting in personal capacity, who > subscribe to the charter of the caucus. All members are equal* and have > the same rights and duties." > > Major credibility factors for external actors are the diversity of the > membership, the sheer amount of subscribers (more than 400) even if much > fewer actually post, and above all, the quality of the contributions that > result from intense exchanges. > > I would therefore suggest that we do not lose too much time on the question > of the Preamble. The presentation of the IGC woudl be better placed in the > end under the title : "About the IGC". The Internet Governance Caucus is a > well-established brand and this is common practice for contributions. > > Leveraging the Charter's first sentences, the paragraph could read : > > *About the Internet Governance Caucus* > > The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) was originally created by individual > and organizational civil society actors who came together in the context of > the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) to promote global public > interest objectives in Internet governance policy making. It now comprises > more than 400 individual subscribers to its mailing list, who have > subscribed to its Charter. More information is available at : > http://www.igcaucus.org. > > > 2. This spirit of inclusion is the very spirit of the Internet Governance > Forum. And it should be of no surprise, given the influence of the IGC and > many of its members in the creation of the IGF itself, and since 2006, in > the open consultations and the MAG discussions that have helped shape the > current IGF working methods. > > The IGF can and should be continuously improved, as it has already in its > first four years. In suggesting such improvements, it is important for the > IGC to balance the recognition of the achievements this innovation already > represents and the constructive impatience regarding what can be further > accomplished. The co-coordinators have a fundamental responsibility in > ensuring such a balance that truly reflect the broad consensus among all > participants. I trust this is what Jeremy is trying to accomplish here. > > 3. Finally, I'd like to highlight Eric Dierker's point regarding *the > influence discussions on this list have in broader circles*. Let's not > forget that a lot of actors, including governments and businesses are > actually subscribed to the list - even if they do not post. > > In many cases, I've had exchanges with government colleagues and people > from other circles who were perfectly aware of the arguments exchanged and - > consciously or unconsciously - integrated them in their own analyzes. This > is good and should be kept in mind. > > I hope this helps. > > Best > > Bertrand > > > > > On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 11:09 PM, David Souter wrote: > >> My point about the preamble is simply this: If the IGC is an association >> of >> individuals, it should not represent itself as a coalition of >> organisations >> - a description which it could not sustain if it were challenged. I would >> suggest something like "an association of individuals in civil society who >> are actively engaged in internet governance and the IGF." But there are >> many formulations that would work. >> >> David Souter >> >> >> Message sent by: >> >> David Souter >> Managing Director, ict Development Associates ltd >> Visiting Professor in Communications Management, Business School, >> University >> of Strathclyde >> Visiting Senior Fellow, Department of Media and Communications, London >> School of Economics >> Associate of the International Institute for Sustainable Development >> >> 145 Lower Camden, Chislehurst, Kent, BR7 5JD >> (+44) (0)20 8467 1148 (fixed line) >> (+44) (0)7764 819974 (cellular line) >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Jeremy Malcolm [mailto:jeremy at ciroap.org] >> Sent: 13 January 2010 20:19 >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; McTim >> Subject: Re: [governance] PLEASE RESPOND - draft statement on reform of >> the >> >> On 13/01/2010, at 7:24 PM, McTim wrote: >> >> > David, >> > >> > On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 9:48 PM, David Souter >> wrote: >> >> Dear Jeremy: >> >> >> >> I think there is a question here about IGC membership and how the IGC >> >> presents itself. >> >> >> >> According to the Charter, “the members of the IGC are individuals, >> acting >> in >> >> personal capacity, who subscribe to the charter of the caucus. All >> members >> >> are equal and have the same rights and duties.” >> >> >> >> Can it really, therefore, introduce itself as “a global coalition of >> civil >> >> society and non governmental organisations and individuals”, as in the >> >> preamble to this draft? >> >> FWIW, this preamble was taken verbatim from a previous statement made in >> June last year. But even so, please suggest specific improvements. >> >> -- >> 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. >> >> > -- > ____________________ > Bertrand de La Chapelle > Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the > Information Society > Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of > Foreign and European Affairs > Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 > > "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint > Exupéry > ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Thu Jan 14 08:04:10 2010 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 18:04:10 +0500 Subject: [governance] PLEASE RESPOND - draft statement on reform of the In-Reply-To: <4B4E28F1.3030702@wzb.eu> References: <3D0F6E7C-3D02-4CAB-964F-13974AB7C9E6@ciroap.org> <4B4E1FDE.8010608@wzb.eu> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE014DEFE4D2@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4B4E28F1.3030702@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <701af9f71001140504g4b0197e7r65eea9750056996@mail.gmail.com> I support Jeanette's suggestions to follow the paragraph by paragraph with appropriate language changes. Also, the IGC introduction should go in the end or should be briefer to the actual definition of the caucus as in the charter. Let's continue with the para by para observation. The statement made last year doesn't have to be followed continuously for all future statements so a new statement structure/presentation can be evolved while keeping in line with the IGC Charter. -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 1:11 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > Ok, why don't we start right away. I leave out the intro, which can be > improved later I think. > > The first substantial para is the following: > > The IGC strongly supports the continuation of the IGF as a multi-stakeholder > forum for the discussion of Internet-related public policy issues.  However > if, as we hope, the forum's mandate is to be extended for a further term, > there are a number of adjustments that we believe should be taken into > account, continuing the IGF's pattern of incremental improvement since its > inauguration in 2006.  None of these suggestions would fundamentally alter > the IGF as an institution; thus for example, we believe it should remain > situated within the United Nations system, with a Secretariat provided by > the UN. > > I agree with the spirit of this paragraph but would suggest that we try to > be a bit more specific with regard to "situated within the United Nations > system, with a Secretariat provided by the UN" > since the present wording would support a new arrangement within the UN. For > example, under the auspices of the ITU.  Perhaps we could say something to > the effect that "the IGF, including its secretariat should remain situated > within United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA". > > jeanette > > Lee W McKnight wrote: >> >> I agree with Jeanette's suggested paragraph by paragraph approach. >> 9 February is probably a more plausible target. >> >> Lee >> ________________________________________ >> From: Jeanette Hofmann [jeanette at wzb.eu] >> Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 2:32 PM >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeremy Malcolm >> Subject: Re: [governance] PLEASE RESPOND - draft statement on reform of >> the >> >> Hi Jeremy, thank you for drafting this statement. Parts of it I support, >> others I don't agree with or think they are based on wrong assumptions. >> Would it make sense to briefly discuss it paragraph by paragraph to find >> out which elements find general support? >> >> jeanette >> >> Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>> >>> Below is my suggestion for a short statement based on the survey results >>> that I just posted to the list.  If we cannot obtain consensus on this >>> statement swiftly, then we will have more time between now and 9 >>> February to keep working.  However, since it is a fairly "minimalist" >>> statement, I hope that reaching a rough consensus soon will be possible. >>> >>> If initial responses to the statement below are broadly favourable, I >>> will ask Ginger if she agrees that we can quickly make a consensus call, >>> which according to the Charter gives the group another 48 hours for >>> discussion before the coordinators declare whether a rough consensus has >>> been achieved.  Whilst this cuts it fine for the 15 January deadline, we >>> will be able to ask the Secretariat for a short extension if it seems >>> likely that a consensus can be reached. >>> >>> --- begins --- >>> >>> The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) is a global coalition of civil >>> society and non governmental organisations and individuals actively >>> involved the UN’s Internet Governance Forum (IGF) process. Formed during >>> the lead up to the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), our >>> mission is to provide a forum for discussion, advocacy, action, and for >>> representation of civil society contributions in Internet governance >>> processes. More about our coalition can be found at >>> http://www.igcaucus.org . >>> >>> The IGC strongly supports the continuation of the IGF as a >>> multi-stakeholder forum for the discussion of Internet-related public >>> policy issues.  However if, as we hope, the forum's mandate is to be >>> extended for a further term, there are a number of adjustments that we >>> believe should be taken into account, continuing the IGF's pattern of >>> incremental improvement since its inauguration in 2006.  None of these >>> suggestions would fundamentally alter the IGF as an institution; thus >>> for example, we believe it should remain situated within the United >>> Nations system, with a Secretariat provided by the UN. >>> >>> However given that the IGF is not a traditional governmental >>> organisation, it is important to ensure that its Secretariat and MAG are >>> adequately accountable to the IGF's non-governmental stakeholders. >>>  Within the IGC, there are various views on how this can be best >>> assured.  Some believe that the Secretariat should have a level of >>> accountability to the MAG.  Others feel that it would improve the MAG's >>> accountability if its members were taken to represent the stakeholder >>> groups (but not the particular stakeholders) who appointed them. >>> >>> But one question on which the IGC is in clear agreement is that the >>> composition of the MAG itself should be more evenly divided between the >>> stakeholder groups, rather than being slanted towards particular >>> stakeholder groups as it is at present.  Many also believe that the >>> stakeholders should have a more direct role in the selection of MAG >>> members, and that MAG discussions should be more transparent - for >>> example, perhaps it could revisit the idea of a second, open mailing >>> list, on which the MAG and Secretariat can discuss their operations >>> publicly. >>> >>> One particular aspect of the IGF's operations in which the participation >>> of stakeholders could be improved is in the making of decisions relating >>> to the IGF's structure and processes.  Many of the IGC's members believe >>> that the MAG, drawing on input received at open consultation meetings, >>> ought to exercise a greater influence than in the past on decisions >>> about the future structure and processes of the IGF. >>> >>> A second aspect in which there is room for improvement in the >>> accountability of the IGF to its stakeholders is in setting the >>> substantive agenda of IGF meetings.  Although at present this >>> responsibility falls to the MAG, the IGC was surprised that the very >>> strongly and widely expressed views of stakeholders from civil society >>> as to the importance of a human rights agenda for the IGF was not >>> reflected in the agenda set by the MAG for the Sharm el Sheikh meeting. >>> >>> The IGC also believes that the IGF ought to improve its orientation >>> towards the development of tangible outputs, even if these do not amount >>> to recommendations, declarations or statements (though many of our >>> members would support outputs of such kinds).  Whatever form its outputs >>> take, efforts should be taken to ensure that they are transmitted to >>> relevant external institutions, either by the MAG directly, through >>> publications on the IGF's Web site, or through the media as appropriate. >>> >>> Similarly, there is a strong view within the IGC that in order to >>> maximise its effectiveness, the IGF should have an intersessional work >>> program, rather than being limited to a single annual meeting.  Many of >>> our members believe that this should include the development of an >>> ongoing work program for the IGF as a whole, to be carried on through >>> online tools and intersessional and regional meetings. >>> >>> Others believe that the main responsibility for intersessional work can >>> be left to dynamic coalitions (and perhaps other issue-specific working >>> groups).  In that case, it is widely accepted that there should be a >>> better mechanism than at present for these groups to present their >>> outputs to the IGF as a whole.  This would require the IGF to begin to >>> set more stringent standards for such groups, including open membership, >>> democratic processes, and perhaps multi-stakeholder composition. >>> >>> We thank you for the opportunity to present you with these thoughts, >>> which reflect a "rough consensus" of our several hundred members from >>> civil society, with a wide spread of geographic and gender >>> representation.  We look forward to continuing to constructively engage >>> with and participate in the IGF over the course of its renewed term. >>> >>> -- >>> >>> *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 > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Thu Jan 14 08:06:09 2010 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 18:06:09 +0500 Subject: [governance] PLEASE RESPOND - draft statement on reform of the In-Reply-To: <4B4E28F1.3030702@wzb.eu> References: <3D0F6E7C-3D02-4CAB-964F-13974AB7C9E6@ciroap.org> <4B4E1FDE.8010608@wzb.eu> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE014DEFE4D2@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4B4E28F1.3030702@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <701af9f71001140506y3c5ece19x9fe7577d68fb20f9@mail.gmail.com> I support Jeanette's suggestions to follow the paragraph by paragraph with appropriate language changes. Also, the IGC introduction should go in the end or should not be briefer to the actual definition of the caucus as in the charter. Let's continue with the para by para observation. The statement made last year doesn't have to be followed continuously for all future statements so a new statement structure/presentation can be evolved while keeping in line with the IGC Charter. -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 1:11 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > Ok, why don't we start right away. I leave out the intro, which can be > improved later I think. > > The first substantial para is the following: > > The IGC strongly supports the continuation of the IGF as a multi-stakeholder > forum for the discussion of Internet-related public policy issues.  However > if, as we hope, the forum's mandate is to be extended for a further term, > there are a number of adjustments that we believe should be taken into > account, continuing the IGF's pattern of incremental improvement since its > inauguration in 2006.  None of these suggestions would fundamentally alter > the IGF as an institution; thus for example, we believe it should remain > situated within the United Nations system, with a Secretariat provided by > the UN. > > I agree with the spirit of this paragraph but would suggest that we try to > be a bit more specific with regard to "situated within the United Nations > system, with a Secretariat provided by the UN" > since the present wording would support a new arrangement within the UN. For > example, under the auspices of the ITU.  Perhaps we could say something to > the effect that "the IGF, including its secretariat should remain situated > within United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA". > > jeanette > > Lee W McKnight wrote: >> >> I agree with Jeanette's suggested paragraph by paragraph approach. >> 9 February is probably a more plausible target. >> >> Lee >> ________________________________________ >> From: Jeanette Hofmann [jeanette at wzb.eu] >> Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 2:32 PM >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeremy Malcolm >> Subject: Re: [governance] PLEASE RESPOND - draft statement on reform of >> the >> >> Hi Jeremy, thank you for drafting this statement. Parts of it I support, >> others I don't agree with or think they are based on wrong assumptions. >> Would it make sense to briefly discuss it paragraph by paragraph to find >> out which elements find general support? >> >> jeanette >> ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Thu Jan 14 08:08:41 2010 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 11:08:41 -0200 Subject: [governance] PLEASE RESPOND - draft statement on reform of the In-Reply-To: References: <3D0F6E7C-3D02-4CAB-964F-13974AB7C9E6@ciroap.org> <954259bd1001131334n5967ed18k5559d75162669309@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4B4F1759.4020107@cafonso.ca> Thanks, Jeremy. I agree with the suggestions for modification from Souter and others and wait for the updated statement. frt rgds --c.a. Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 22:34:55 +0100, Bertrand de La Chapelle > wrote: >> Hi Jeremy, >> >> Just one (I hope constructive) comment on the interesting draft you >> circulated. The title currently is : "Statement on the reform of the > IGF". >> I believe the use of the term "reform" sends a message that could be >> misinterpreted and/or exploited by actors that strongly oppose the IGF > > Thanks for this point. The title was more of a working title for our use, > not specifically to be used when the document is submitted. Thus, the word > "reform" is not used in the body text. Thus we can, I agree, submit it > under a more neutral title such as "Submission of the IGC in taking stock > of the Sharm el Sheikh meeting of the IGF". > >> A few minor suggested edits (*in blue* with suppressed words in red) are >> also included in the text. They usually are pointers to coded words in > the >> UN language or the governmental discussions and it's important for you to >> have them in mind. > > Thanks, and thanks also to those who have commented on the preamble and > paragraph 1 so far. Please, anyone, feel free to move on to paragraphs 2, 3 > and following. I will compile all the suggested changes (where compatible) > in a day or two and re-circulate. > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeanette at wzb.eu Thu Jan 14 08:15:36 2010 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 13:15:36 +0000 Subject: [governance] PLEASE RESPOND - draft statement on reform of the In-Reply-To: <701af9f71001140506y3c5ece19x9fe7577d68fb20f9@mail.gmail.com> References: <3D0F6E7C-3D02-4CAB-964F-13974AB7C9E6@ciroap.org> <4B4E1FDE.8010608@wzb.eu> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE014DEFE4D2@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4B4E28F1.3030702@wzb.eu> <701af9f71001140506y3c5ece19x9fe7577d68fb20f9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4B4F18F8.5000106@wzb.eu> I would suggest to delete the following para below which is the second substantial para of the draft statement: However given that the IGF is not a traditional governmental organisation, it is important to ensure that its Secretariat and MAG are adequately accountable to the IGF's non-governmental stakeholders. Within the IGC, there are various views on how this can be best assured. Some believe that the Secretariat should have a level of accountability to the MAG. Others feel that it would improve the MAG's accountability if its members were taken to represent the stakeholder groups (but not the particular stakeholders) who appointed them. Here is my reason: formally, the secretariat is accountable to the UNSG. The para above suggests instead that the secretariat is either accountable to no one or it is accountable to the stakeholder groups but not in a sufficient manner. Both options seem misleading to me. Since there is no strong message in this para anyway, I think we don't lose much if we simply skip it. jeanette ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Thu Jan 14 08:37:18 2010 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 18:37:18 +0500 Subject: [governance] PLEASE RESPOND - draft statement on reform of the In-Reply-To: <4B4F18F8.5000106@wzb.eu> References: <3D0F6E7C-3D02-4CAB-964F-13974AB7C9E6@ciroap.org> <4B4E1FDE.8010608@wzb.eu> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE014DEFE4D2@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4B4E28F1.3030702@wzb.eu> <701af9f71001140506y3c5ece19x9fe7577d68fb20f9@mail.gmail.com> <4B4F18F8.5000106@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <701af9f71001140537n270bb6bft7509954c86650c48@mail.gmail.com> Dear Jeanette, I will be out of electricity and power again for another two hours so before that happens, I wanted to share this during the para by para observation: 1. Where it says CS concern about Human Rights, please clarify also that we members of IGC both in the Open Consultations and the MAG meetings as well as the IGF have stressed for the need of the HR and IG development agenda. 2. Please mention the statistics of the current MAG membership to show if CS composition in comparison to Governments and Private Sectors. 3. Accountability and the actual management of the IGF secretariat under the UNDESA should be kept in mind that is being practised but is wrongly mentioned in the statement. I will give more comments as I get access to electricity and internet again! On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 6:15 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > > I would suggest to delete the following para below which is the second > substantial para of the draft statement: > > However given that the IGF is not a traditional governmental organisation, > it is important to ensure that its Secretariat and MAG are adequately > accountable to the IGF's non-governmental stakeholders. Within the IGC, > there are various views on how this can be best assured.  Some believe that > the Secretariat should have a level of accountability to the MAG.  Others > feel that it would improve the MAG's accountability if its members were > taken to represent the stakeholder groups (but not the particular > stakeholders) who appointed them. > > Here is my reason: formally, the secretariat is accountable to the UNSG. The > para above suggests instead that the secretariat is either accountable to no > one or it is accountable to the stakeholder groups but not in a sufficient > manner. Both options seem misleading to me. > > Since there is no strong message in this para anyway, I think we don't lose > much if we simply skip it. > > jeanette > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >    governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- 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 cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Thu Jan 14 09:28:31 2010 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 06:28:31 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] PLEASE RESPOND - draft statement on reform of the #0 In-Reply-To: <701af9f71001140506y3c5ece19x9fe7577d68fb20f9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <89359.57288.qm@web83912.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Spot on Fouad,   The most salient mark of intellectual integrity is constant review and modification. Why would an author proofread and rewrite all in one week and then not do so a year later?  It would seem a common goal is to take all the debate and actually apply it in our own mandates.   An easy method is to number each para with #(then number, without space) and for that to be included in subject line. This also creates "neutral searchability" without bias as to language. Also while the work is being done it promotes understanding as to amount of interest on a more particular subject and helps participants to count. --- On Thu, 1/14/10, Fouad Bajwa wrote: From: Fouad Bajwa Subject: Re: [governance] PLEASE RESPOND - draft statement on reform of the To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Jeanette Hofmann" Cc: "Lee W McKnight" Date: Thursday, January 14, 2010, 1:06 PM I support Jeanette's suggestions to follow the paragraph by paragraph with appropriate language changes. Also, the IGC introduction should go in the end or should not be briefer to the actual definition of the caucus as in the charter. Let's continue with the para by para observation. The statement made last year doesn't have to be followed continuously for all future statements so a new statement structure/presentation can be evolved while keeping in line with the IGC Charter. -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 1:11 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > Ok, why don't we start right away. I leave out the intro, which can be > improved later I think. > > The first substantial para is the following: > > The IGC strongly supports the continuation of the IGF as a multi-stakeholder > forum for the discussion of Internet-related public policy issues.  However > if, as we hope, the forum's mandate is to be extended for a further term, > there are a number of adjustments that we believe should be taken into > account, continuing the IGF's pattern of incremental improvement since its > inauguration in 2006.  None of these suggestions would fundamentally alter > the IGF as an institution; thus for example, we believe it should remain > situated within the United Nations system, with a Secretariat provided by > the UN. > > I agree with the spirit of this paragraph but would suggest that we try to > be a bit more specific with regard to "situated within the United Nations > system, with a Secretariat provided by the UN" > since the present wording would support a new arrangement within the UN. For > example, under the auspices of the ITU.  Perhaps we could say something to > the effect that "the IGF, including its secretariat should remain situated > within United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA". > > jeanette > > Lee W McKnight wrote: >> >> I agree with Jeanette's suggested paragraph by paragraph approach. >> 9 February is probably a more plausible target. >> >> Lee >> ________________________________________ >> From: Jeanette Hofmann [jeanette at wzb.eu] >> Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 2:32 PM >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeremy Malcolm >> Subject: Re: [governance] PLEASE RESPOND - draft statement on reform of >> the >> >> Hi Jeremy, thank you for drafting this statement. Parts of it I support, >> others I don't agree with or think they are based on wrong assumptions. >> Would it make sense to briefly discuss it paragraph by paragraph to find >> out which elements find general support? >> >> jeanette >> ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Thu Jan 14 09:34:31 2010 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 06:34:31 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Draft statement - preamble In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <964390.52433.qm@web83901.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Baudouin,   Perhaps we should not look inward to contribution.  The highest value in contribution is outward. And it is obvious that your few words are of higher value than my many. Thank you for your reminder, for us to intend that our words, be crafted in such a way as to promote multilingual comprehension. --- On Thu, 1/14/10, Baudouin SCHOMBE wrote: From: Baudouin SCHOMBE Subject: Re: [governance] Draft statement - preamble To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Bertrand de La Chapelle" Date: Thursday, January 14, 2010, 12:21 PM Among those members with few post, evereaday I am online and follow all contributions but my english is not fluent to allow me for a regular contributing. Major credibility factors for external actors are the diversity of the membership, the sheer amount of subscribers (more than 400) even if much fewer actually post, and above all, the quality of the contributions that result from intense exchanges. Baudouin 2010/1/14, Bertrand de La Chapelle : Dear all, Interesting exchange as usual. A suggestion below regarding formulation of the Preamble and its transformation into a point at the end of the document under the title : "About the Internet Governance Caucus". plus some more general remarks. 1. We have had recurring discussions on the nature of this list between very open debate space and the development of advocacy positions. The delicate balance between the two complementary dimensions is important to preserve.  In that context, the way the IGC presents itself in such contributions to the IGF has an impact. The following description is the first paragraph of the Charter : "The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) was originally created by individual and organizational civil society actors who came together in the context of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) to promote global public interest objectives in Internet governance policy making." I have always believed that this notion of the promotion of the global public interest (and the necessary work to define what it exactly is) is what actually unites the participants of the Caucus, and not their belonging to one type of organization or another. The value of this space is its inclusiveness : criteria for participation is only the endorsement of such values. As the Charter states : "The members of the IGC are individuals, acting in personal capacity, who subscribe to the charter of the caucus. All members are equal and have the same rights and duties." Major credibility factors for external actors are the diversity of the membership, the sheer amount of subscribers (more than 400) even if much fewer actually post, and above all, the quality of the contributions that result from intense exchanges. I would therefore suggest that we do not lose too much time on the question of the Preamble. The presentation of the IGC woudl be better placed in the end under the title : "About the IGC". The Internet Governance Caucus is a well-established brand and this is common practice for contributions. Leveraging the Charter's first sentences, the paragraph could read : About the Internet Governance Caucus The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) was originally created by individual and organizational civil society actors who came together in the context of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) to promote global public interest objectives in Internet governance policy making. It now comprises more than 400 individual subscribers to its mailing list, who have subscribed to its Charter. More information is available at : http://www.igcaucus.org. 2. This spirit of inclusion is the very spirit of the Internet Governance Forum. And it should be of no surprise, given the influence of the IGC and many of its members in the creation of the IGF itself, and since 2006, in the open consultations and the MAG discussions that have helped shape the current IGF working methods. The IGF can and should be continuously improved, as it has already in its first four years. In suggesting such improvements, it is important for the IGC to balance the recognition of the achievements this innovation already represents and the constructive impatience regarding what can be further accomplished. The co-coordinators have a fundamental responsibility in ensuring such a balance that truly reflect the broad consensus among all participants. I trust this is what Jeremy is trying to accomplish here. 3. Finally, I'd like to highlight Eric Dierker's point regarding the influence discussions on this list have in broader circles. Let's not forget that a lot of actors, including governments and businesses are actually subscribed to the list - even if they do not post. In many cases, I've had exchanges with government colleagues and people from other circles who were perfectly aware of the arguments exchanged and - consciously or unconsciously - integrated them in their own analyzes. This is good and should be kept in mind. I hope this helps. Best Bertrand On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 11:09 PM, David Souter wrote: My point about the preamble is simply this:  If the IGC is an association of individuals, it should not represent itself as a coalition of organisations - a description which it could not sustain if it were challenged.  I would suggest something like "an association of individuals in civil society who are actively engaged in internet governance and the IGF."  But there are many formulations that would work. David Souter Message sent by: David Souter Managing Director, ict Development Associates ltd Visiting Professor in Communications Management, Business School, University of Strathclyde Visiting Senior Fellow, Department of Media and Communications, London School of Economics Associate of the International Institute for Sustainable Development   145 Lower Camden, Chislehurst, Kent, BR7 5JD (+44) (0)20 8467 1148 (fixed line) (+44) (0)7764 819974 (cellular line) -----Original Message----- From: Jeremy Malcolm [mailto:jeremy at ciroap.org] Sent: 13 January 2010 20:19 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; McTim Subject: Re: [governance] PLEASE RESPOND - draft statement on reform of the On 13/01/2010, at 7:24 PM, McTim wrote: > David, > > On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 9:48 PM, David Souter wrote: >> Dear Jeremy: >> >> I think there is a question here about IGC membership and how the IGC >> presents itself. >> >> According to the Charter, “the members of the IGC are individuals, acting in >> personal capacity, who subscribe to the charter of the caucus.  All members >> are equal and have the same rights and duties.” >> >> Can it really, therefore, introduce itself as “a global coalition of civil >> society and non governmental organisations and individuals”, as in the >> preamble to this draft? FWIW, this preamble was taken verbatim from a previous statement made in June last year.  But even so, please suggest specific improvements. -- 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. -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the Information Society Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- 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. -----Inline Attachment Follows----- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Thu Jan 14 09:45:49 2010 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 06:45:49 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Re:Strike 2nd para In-Reply-To: <4B4F18F8.5000106@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <213363.67258.qm@web83912.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Try as I might it makes no sense to leave this in.  It reads like someone trying to make sense of dissent from consensus. It belongs in argument not conclusion -- My thought is that it was included to make some players happy when they disagreed. Very political sounding. --- On Thu, 1/14/10, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: From: Jeanette Hofmann Subject: Re: [governance] PLEASE RESPOND - draft statement on reform of the To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Jeremy Malcolm" Date: Thursday, January 14, 2010, 1:15 PM I would suggest to delete the following para below which is the second substantial para of the draft statement: However given that the IGF is not a traditional governmental organisation, it is important to ensure that its Secretariat and MAG are adequately accountable to the IGF's non-governmental stakeholders. Within the IGC, there are various views on how this can be best assured.  Some believe that the Secretariat should have a level of accountability to the MAG.  Others feel that it would improve the MAG's accountability if its members were taken to represent the stakeholder groups (but not the particular stakeholders) who appointed them. Here is my reason: formally, the secretariat is accountable to the UNSG. The para above suggests instead that the secretariat is either accountable to no one or it is accountable to the stakeholder groups but not in a sufficient manner. Both options seem misleading to me. Since there is no strong message in this para anyway, I think we don't lose much if we simply skip it. jeanette ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Thu Jan 14 09:52:16 2010 From: goldstein.roxana at gmail.com (Roxana Goldstein) Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 11:52:16 -0300 Subject: [governance] Text of IRP Statement to Open Consultation for IGF In-Reply-To: <4B4F00F9.30500@gmail.com> References: <4B4F00F9.30500@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4ca4162f1001140652l5fc81e9cg959fb1d11cc5029e@mail.gmail.com> Hi Ginger and all, In my humild opinion, I think that it is ok to support this statement. Anyway, I think that points 3 and 4 must be core issues for the IGC, and I suggest to continue debating here about them, and how to improve the IGFs -global, regional, national, preparatory meetings, etc.- in this regard. Best, Roxana 2010/1/14 Ginger Paque > Hello all: this is the current draft of the IRP contribution, which is up > for Consensus for IGC support. There will be a "tightened" draft later, > probably this afternoon, but this appears to be the essence of the > statement. > > Please read it carefully, and advise whether the IGC should sign on in > support of this statement. This is independent of any IGC statement. > > We need to do this quickly if we want to ask the IRP to add our signature > to their written contribution. Please post. > > > Open Consultation IGF 2010 > > INTERNET RIGHTS AND PRINCIPLES DYNAMIC COALITION Statement > > The IRP Dynamic Coalition would like to contribute to the Open Consultation > for IGF 2010 in two areas: observations for taking stock of IGF 2009 and > suggestions for the format and agenda of the Vilnius meeting. The comments > below are organised under [..] themes, under which we take stock of IGF 2009 > and then offer practical suggestions for the format and planning of IGF > 2010. > > 1) General Organization: Generally speaking coalition members found > the meeting to be well organised, with signs of continued progress in all > aspects. Coalition members who were participating in or who organised > workshops would like to commend the organisers for their good work in this > regard, particularly given the relatively limited budget and resources > available to the IGF. Some specific concerns include: > a. Discussions, especially in plenary sessions tended to become > diverted into the issue of whether the IGF should continue, and if so, how. > We think it is time to move on and to keep these issues from overwhelming > the topics in hand. > b. Continuity and more explicit links between the main sessions and > the workshops could have been stronger. Clear links in the program by > cross-referencing of session/workshop themes and titles is one way to create > these links before the meeting. During and after the meeting, we would like > to see formal feedback opportunities put in place and integrated into the > stocktaking; from organizers and/or moderators of both main sessions and > workshops. > c. Main sessions based around the "traditional" themes of openness, > diversity, and such like started to feel a bit repetitive particularly in > relation to the freshness of new themes introduced onto the program. The > need for continuity and depth needs to be balanced by new themes as well > d. Some panels in main sessions were overloaded with panellists. This > always means less time for a wider plenary discussion. Moderators of larger > sessions need to find ways to ensure that discussion actually takes place > and when it does it dynamic and inclusive. To this end we would suggest that > there is an upper limit set on the number of panellists and/or length of > formal presentations. Moreover that enough time is set aside for discussion. > It is important that contributions from the floor, and remote participants > get enough time to have their say and be adequately responded to by > panellists and other participants. > e. Rather than having main sessions based around broad themes, we > think this year is the moment to broach more specific questions or policy > dilemmas. These can be proposed in advance with an eye to opening up the > discussion about specific solutions before the actual session. > > 2) Remote Participation: On the whole the facilities for remote > participation seemed to work well. However, there are some specific issues > that we think need to be attended to this year to ensure fuller and more > diverse participation in the IGF. > a. Workshop organisers were not given enough support in good time or > enough information on how to use the technology provided properly. When > technical hitches did occur, there were not enough technicians on hand so > many moderators found themselves doing DIY instead. This is unprofessional > and causes delays and loss of focus for everyone. More information in > advance from IGF HQ would be useful. But also during the event, and given > the importance of enabling remote participation but also having it run > smoothly, the need for more dedicated staff in this respect is > indispensable. > b. We would also suggest, in line with suggestions from the Remote > Participation Working Group (RPWG), that Workshops include both a moderator > on-the-ground and an online moderator in their planning. Some-one needs to > monitor remote participation, in partnership with the workshop moderator, in > order to streamline, filter and facilitate remote participation in the > proceedings; e.g. by gathering text-based comments, setting up a queue for > spoken interventions, or having remote participants be given the floor en > bloc if this is more practicable. We would also urge all moderators to > understand the many remote participants are doing this at difficult times of > their 24 hour day and that time-lags require careful attention be paid to > timing responses and requests by moderators on the ground. > c. The above points underscore our support for proposals to organise > adequate guidelines as well as a brief training session/module/virtual tour > for all moderators before the IGF meeting. During the meeting is not the > time to experiment. > > 3) Emerging Key themes: A wide range of stakeholders in the plenary > sessions reaffirmed the importance of upholding human rights in the internet > age. However these sentiments tended to be expressed in general rather than > specific terms. > a. The challenge for this coming year is to focus on how upholding > human rights can be achieved in practice; what roles different stakeholders > can or should play in this regard, and how these play out more specifically > in different Internet governance issue-areas. > b. With this in mind we would like to see not only workshops but also > main sessions that look more closely at what a "human rights agenda" or > "development agenda: for Internet Governance might actually look like. > Discussions around broad themes such as openness and diversity have already > taken place. It is time to get down to specifics and we do not see why these > specifics always have to be covered in workshop sessions. > > 4) Participation: Increasing diversity in terms of cultural, regional, > and linguistic representation remains a core issue for a number of dynamic > coalitions. Our comments and suggestions about continuing to improve remote > participation technically and organizationally relate to these concerns. > Practically there is a need to > a. Setting up coherent - vertical and lateral - links between > discussions and themes from national, regional and international IGFs > better, during the meetings as well as in the record of these various > meetings. At present the public record is piecemeal and not easily > accessible. We recognise that this is process that needs dedicated time and > resources to do so and urge the IGF to put aside some resources for this. > b. Find more ways to open up the meetings to lay-participants. By this > we mean that preparatory consultations, main sessions, and specialised > workshops need to be more accessible not only to 'everyday internet users' > but also for any communities or groups from areas where the Internet is > either less extensive or who have other communication priorities. > > ********************************************************************88 > > > > > > > > > > Dr Marianne Franklin > Reader > Convener of the Transnational Communications & Global Media Program > Media & Communications > Goldsmiths, University of London > New Cross > London SE14 6NW > United Kingdom > Tel (direct): #44 (0)207 919-7072 > Fax: #44 (0) 207 919-7616 > email: m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk > http://www.goldsmiths.ac.uk/media-communications/staff/franklin.php > > http://www.goldsmiths.ac.uk/pg/ma-transnational-communications-global-media.php > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeanette at wzb.eu Thu Jan 14 10:55:12 2010 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 15:55:12 +0000 Subject: [governance] the matter of MAG rotation 2010 Message-ID: <4B4F3E60.9070103@wzb.eu> Hi, the MAG started discussing the issue of rotation for this year. Some people were in favor of an extended term for the present membership because it is not clear if the IGF's mandate will be extended and, should it be extended, under what terms. It could be that the MAG meeting in May would be the only one for the new MAG. I argued that the MAG or the secretariat should not decide on this matter without consulting the various stakeholder groups. This afternoon, Markus and I discussed the options and we came up with a third solution. Markus just sent the following message to the MAG list and asked me to forward it to the caucus list as well. I expect the caucus will be happy about the proposed solution? Dear colleagues, Jeanette has got a point! It might not go down well if any decision were taken in this matter without consulting the broader community! However, as there is a distinct possibility that a renewed MAG will hold one meeting only, there is also a strong argument against launching the heavy rotation machinery just for the sake of this principle. I consulted with Jeanette and going through the pros and cons of both approaches we both came to the conclusion that there might be a third way. We both wondered whether there was any need for a closed meeting at all in May. As last September's planning meeting went rather well, we wondered whether we could not prepare most of this year's meeting in an open process. By doing so, we would also take into account the calls for more inclusiveness and transparency made during the consultation in Sharm. The MAG would thus meet a last time next month and set the agenda for the Vilnius meeting. The programme could be fleshed out in two open planning meetings in May and June. This could also be an experiment in view of a possible renewal of the mandate. Should the mandate be renewed, any decision on how to continue could be taken in light of this experiment. Please let me know what you think about this possible approach. Best regards Markus ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From yehudakatz at mailinator.com Thu Jan 14 11:04:24 2010 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (Yehuda Katz) Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 08:04:24 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] the matter of MAG rotation 2010 In-Reply-To: 4B4F3E60.9070103@wzb.eu Message-ID: Stay the Course *Rotate* and inivte the Allumni (Current Seats) to attend. You can expaect that some may decline do to scheaduling, worst-case is the up-comming MAG may be a little plump. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From bdelachapelle at gmail.com Thu Jan 14 11:26:50 2010 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 17:26:50 +0100 Subject: [governance] Draft statement - preamble In-Reply-To: References: <3D0F6E7C-3D02-4CAB-964F-13974AB7C9E6@ciroap.org> <3001387034883581355@unknownmsgid> <00D8C04A-2172-4FF0-9F8A-1F4732472F6B@ciroap.org> <-3875464128345134693@unknownmsgid> <954259bd1001140249q7f53940ewd3d92c917b97cfa7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <954259bd1001140826l286be07aj3b3a00d4718e6cb1@mail.gmail.com> Thanks Beaudouin, this is exactly what I meant : the value of the list is not limited to the few who post but also comes from the range of actors in the "room" who follow the discussions. Best Bertrand On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 1:21 PM, Baudouin SCHOMBE wrote: > Among those members with few post, evereaday I am online and follow all > contributions but my english is not fluent to allow me for a regular > contributing. > > > Major credibility factors for external actors are the diversity of the > membership, the sheer amount of subscribers (more than 400) even if much > fewer actually post, and above all, the quality of the contributions that > result from intense exchanges. > > Baudouin > > > 2010/1/14, Bertrand de La Chapelle : >> >> Dear all, >> >> Interesting exchange as usual. A suggestion below regarding formulation of >> the Preamble and its transformation into a point at the end of the document >> under the title : "About the Internet Governance Caucus". plus some more >> general remarks. >> >> 1. We have had recurring discussions on the nature of this list between >> very open debate space and the development of advocacy positions. The >> delicate balance between the two complementary dimensions is important to >> preserve. >> >> In that context, the way the IGC presents itself in such contributions to >> the IGF has an impact. The following description is the first paragraph of >> the Charter : >> >> *"The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) was originally created by >> individual and organizational civil society actors who came together in the >> context of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) to promote >> global public interest objectives in Internet governance policy making."* >> >> I have always believed that this notion of *the promotion of the global >> public interest* (and the necessary work to define what it exactly is) is >> what actually unites the participants of the Caucus, and not their belonging >> to one type of organization or another. >> >> The value of this space is its *inclusiveness *: criteria for >> participation is only the endorsement of such values. As the Charter states >> : >> *"The members of the IGC are individuals, acting in personal capacity, >> who subscribe to the charter of the caucus. All members are equal* and >> have the same rights and duties." >> >> Major credibility factors for external actors are the diversity of the >> membership, the sheer amount of subscribers (more than 400) even if much >> fewer actually post, and above all, the quality of the contributions that >> result from intense exchanges. >> >> I would therefore suggest that we do not lose too much time on the >> question of the Preamble. The presentation of the IGC woudl be better placed >> in the end under the title : "About the IGC". The Internet Governance Caucus >> is a well-established brand and this is common practice for contributions. >> >> Leveraging the Charter's first sentences, the paragraph could read : >> >> *About the Internet Governance Caucus* >> >> The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) was originally created by individual >> and organizational civil society actors who came together in the context of >> the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) to promote global public >> interest objectives in Internet governance policy making. It now comprises >> more than 400 individual subscribers to its mailing list, who have >> subscribed to its Charter. More information is available at : >> http://www.igcaucus.org. >> >> >> 2. This spirit of inclusion is the very spirit of the Internet Governance >> Forum. And it should be of no surprise, given the influence of the IGC and >> many of its members in the creation of the IGF itself, and since 2006, in >> the open consultations and the MAG discussions that have helped shape the >> current IGF working methods. >> >> The IGF can and should be continuously improved, as it has already in its >> first four years. In suggesting such improvements, it is important for the >> IGC to balance the recognition of the achievements this innovation already >> represents and the constructive impatience regarding what can be further >> accomplished. The co-coordinators have a fundamental responsibility in >> ensuring such a balance that truly reflect the broad consensus among all >> participants. I trust this is what Jeremy is trying to accomplish here. >> >> 3. Finally, I'd like to highlight Eric Dierker's point regarding *the >> influence discussions on this list have in broader circles*. Let's not >> forget that a lot of actors, including governments and businesses are >> actually subscribed to the list - even if they do not post. >> >> In many cases, I've had exchanges with government colleagues and people >> from other circles who were perfectly aware of the arguments exchanged and - >> consciously or unconsciously - integrated them in their own analyzes. This >> is good and should be kept in mind. >> >> I hope this helps. >> >> Best >> >> Bertrand >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 11:09 PM, David Souter wrote: >> >>> My point about the preamble is simply this: If the IGC is an association >>> of >>> individuals, it should not represent itself as a coalition of >>> organisations >>> - a description which it could not sustain if it were challenged. I >>> would >>> suggest something like "an association of individuals in civil society >>> who >>> are actively engaged in internet governance and the IGF." But there are >>> many formulations that would work. >>> >>> David Souter >>> >>> >>> Message sent by: >>> >>> David Souter >>> Managing Director, ict Development Associates ltd >>> Visiting Professor in Communications Management, Business School, >>> University >>> of Strathclyde >>> Visiting Senior Fellow, Department of Media and Communications, London >>> School of Economics >>> Associate of the International Institute for Sustainable Development >>> >>> 145 Lower Camden, Chislehurst, Kent, BR7 5JD >>> (+44) (0)20 8467 1148 (fixed line) >>> (+44) (0)7764 819974 (cellular line) >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Jeremy Malcolm [mailto:jeremy at ciroap.org] >>> Sent: 13 January 2010 20:19 >>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; McTim >>> Subject: Re: [governance] PLEASE RESPOND - draft statement on reform of >>> the >>> >>> On 13/01/2010, at 7:24 PM, McTim wrote: >>> >>> > David, >>> > >>> > On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 9:48 PM, David Souter >> > >>> wrote: >>> >> Dear Jeremy: >>> >> >>> >> I think there is a question here about IGC membership and how the IGC >>> >> presents itself. >>> >> >>> >> According to the Charter, “the members of the IGC are individuals, >>> acting >>> in >>> >> personal capacity, who subscribe to the charter of the caucus. All >>> members >>> >> are equal and have the same rights and duties.” >>> >> >>> >> Can it really, therefore, introduce itself as “a global coalition of >>> civil >>> >> society and non governmental organisations and individuals”, as in the >>> >> preamble to this draft? >>> >>> FWIW, this preamble was taken verbatim from a previous statement made in >>> June last year. But even so, please suggest specific improvements. >>> >>> -- >>> 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. >>> >>> >> -- >> ____________________ >> Bertrand de La Chapelle >> Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the >> Information Society >> Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of >> Foreign and European Affairs >> Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 >> >> "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint >> Exupéry >> ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > > -- > 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. -- ____________________ 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 katitza at datos-personales.org Thu Jan 14 12:12:25 2010 From: katitza at datos-personales.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 12:12:25 -0500 Subject: [governance] the matter of MAG rotation 2010 In-Reply-To: <4B4F3E60.9070103@wzb.eu> References: <4B4F3E60.9070103@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <12B8F5A2-5F50-4669-B335-0E4F7E98A35A@datos-personales.org> Dear all: I fully support the open approach outline below. Knowing the process in advance, will give us (civil society) enough time to work in our own process and ways to organize and coordinate ourselves, as well as to include the voices of those who will not be able to attend the meeting (remote participation)/online consultation. From a civil society point of view, the process of selection of candidates is a good opportunity to share knowledge with other stakeholders (and among us) on the human rights concerns we want to highlight in those main sessions in a more granular detail. We are able to influence in the issues we care about in multi-layer levels, and learn the agenda of the other stakeholders (which is useful). Interaction among all the stakeholders (even if we widely disagree, which in fact is OK), can give us unprecedented ways to move forward the human rights agenda we want to highlight. My 2 cents, Katitza On Jan 14, 2010, at 10:55 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > Hi, > > the MAG started discussing the issue of rotation for this year. Some > people were in favor of an extended term for the present membership > because it is not clear if the IGF's mandate will be extended and, > should it be extended, under what terms. It could be that the MAG > meeting in May would be the only one for the new MAG. > > I argued that the MAG or the secretariat should not decide on this > matter without consulting the various stakeholder groups. This > afternoon, Markus and I discussed the options and we came up with a > third solution. Markus just sent the following message to the MAG > list and asked me to forward it to the caucus list as well. I expect > the caucus will be happy about the proposed solution? > > Dear colleagues, > > Jeanette has got a point! It might not go down well if any decision > were taken in this matter without consulting the broader community! > However, as there is a distinct possibility that a renewed MAG will > hold one meeting only, there is also a strong argument against > launching the heavy rotation machinery just for the sake of this > principle. > > I consulted with Jeanette and going through the pros and cons of > both approaches we both came to the conclusion that there might be a > third way. We both wondered whether there was any need for a closed > meeting at all in May. As last September's planning meeting went > rather well, we wondered whether we could not prepare most of this > year's meeting in an open process. By doing so, we would also take > into account the calls for more inclusiveness and transparency made > during the consultation in Sharm. > > The MAG would thus meet a last time next month and set the agenda > for the Vilnius meeting. The programme could be fleshed out in two > open planning meetings in May and June. > > This could also be an experiment in view of a possible renewal of > the mandate. Should the mandate be renewed, any decision on how to > continue could be taken in light of this experiment. > > Please let me know what you think about this possible approach. > > Best regards > Markus > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Jan 14 12:07:52 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 22:37:52 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGC Written Contribution for IGF, deadline Jan 15 In-Reply-To: <4B4E04C1.50008@gmail.com> References: <4B4DD2B6.8090101@gmail.com>,<4ca4162f1001130634q66f445ecida59a6db611d991e@mail.gmail.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE014DEFE4CD@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4B4E04C1.50008@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4B4F4F68.7030908@itforchange.net> I hope that IGC is able to highlight the fact that while IGF Hyderabad ended on a relatively high note where there seemed to be a consensus that the IGF process should now move forward and try to become more focussed and more purposive, IGF Sharm did not really take the promised steps forward. The closing session at Hyderabad had clearly addressed this imperative and gave enough outlines to push us towards a more focussed and purposed approach - key issues based round tables was the key format around which such an approach was anchored. At Sharm nothing like this happened, and in fact Sharm was the first time where some significant substantive or process innovation over the earlier IGF did not take place. (I know this was also because of the realpolitik around IGF renewal, but we need not play that tune, and say what we have to say - observing and realting the facts as that stand.) Merely saying things are going along well at the IGF is not what we may want to project as our comments. IGF is supposed to help along global policy making in the important IG space and I really do not see it going anywhere at present in this regard. There are, no doubt, huge possibilities, but civil society actors would need to do a lot of pushing along for them to be realized. parminder Ginger Paque wrote: > Thanks, Roxana and Lee for your emails. > > Everyone... > > I have copied below the thread from the IRP Mailing list, that refers > to their progress on a statement for the IGF OC for Feb., to be > submitted as a written contribution by January 15th. This gives you an > idea of where they are going. I will post the final draft when it is > posted on the IRP list. > > I am not suggesting that we opine as to the content of the IRP > statement. If anyone wants to do that, they should do so on the IRP > list. All we will do is either support their statement or not, > depending on IGC consensus. > > Thanks, gp > > > [Fwd: Re: [IRP] IRP Statement to Open Consultation for IGF 2010] > > Dear Lisa and all, > > I'm comfortable with all the suggestions to the statement presented so > far, but I feel deeply concerned with the adoption of the term "users" > as a general category. Who are the everyday Internet users? > > I think we should stress the importance of assuring diversity of > voices, of regional and linguistical representation, the participation > of underepresented groups, etc, etc, but I see the proposal of > bringing the "everyday internet users" to the IGF quite dangerous. > Besides, I guess everyone who goes to the IGF is an everyday internet > user. > > best, > Graciela > > > Lisa Horner escreveu: >> Everyone, please send your ideas through for the Open Consultations. We >> should focus on practical suggestions for the 2010 agenda. It's really >> important that we get our ideas in now, before the agenda is agreed and >> it's too late. We need your ideas NOW as we need to draft a statement >> and get it submitted by the 15th. >> >> I guess if no one has anything to add, we should keep it short and >> succinct, focusing on human rights rather than the process issues. >> >> In addition to my previous comments, I'd like to add another... >> >> The IGF (including regional and international) needs to find ways of >> better involving everyday internet users in the discussions, and of >> improving participation from developing countries. This is particularly >> important if we are to uphold human rights in and through IG - users >> need to know what their rights are and how to claim them, as well as >> contribute to the formation of policies that affect them. >> >> In terms of practical suggestions of how this might happen.... >> A main session on what users need from the IGF, including discussion of >> how to better include users in any future incarnations of the IGF? >> Session organizers agreeing to consult with users, and explaining how >> they have on feedback forms/in session reports? National IGFs >> formalizing participation from users, including outreach >> and information campaign? >> Setting up some kind of portal/interface for everyday users to explain >> ideas and needs? >> More focus on the discussion RE funding for a wider range of >> participants. >> >> Any thoughts? >> >> Lisa >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: M I Franklin [mailto:cos02mf at gold.ac.uk] Sent: 11 January 2010 >> 10:29 >> To: Lisa Horner; irp >> Subject: Re: [IRP] IRP Statement to Open Consultation for IGF 2010 >> >> Dear All >> >> Thanks Lisa for these comments. >> >> Anyone else have anything to add? >> >> Cheers >> MF >> >> --On 08 January 2010 11:30 +0000 Lisa Horner >> wrote: >> >> >>> Thanks for taking the lead with this Marianne. Some very quick notes >>> below...would be good to hear people's thoughts and have a discussion >>> about the options... >>> >>> 1) Contributions that take stock of last year's IGF in Sharm el Sheikh >>> >>> - Overall, the meeting was well organized. I think things have >>> >> improved >> >>> each year. >>> - Remote participation seemed to work well. However, workshop >>> organizers weren't given much support on how to use it properly and >>> technicians weren't always on hand. More information in advance would >>> be useful. >>> - A wide range of stakeholders in the plenary sessions reaffirmed the >>> importance of upholding human rights in the internet age. The >>> >> challenge >> >>> now is to focus on how that can actually be achieved in practice, and >>> what roles different stakeholders can/should play. >>> - Discussions, especially in plenary, seemed to be distracted by the >>> issue of whether the IGF should continue, and if so, how. (does anyone >>> have an update on the status of those discussions?) >>> - Links between the main sessions and the workshops still weren't >>> >> great. >> >>> - Main sessions based around the "traditional" categories of openness, >>> diversity etc felt a bit stale. The new themes introduced were >>> refreshing. >>> - main sessions without a large number of panelists worked better, but >>> we need to find better ways of ensuring that wider plenary discussion >>> remains coherent, dynamic and inclusive. >>> >>> 2) Suggestions for the agenda and format of the Vilnius meeting. >>> >>> - Rather than having main sessions based around broad themes, could >>> >> more >> >>> specific questions or policy dilemmas be proposed in advance, that >>> people can debate in advance and suggest specific solutions to? >>> >>> - Related to the previous point, having sessions that look at a "human >>> rights agenda" or "development agenda for IG" I think would be more >>> useful than broad themes such as openness and diversity. I think >>> >> these >> >>> debates have been had in previous open consultations, but I haven't >>> >> been >> >>> able to keep up with everything...does anyone have any insights on >>> >> this? >> >>> As a coalition, we should probably discuss whether it's realistic to >>> propose a human rights main session...could we propose a development >>> main session, and then push for HRs to be a major part of that. >>> >> Should >> >>> we be proposing development/HRs as an overarching theme again? >>> >>> - Again related to previous point, the coalition should propose that >>> >> it >> >>> participates in the organization of the main session related to >>> "openness" or development/HRs/Privacy. >>> >>> - Can we suggest ways of linking the national, regional and >>> international IGFs better together? It would probably be useful if >>> >> this >> >>> could be done in a thematic way, for example with feedback from each >>> >> IGF >> >>> on "openness" being collected beforehand and reported back in the >>> openness session. Would require work though - no resources to do it?? >>> >>> - Can we suggest ways of linking the workshops better to the main >>> sessions? There was no formal feedback session last year, and >>> >> workshop >> >>> organizers weren't given a formal opportunity to feedback in the main >>> sessions as far as I'm aware. >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org >>> [mailto:irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org] On Behalf >>> >> Of >> >>> M I Franklin >>> Sent: 07 January 2010 18:50 >>> To: irp >>> Subject: [IRP] IRP Statement to Open Consultation for IGF 2010 >>> >>> Dear All >>> >>> Greetings. To follow on from Max's speed-of-light sending out of the >>> minutes of today's IRP phone-conference, this email is a call for >>> contributions to a statement from the DC as part of the open >>> consultations >>> in preparation for Vilnius later this year. >>> >>> Fouad's invitation for ideas and comments for the MAG meetings is >>> >> pasted >> >>> below fyi so the DC statement also contributes to this side of the >>> process; >>> point 4 in particular. >>> >>> In short, the IRP statement can cover: >>> >>> >>> Time is short, so we need your comments by Monday at the latest. I >>> >> will >> >>> then cobble up a first draft for one more round. The statement has to >>> >> be >> >>> ready to go by 15 January. >>> >>> All input welcome on either or both of the two aspects above. >>> >>> Thanks. >>> ciao >>> MF >>> >>> --On Thursday, January 07, 2010 6:08 +0500 Fouad Bajwa >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Dear Friends, >>>> >>>> As you are all aware about the IGF Open Consultation and MAG meetings >>>> in February 2010, I would like to request those people that cannot >>>> participate but would like to be heard to forward their interventions >>>> so that we can read and extend them on the floor during the Open >>>> Consultation. I further request statements to be brief, concise and >>>> >> to >> >>>> the point as the floor has to be passed on to the wide participation >>>> during the consultation. >>>> >>>> As for the MAG, we have a strong Civil Society MAG group including >>>> myself. The MAG is responsible for suggesting the design/organization >>>> of the IGF2010. IF you have concerns regarding the programming of the >>>> IGF2010, you can forward your statements for intervention to me so >>>> that they can be shared amongst our other team members. Once again, >>>> the requirement for being brief, concise and to the point applies >>>> >> here >> >>>> as well! >>>> >>>> Ideas for interventions can involve statements such as but not >>>> >> limited >> >>> to: >>> >>>> 1. Issues surfaced during the IGF2009 in Sharam. >>>> 2. Developing Country Participation/Inclusion Issues. >>>> 3. Main Program / Main Theme Issues for IGF2010. >>>> 4. Human Rights Issues/Rights on the Internet Issues. >>>> 5. Development Agenda for Internet Governance Issues. >>>> 6. Youth and Gender Participation Issues. >>>> >>>> For your convenience and live correspondence, I will be available on >>>> Skype (ID:fouadbajwa , kindly don't forget to introduce yourself >>>> please while adding me) throughout the three days of meetings (1 day >>>> open consultation + 2 days MAG meetings). >>>> >>>> I look forward to assisting your interventions. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> 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 >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> IRP mailing list >>>> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org >>>> >>>> >> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/listinfo.cgi/irp-internetri >> >>> g >>> >>>> htsandprinciples.org >>>> >>> >>> Dr Marianne Franklin >>> Reader >>> Convener of the Transnational Communications & Global Media Program >>> Media & Communications >>> Goldsmiths, University of London >>> New Cross >>> London SE14 6NW >>> United Kingdom >>> Tel (direct): #44 (0)207 919-7072 >>> Fax: #44 (0) 207 919-7616 >>> email: m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk >>> http://www.goldsmiths.ac.uk/media-communications/staff/franklin.php >>> >>> >> http://www.goldsmiths.ac.uk/pg/ma-transnational-communications-global-me >> >>> dia.php >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> IRP mailing list >>> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org >>> >>> >> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/listinfo.cgi/irp-internetri >> >>> ghtsandprinciples.org >>> _______________________________________________ >>> IRP mailing list >>> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org >>> >>> >> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/listinfo.cgi/irp-internetri >> g >> >>> htsandprinciples.org >>> >> >> >> >> Dr Marianne Franklin >> Reader >> Convener of the Transnational Communications & Global Media Program >> Media & Communications >> Goldsmiths, University of London >> New Cross >> London SE14 6NW >> United Kingdom >> Tel (direct): #44 (0)207 919-7072 >> Fax: #44 (0) 207 919-7616 >> email: m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk >> http://www.goldsmiths.ac.uk/media-communications/staff/franklin.php >> http://www.goldsmiths.ac.uk/pg/ma-transnational-communications-global-me >> dia.php >> _______________________________________________ >> IRP mailing list >> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org >> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/listinfo.cgi/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org >> >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Thu Jan 14 12:58:27 2010 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 18:58:27 +0100 Subject: [governance] PLEASE RESPOND - draft statement on reform of the In-Reply-To: <4B4F18F8.5000106@wzb.eu> References: <3D0F6E7C-3D02-4CAB-964F-13974AB7C9E6@ciroap.org> <4B4E1FDE.8010608@wzb.eu> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE014DEFE4D2@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4B4E28F1.3030702@wzb.eu> <701af9f71001140506y3c5ece19x9fe7577d68fb20f9@mail.gmail.com> <4B4F18F8.5000106@wzb.eu> Message-ID: On Jan 14, 2010, at 2:15 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > > I would suggest to delete the following para below which is the second substantial para of the draft statement: > > However given that the IGF is not a traditional governmental organisation, it is important to ensure that its Secretariat and MAG are adequately accountable to the IGF's non-governmental stakeholders. Within the IGC, there are various views on how this can be best assured. Some believe that the Secretariat should have a level of accountability to the MAG. Others feel that it would improve the MAG's accountability if its members were taken to represent the stakeholder groups (but not the particular stakeholders) who appointed them. > > Here is my reason: formally, the secretariat is accountable to the UNSG. The para above suggests instead that the secretariat is either accountable to no one or it is accountable to the stakeholder groups but not in a sufficient manner. Both options seem misleading to me. > > Since there is no strong message in this para anyway, I think we don't lose much if we simply skip it. I agree with this and Jeanette's proposal regarding the first substantive para. 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 william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Thu Jan 14 13:08:43 2010 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 19:08:43 +0100 Subject: [governance] the matter of MAG rotation 2010 In-Reply-To: References: <4B4F3E60.9070103@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <79420E33-0C5D-4344-A2C8-C4B8E747189E@graduateinstitute.ch> Hi Jeremy, On Jan 14, 2010, at 5:09 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On Thu, 14 Jan 2010 15:55:12 +0000, Jeanette Hofmann > wrote: >> I argued that the MAG or the secretariat should not decide on this >> matter without consulting the various stakeholder groups. This >> afternoon, Markus and I discussed the options and we came up with a >> third solution. Markus just sent the following message to the MAG list >> and asked me to forward it to the caucus list as well. I expect the >> caucus will be happy about the proposed solution? I would > > Wearing my cynical hat, this may just mean that any of the decisions that > would otherwise have been made by the MAG in May will be made by the > Secretariat instead, rather than submitting them to the anarchy of the open > consultation meeting. How would that work? Markus' message to the MAG suggests they meet a last time next month and set the agenda for the Vilnius meeting, and the program then would be fleshed out in two open planning meetings in May and June. What decisions could the secretariat go off and make on its own without the two open planning meetings noticing, and why would it try to? > But wearing my optimistic hat, I hope that this will > not be the case and that this move will simply mean a more open planning > process in May. Bon chapeau... Cheers, Bill -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From katitza at datos-personales.org Thu Jan 14 14:02:35 2010 From: katitza at datos-personales.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 14:02:35 -0500 Subject: [governance] the matter of MAG rotation 2010 In-Reply-To: References: <4B4F3E60.9070103@wzb.eu> Message-ID: Dear Jeremy, It is useful to make those cynical analysis. My experience is that the process is driven in situ, in that moment but the different participants. So far, it works OK. However, It can go either way. I think we will be effective as long as we organize ourselves (and raise our points), and follow up those decisions. All the best, Katitza On Jan 14, 2010, at 11:09 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On Thu, 14 Jan 2010 15:55:12 +0000, Jeanette Hofmann > wrote: >> I argued that the MAG or the secretariat should not decide on this >> matter without consulting the various stakeholder groups. This >> afternoon, Markus and I discussed the options and we came up with a >> third solution. Markus just sent the following message to the MAG >> list >> and asked me to forward it to the caucus list as well. I expect the >> caucus will be happy about the proposed solution? > > Wearing my cynical hat, this may just mean that any of the decisions > that > would otherwise have been made by the MAG in May will be made by the > Secretariat instead, rather than submitting them to the anarchy of > the open > consultation meeting. > But wearing my optimistic hat, I hope that this will > not be the case and that this move will simply mean a more open > planning > process in May. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From katitza at datos-personales.org Thu Jan 14 14:08:03 2010 From: katitza at datos-personales.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 14:08:03 -0500 Subject: [governance] the matter of MAG rotation 2010 In-Reply-To: <79420E33-0C5D-4344-A2C8-C4B8E747189E@graduateinstitute.ch> References: <4B4F3E60.9070103@wzb.eu> <79420E33-0C5D-4344-A2C8-C4B8E747189E@graduateinstitute.ch> Message-ID: <9F5E6B43-166D-4454-A2A1-7FBB861794FF@datos-personales.org> Jeremy, On Jan 14, 2010, at 1:08 PM, William Drake wrote: >> >> Wearing my cynical hat, this may just mean that any of the >> decisions that >> would otherwise have been made by the MAG in May will be made by the >> Secretariat instead, rather than submitting them to the anarchy of >> the open >> consultation meeting. > > How would that work? Markus' message to the MAG suggests they meet > a last time next month and set the agenda for the Vilnius meeting, > and the program then would be fleshed out in two open planning > meetings in May and June. What decisions could the secretariat go > off and make on its own without the two open planning meetings > noticing, and why would it try to? It can happen if no one gets any agreement of anything. However, we are be able to notice it, because it will happen in an open meeting. I personally agree with the propose solution (at least in this case), and see how it goes. All the best, Katitza -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From presidencia at internauta.org.ar Thu Jan 14 16:23:59 2010 From: presidencia at internauta.org.ar (Presidencia Internauta) Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 18:23:59 -0300 Subject: [governance] PLEASE RESPOND - draft statement on reform of the References: <3D0F6E7C-3D02-4CAB-964F-13974AB7C9E6@ciroap.org> <954259bd1001131334n5967ed18k5559d75162669309@mail.gmail.com> <4B4F1759.4020107@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: Spanish & English Spanish Estimados todos: Con respecto a lo sugerido por Souter, creo que es importante la representación de sociedad civil y no la de individuos aislados. Es necesario que la representación sea de un colectivo de opinión y voluntad común y no la del sujeto aislado. Lo que se discute acá es siempre en función del hombre como ser colectivo, como expresión de intereses comunes y no de intereses individuales, nuestra fortaleza radica ahí y no en nuestras individualidades. Me sumo a lo expresado por Baudouin con respecto a seguir lo que se discute en la lista; estoy al tanto de lo que se discute aunque poco he podido hacer en función de la brecha que impone el idioma, así y todo estoy todos los días intentando poner mi ingles lo mejor posible para poder intervenir más. Saludos cordiales Sergio Salinas Porto Internauta Argentina Asociación Argentina de Usuarios de Internet http://www.internauta.org.ar English Dear all: On Souter's suggestion, I think it is important according the representation of civil society and not isolated individuals. It is necessary that the representation is a collective opinion and common will and not the isolated individual, What we discuss here is always in terms of the man as a collective, as an expression of common interests rather than individual interests, our strength lies there and not in ours individualities. I agree with what Baudouin expressed regarding what is discussed further in the list. I am aware of what is discussed in the list, but little I could do based on the gap imposed by the language; even so I am trying every day my English and I put my best to participate more. Best regards Sergio Salinas Porto Internauta Argentina Asociación Argentina de Usuarios de Internet http://www.internauta.org.ar ----- Original Message ----- From: "Carlos A. Afonso" To: Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2010 10:08 AM Subject: Re: [governance] PLEASE RESPOND - draft statement on reform of the > Thanks, Jeremy. I agree with the suggestions for modification from > Souter and others and wait for the updated statement. > > frt rgds > > --c.a. > > Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 22:34:55 +0100, Bertrand de La Chapelle >> wrote: >>> Hi Jeremy, >>> >>> Just one (I hope constructive) comment on the interesting draft you >>> circulated. The title currently is : "Statement on the reform of the >> IGF". >>> I believe the use of the term "reform" sends a message that could be >>> misinterpreted and/or exploited by actors that strongly oppose the IGF >> >> Thanks for this point. The title was more of a working title for our use, >> not specifically to be used when the document is submitted. Thus, the word >> "reform" is not used in the body text. Thus we can, I agree, submit it >> under a more neutral title such as "Submission of the IGC in taking stock >> of the Sharm el Sheikh meeting of the IGF". >> >>> A few minor suggested edits (*in blue* with suppressed words in red) are >>> also included in the text. They usually are pointers to coded words in >> the >>> UN language or the governmental discussions and it's important for you to >>> have them in mind. >> >> Thanks, and thanks also to those who have commented on the preamble and >> paragraph 1 so far. Please, anyone, feel free to move on to paragraphs 2, 3 >> and following. I will compile all the suggested changes (where compatible) >> in a day or two and re-circulate. >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 bdelachapelle at gmail.com Thu Jan 14 16:38:48 2010 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 22:38:48 +0100 Subject: [governance] French contribution for the IGF February consultations Message-ID: <954259bd1001141338n648ac6e6r534f96b199b046d@mail.gmail.com> Dear all, For information, you will find attached the contribution I just sent to the IGF Secretariat in the perspective of the February consultation. It explores possible further improvements of the IGF working methods. I hope you'll find it interesting/useful. Best Bertrand -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the Information Society Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Preparation of the Vilnius IGF.doc Type: application/msword Size: 47104 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dina_hov2007 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 14 17:59:36 2010 From: dina_hov2007 at yahoo.com (Dina) Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 14:59:36 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] PLEASE RESPOND - draft statement on reform of the In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <733856.7441.qm@web45210.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Dear Sergio, . But when I see somebody has got my opinion  I see no use to repeat the same things . OK I agree with those who think the term "reform" sends a message that could be  misinterpreted and/or exploited by actors that strongly oppose the IGF Kindest regards  Dina     --- On Thu, 1/14/10, Presidencia Internauta wrote: From: Presidencia Internauta Subject: Re: [governance] PLEASE RESPOND - draft statement on reform of the To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Carlos A. Afonso" Date: Thursday, January 14, 2010, 1:23 PM  Spanish & English Spanish Estimados todos: Con respecto a lo sugerido por Souter, creo que es importante la representación de sociedad civil y no la de individuos aislados. Es necesario que la representación sea de un colectivo de opinión y voluntad común y no la del sujeto aislado. Lo que se discute acá es siempre en función del hombre como ser colectivo, como expresión de intereses comunes y no de intereses individuales, nuestra fortaleza radica ahí y no en nuestras individualidades. Me sumo a lo expresado por Baudouin con respecto a seguir lo que se discute en la lista;  estoy al tanto de lo que se discute aunque poco he podido hacer en función de la brecha que impone el idioma, así y todo estoy todos los días intentando poner mi ingles lo mejor posible para poder intervenir más. Saludos cordiales Sergio Salinas Porto Internauta A rgentina Asociación Argentina de Usuarios de Internet http://www.internauta.org.ar   English Dear all: On Souter's suggestion, I think it is important according the representation of civil society and not isolated individuals. It is necessary that the representation is a collective opinion and common will and not the isolated individual, What we discuss here is always in terms of the man as a collective, as an expression of common interests rather than individual interests, our strength lies there and not in ours individualities.  I agree with what Baudouin expressed regarding what is discussed further in the list. I am aware of what is discussed in the list, but little I could do based on the gap imposed by the language; even so I am trying every day my English and I put my best to participate more. Best regards Sergio Salinas Porto Internauta A rgentina Asociación Argentina de Usuarios de Internet http://www.internauta.org.ar ----- Original Message ----- From: "Carlos A. Afonso" To: Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2010 10:08 AM Subject: Re: [governance] PLEASE RESPOND - draft statement on reform of the > Thanks, Jeremy. I agree with the suggestions for modification from > Souter and others and wait for the updated statement. > > frt rgds > > --c.a. > > Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 22:34:55 +0100, Bertrand de La Chapelle >> wrote: >>> Hi Jeremy, >>> >>> Just one (I hope constructive) comment on the interesting draft you >>> circulated. The title currently is : "Statement on the reform of the >> IGF". >>> I believe the use of the term "reform" sends a message that could be >>> misinterpreted and/or exploited by actors that strongly oppose the IGF >> >> Thanks for this point. The title was more of a working title for our use, >> not specifically to be used when the document is submitted. Thus, the word >> "reform" is not used in the body text. Thus we can, I agree, submit it >> under a more neutral title such as "Submission of the IGC in taking stock >> of the Sharm el Sheikh meeting of the IGF". >> >>> A few minor suggested edits (*in blue* with suppressed words in red) are >>> also included in the text. They usually are pointers to coded words in >> the >>> UN language or the governmental discussions and it's important for you to >>> have them in mind. >> >> Thanks, and thanks also to those who have commented on the preamble and >> paragraph 1 so far. Please, anyone, feel free to move on to paragraphs 2, 3 >> and following. I will compile all the suggested changes (where compatible) >> in a day or two and re-circulate. >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -----Inline Attachment Follows----- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Jan 15 00:00:04 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 10:30:04 +0530 Subject: [governance] the matter of MAG rotation 2010 In-Reply-To: <4B4F3E60.9070103@wzb.eu> References: <4B4F3E60.9070103@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <4B4FF654.70501@itforchange.net> Hi All I just now posted the following message to the IGF MAG list. More openness is always welcome but there are also some larger structural questions about the mandate and efficacy of the IGF which worry me since the proposal of 'only open meetings' has been made in connection with the need or not of renewing the MAG. I will posit these larger questions a little later while I share my mentioned email. Parminder (Disclosure: I am some kind of a member of the MAG system and am funded for attending its meeting. However, to be fair to me, I was also funded to attend the planning meeting in Sept which was *not* a MAG meeting.) Dear Markus and others, A couple of questions come to my mind regarding the new proposal which could merit some discussion. Does this mean that there will be no MAG post Feb? (I understand that MAG could exist while there be only open planning meeting as in Sept last.) If so, have we looked at all the implication - tangible and intangible - of there being no MAG in existence for a whole year in the run-up to an IGF meeting, and during the meeting? Does this in fact suggest that we could anyway more or less do without a MAG, and a couple of open preparatory/ planning meetings in Geneva, outcomes of which are culled/interpreted by the secretariat, is all that is needed to hold the IGF and comply with the WSIS requirements? Does trying out this practice in the year of possible structural changes to the IGF - possibly taken up along with its renewal if it comes - can have even more special significance? Thanks and best regards Parminder Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > Hi, > > the MAG started discussing the issue of rotation for this year. Some > people were in favor of an extended term for the present membership > because it is not clear if the IGF's mandate will be extended and, > should it be extended, under what terms. It could be that the MAG > meeting in May would be the only one for the new MAG. > > I argued that the MAG or the secretariat should not decide on this > matter without consulting the various stakeholder groups. This > afternoon, Markus and I discussed the options and we came up with a > third solution. Markus just sent the following message to the MAG list > and asked me to forward it to the caucus list as well. I expect the > caucus will be happy about the proposed solution? > > Dear colleagues, > > Jeanette has got a point! It might not go down well if any decision > were taken in this matter without consulting the broader community! > However, as there is a distinct possibility that a renewed MAG will > hold one meeting only, there is also a strong argument against > launching the heavy rotation machinery just for the sake of this > principle. > > I consulted with Jeanette and going through the pros and cons of both > approaches we both came to the conclusion that there might be a third > way. We both wondered whether there was any need for a closed meeting > at all in May. As last September's planning meeting went rather well, > we wondered whether we could not prepare most of this year's meeting > in an open process. By doing so, we would also take into account the > calls for more inclusiveness and transparency made during the > consultation in Sharm. > > The MAG would thus meet a last time next month and set the agenda for > the Vilnius meeting. The programme could be fleshed out in two open > planning meetings in May and June. > > This could also be an experiment in view of a possible renewal of the > mandate. Should the mandate be renewed, any decision on how to > continue could be taken in light of this experiment. > > Please let me know what you think about this possible approach. > > Best regards > Markus > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 Fri Jan 15 00:37:52 2010 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 21:37:52 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] PLEASE RESPOND - draft statement on reform of the In-Reply-To: <733856.7441.qm@web45210.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <217378.6980.qm@web83916.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> I do not think that this was too hard or too much to ask?  In earlier days we had "me too" posts. Writers and advocates cannot read minds -- especially 400. How do they know when they hit the mark or are offbase. One arguing contributor does not help us to read what many think.   I do my best to contact my friends on the ground from Vladivostok to Tehran, from Cape Cod to Saigon, Falklands to Paris, Johanasberg to Montevideo,,, I read India Times and Al Jazeera, Washington Post (force myself to see some TV and listen to some radio) I study on-line and off -- But I cannot know what the many here think ---. I read Mueller and Williams, Faussett and Cerf, Babtista and Avri but they do not help me know what is thought in your neighborhood.   Even private posts are helpful. --- On Thu, 1/14/10, Dina wrote: From: Dina Subject: Re: [governance] PLEASE RESPOND - draft statement on reform of the To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Presidencia Internauta" Date: Thursday, January 14, 2010, 10:59 PM Dear Sergio, . But when I see somebody has got my opinion  I see no use to repeat the same things . OK I agree with those who think the term "reform" sends a message that could be  misinterpreted and/or exploited by actors that strongly oppose the IGF Kindest regards   Dina     --- On Thu, 1/14/10, Presidencia Internauta wrote: From: Presidencia Internauta Subject: Re: [governance] PLEASE RESPOND - draft statement on reform of the To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Carlos A. Afonso" Date: Thursday, January 14, 2010, 1:23 PM  Spanish & English Spanish Estimados todos: Con respecto a lo sugerido por Souter, creo que es importante la representación de sociedad civil y no la de individuos aislados. Es necesario que la representación sea de un colectivo de opinión y voluntad común y no la del sujeto aislado. Lo que se discute acá es siempre en función del hombre como ser colectivo, como expresión de intereses comunes y no de intereses individuales, nuestra fortaleza radica ahí y no en nuestras individualidades. Me sumo a lo expresado por Baudouin con respecto a seguir lo que se discute en la lista;  estoy al tanto de lo que se discute aunque poco he podido hacer en función de la brecha que impone el idioma, así y todo estoy todos los días intentando poner mi ingles lo mejor posible para poder intervenir más. Saludos cordiales Sergio Salinas Porto Internauta A rgentina Asociación Argentina de Usuarios de Internet http://www.internauta.org.ar   English Dear all: On Souter's suggestion, I think it is important according the representation of civil society and not isolated individuals. It is necessary that the representation is a collective opinion and common will and not the isolated individual, What we discuss here is always in terms of the man as a collective, as an expression of common interests rather than individual interests, our strength lies there and not in ours individualities.  I agree with what Baudouin expressed regarding what is discussed further in the list. I am aware of what is discussed in the list, but little I could do based on the gap imposed by the language; even so I am trying every day my English and I put my best to participate more. Best regards Sergio Salinas Porto Internauta A rgentina Asociación Argentina de Usuarios de Internet http://www.internauta.org.ar ----- Original Message ----- From: "Carlos A. Afonso" To: Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2010 10:08 AM Subject: Re: [governance] PLEASE RESPOND - draft statement on reform of the > Thanks, Jeremy. I agree with the suggestions for modification from > Souter and others and wait for the updated statement. > > frt rgds > > --c.a. > > Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 22:34:55 +0100, Bertrand de La Chapelle >> wrote: >>> Hi Jeremy, >>> >>> Just one (I hope constructive) comment on the interesting draft you >>> circulated. The title currently is : "Statement on the reform of the >> IGF". >>> I believe the use of the term "reform" sends a message that could be >>> misinterpreted and/or exploited by actors that strongly oppose the IGF >> >> Thanks for this point. The title was more of a working title for our use, >> not specifically to be used when the document is submitted. Thus, the word >> "reform" is not used in the body text. Thus we can, I agree, submit it >> under a more neutral title such as "Submission of the IGC in taking stock >> of the Sharm el Sheikh meeting of the IGF". >> >>> A few minor suggested edits (*in blue* with suppressed words in red) are >>> also included in the text. They usually are pointers to coded words in >> the >>> UN language or the governmental discussions and it's important for you to >>> have them in mind. >> >> Thanks, and thanks also to those who have commented on the preamble and >> paragraph 1 so far. Please, anyone, feel free to move on to paragraphs 2, 3 >> and following. I will compile all the suggested changes (where compatible) >> in a day or two and re-circulate. >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -----Inline Attachment Follows----- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -----Inline Attachment Follows----- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeanette at wzb.eu Fri Jan 15 04:42:16 2010 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 09:42:16 +0000 Subject: [governance] the matter of MAG rotation 2010 In-Reply-To: <4B4FF654.70501@itforchange.net> References: <4B4F3E60.9070103@wzb.eu> <4B4FF654.70501@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4B503878.1080709@wzb.eu> Hi, we discussed some of the implications you mention below. This year's meetings following the February meeting could be regarded as an experiment to find out if a MAG is needed at all. Perhaps open planning meetings such as the one we had in September 2009 are sufficient for setting the agenda; perhaps the need for some sort of steering committee does arise, perhaps not. Since it is unclear whether after 2010 there will be a new mandate for an IGF and if so, whether the new IGF will continue to have a secretariat and a non-bureau like preparatory structure, this year's preparation seems to be a good opportunity to experiment with processes that are more open and transparent and less burdensome. The annual rotation does involve a lot of work for both the secretariat and all stakeholder groups. jeanette Parminder wrote: > Hi All > > I just now posted the following message to the IGF MAG list. More > openness is always welcome but there are also some larger structural > questions about the mandate and efficacy of the IGF which worry me since > the proposal of 'only open meetings' has been made in connection with > the need or not of renewing the MAG. I will posit these larger questions > a little later while I share my mentioned email. Parminder > > (Disclosure: I am some kind of a member of the MAG system and am funded > for attending its meeting. However, to be fair to me, I was also funded > to attend the planning meeting in Sept which was *not* a MAG meeting.) > > Dear Markus and others, > > A couple of questions come to my mind regarding the new proposal which > could merit some discussion. > > Does this mean that there will be no MAG post Feb? (I understand that > MAG could exist while there be only open planning meeting as in Sept last.) > > If so, have we looked at all the implication - tangible and intangible - > of there being no MAG in existence for a whole year in the run-up to an > IGF meeting, and during the meeting? > > Does this in fact suggest that we could anyway more or less do without a > MAG, and a couple of open preparatory/ planning meetings in Geneva, > outcomes of which are culled/interpreted by the secretariat, is all that > is needed to hold the IGF and comply with the WSIS requirements? > > Does trying out this practice in the year of possible structural changes > to the IGF - possibly taken up along with its renewal if it comes - can > have even more special significance? > > Thanks and best regards > > Parminder > > > Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >> Hi, >> >> the MAG started discussing the issue of rotation for this year. Some >> people were in favor of an extended term for the present membership >> because it is not clear if the IGF's mandate will be extended and, >> should it be extended, under what terms. It could be that the MAG >> meeting in May would be the only one for the new MAG. >> >> I argued that the MAG or the secretariat should not decide on this >> matter without consulting the various stakeholder groups. This >> afternoon, Markus and I discussed the options and we came up with a >> third solution. Markus just sent the following message to the MAG list >> and asked me to forward it to the caucus list as well. I expect the >> caucus will be happy about the proposed solution? >> >> Dear colleagues, >> >> Jeanette has got a point! It might not go down well if any decision >> were taken in this matter without consulting the broader community! >> However, as there is a distinct possibility that a renewed MAG will >> hold one meeting only, there is also a strong argument against >> launching the heavy rotation machinery just for the sake of this >> principle. >> >> I consulted with Jeanette and going through the pros and cons of both >> approaches we both came to the conclusion that there might be a third >> way. We both wondered whether there was any need for a closed meeting >> at all in May. As last September's planning meeting went rather well, >> we wondered whether we could not prepare most of this year's meeting >> in an open process. By doing so, we would also take into account the >> calls for more inclusiveness and transparency made during the >> consultation in Sharm. >> >> The MAG would thus meet a last time next month and set the agenda for >> the Vilnius meeting. The programme could be fleshed out in two open >> planning meetings in May and June. >> >> This could also be an experiment in view of a possible renewal of the >> mandate. Should the mandate be renewed, any decision on how to >> continue could be taken in light of this experiment. >> >> Please let me know what you think about this possible approach. >> >> Best regards >> Markus >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Fri Jan 15 08:19:41 2010 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 13:19:41 +0000 Subject: [governance] the matter of MAG rotation 2010 In-Reply-To: <4B4FF654.70501@itforchange.net> References: <4B4F3E60.9070103@wzb.eu> <4B4FF654.70501@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4oleDoSttGULFACk@perry.co.uk> In message <4B4FF654.70501 at itforchange.net>, at 10:30:04 on Fri, 15 Jan 2010, Parminder writes >Does this mean that there will be no MAG post Feb? (I understand that >MAG could exist while there be only open  planning meeting as in Sept >last. The MAG would surely still exist, and have some role even at the Vilnius meeting and afterwards at the IGF-2010 wrap-up which will no doubt take place some time after the meeting. The issue here, is whether or not we need to go through the process of creating a rotated MAG, in view of the special circumstances of the earlier meeting and the possibility (however slight) of no renewal. -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Fri Jan 15 09:24:39 2010 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 10:24:39 -0400 Subject: [governance] PLEASE RESPOND - draft statement on reform of the In-Reply-To: <217378.6980.qm@web83916.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> References: <733856.7441.qm@web45210.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> <217378.6980.qm@web83916.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: I realise that this is probably too late and very poorly stated but PLEASE could our contribution include a call for continuing work on facilitation of multilingualism. I am particularly urged to this by the contributions of Baudoin and "Internauta". The Internet Governance Forum (IGF) has brought us all together. ALL have the right to speak EACH IN HIS OWN LANGUAGE. (I recognise that the lingua franca of this list is agreed as English, but whatever statement is made will be about the IGF generally) Each of the IGFs I have attended (3 and 4) has expressed concern over access for people with disabilities. In a world perceived as anglophone it is a disability not to speak English. Arrangements for the blind and the deaf have to accommodate themselves to the disability - one doesn't say "learn to see" to a blind person - and are designed to make two way communication possible. Language needs to be given similar attention. One of the most basic of human rights is the right to speak and the right to have access to what is spoken. This is also a matter of language. Deirdre 2010/1/15 Eric Dierker > I do not think that this was too hard or too much to ask? In earlier days > we had "me too" posts. Writers and advocates cannot read minds -- especially > 400. How do they know when they hit the mark or are offbase. One arguing > contributor does not help us to read what many think. > > I do my best to contact my friends on the ground from Vladivostok to > Tehran, from Cape Cod to Saigon, Falklands to Paris, Johanasberg to > Montevideo,,, I read India Times and Al Jazeera, Washington Post (force > myself to see some TV and listen to some radio) I study on-line and off -- > But I cannot know what the many here think ---. I read Mueller and Williams, > Faussett and Cerf, Babtista and Avri but they do not help me know what is > thought in your neighborhood. > > Even private posts are helpful. > > --- On *Thu, 1/14/10, Dina * wrote: > > > From: Dina > > Subject: Re: [governance] PLEASE RESPOND - draft statement on reform of the > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Presidencia Internauta" < > presidencia at internauta.org.ar> > Date: Thursday, January 14, 2010, 10:59 PM > > > *Dear Sergio,* > > *.*** > > *But when I see somebody has got my opinion I see no use to repeat the > same things . OK I agree with those who think the term "reform" sends a > message* that could be > misinterpreted and/or exploited by actors that strongly oppose the IGF > > *Kindest regards* > > * Dina* > ** > > > > > > > --- On *Thu, 1/14/10, Presidencia Internauta < > presidencia at internauta.org.ar>* wrote: > > > From: Presidencia Internauta > Subject: Re: [governance] PLEASE RESPOND - draft statement on reform of the > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Carlos A. Afonso" > Date: Thursday, January 14, 2010, 1:23 PM > >  > Spanish & English > *Spanish* > Estimados todos: Con respecto a lo sugerido por Souter, creo que es > importante la representación de sociedad civil y no la de individuos > aislados. Es necesario que la representación sea de un colectivo de opinión > y voluntad común y no la del sujeto aislado. Lo que se discute acá es > siempre en función del hombre como ser colectivo, como expresión de > intereses comunes y no de intereses individuales, nuestra fortaleza radica > ahí y no en nuestras individualidades. Me sumo a lo expresado por Baudouin > con respecto a seguir lo que se discute en la lista; estoy al tanto de lo > que se discute aunque poco he podido hacer en función de la brecha que > impone el idioma, así y todo estoy todos los días intentando poner mi ingles > lo mejor posible para poder intervenir más. > > Saludos cordiales > > *Sergio Salinas Porto* > > *Internauta A rgentina* > > *Asociación Argentina de Usuarios de Internet* > > *http://www.internauta.org.ar* > > > > *English* > > Dear all: On Souter's suggestion, I think it is important according the > representation of civil society and not isolated individuals. It is > necessary that the representation is a collective opinion and common will > and not the isolated individual, What we discuss here is always in terms of > the man as a collective, as an expression of common interests rather than > individual interests, our strength lies there and not in ours > individualities. I agree with what Baudouin expressed regarding what is > discussed further in the list. I am aware of what is discussed in the list, > but little I could do based on the gap imposed by the language; even so I am > trying every day my English and I put my best to participate more. > Best regards > > *Sergio Salinas Porto* > > *Internauta A rgentina* > > *Asociación Argentina de Usuarios de Internet* > > *http://www.internauta.org.ar* > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Carlos A. Afonso" > > > To: > > > Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2010 10:08 AM > Subject: Re: [governance] PLEASE RESPOND - draft statement on reform of the > > > Thanks, Jeremy. I agree with the suggestions for modification from > > Souter and others and wait for the updated statement. > > > > frt rgds > > > > --c.a. > > > > Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > >> On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 22:34:55 +0100, Bertrand de La Chapelle > >> > > wrote: > >>> Hi Jeremy, > >>> > >>> Just one (I hope constructive) comment on the interesting draft you > >>> circulated. The title currently is : "Statement on the reform of the > >> IGF". > >>> I believe the use of the term "reform" sends a message that could be > >>> misinterpreted and/or exploited by actors that strongly oppose the IGF > >> > >> Thanks for this point. The title was more of a working title for our > use, > >> not specifically to be used when the document is submitted. Thus, the > word > >> "reform" is not used in the body text. Thus we can, I agree, submit it > >> under a more neutral title such as "Submission of the IGC in taking > stock > >> of the Sharm el Sheikh meeting of the IGF". > >> > >>> A few minor suggested edits (*in blue* with suppressed words in red) > are > >>> also included in the text. They usually are pointers to coded words in > >> the > >>> UN language or the governmental discussions and it's important for you > to > >>> have them in mind. > >> > >> Thanks, and thanks also to those who have commented on the preamble and > >> paragraph 1 so far. Please, anyone, feel free to move on to paragraphs > 2, 3 > >> and following. I will compile all the suggested changes (where > compatible) > >> in a day or two and re-circulate. > >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -----Inline Attachment Follows----- > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > -----Inline Attachment Follows----- > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gpaque at gmail.com Fri Jan 15 09:38:26 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 10:08:26 -0430 Subject: [governance] Text of IRP Statement to Open Consultation for IGF In-Reply-To: <4ca4162f1001140652l5fc81e9cg959fb1d11cc5029e@mail.gmail.com> References: <4B4F00F9.30500@gmail.com> <4ca4162f1001140652l5fc81e9cg959fb1d11cc5029e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4B507DE2.7090603@gmail.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Fri Jan 15 10:07:33 2010 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 07:07:33 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] PLEASE RESPOND - draft statement on reform of the In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <461940.65984.qm@web83907.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Deirdre,   Your concerns are right and your plea is universal. All should strive for better understanding that transcends language. But I must caution you on two matters of rationale. 1. It is illconceived to equate langurage learning as a disability. Some are more talented and more skilled at multilingualism and others are not so gifted. But the normal is one language well. You do my deaf friend an injustice to equate my ignorance of Navajo to his inability to hear as you and I do. Those of us who struggle to understand a foreign additional tongue are not to be afforded the same dispensation as a person with a challenge of disability. 2. Anger at Anglophonia is misplaced. No one designed that. No one conspired that. You must treat it as a "just is" ASEAN is a wonderful organization (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) and it "just is" that their most common language is English and so it is most used.   But we speak of contributions to this list. All must be ready to help to understand. Those who generally do not speak up -- have a very wonderful gift of an opportunity to help translate. They can dive right in and contribute in their own lingua. Sometimes we must elevate our ability to work here from a right to a responsibility. In every endeavor there are places for contribution and places of demand to receive. We have found over the years that the best of breed for multilingualism comes not from demand to get but from willingness to contribute. I will fight and die for your right to be included and have your rights, but I cannot and will not do the same for your right not to contribute and not to learn new ways.   (in my southwest American home it is not unusual for my wife and that side of the family to try to leave me out by speaking French and Vietnamese - My side we use Spanish some Native American and a Shockabro Jive. And the best part is that we all are learning new tongues at all times but more importantly new ways to look at things and new ways to incorporate and include cultures and traditions)   Multilingualism must be a positive lifting up or it is a division. --- On Fri, 1/15/10, Deirdre Williams wrote: From: Deirdre Williams Subject: Re: [governance] PLEASE RESPOND - draft statement on reform of the To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Eric Dierker" Date: Friday, January 15, 2010, 2:24 PM I realise that this is probably too late and very poorly stated but PLEASE could our contribution include a call for continuing work on facilitation of multilingualism. I am particularly urged to this by the contributions of Baudoin and "Internauta". The Internet Governance Forum (IGF) has brought us all together. ALL have the right to speak EACH IN HIS OWN LANGUAGE. (I recognise that the lingua franca of this list is agreed as English, but whatever statement is made will be about the IGF generally) Each of the IGFs I have attended (3 and 4) has expressed concern over access for people with disabilities. In a world perceived as anglophone it is a disability not to speak English. Arrangements for the blind and the deaf have to accommodate themselves to the disability - one doesn't say "learn to see" to a blind person - and are designed to make two way communication possible. Language needs to be given similar attention. One of the most basic of human rights is the right to speak and the right to have access to what is spoken. This is also a matter of language. Deirdre 2010/1/15 Eric Dierker I do not think that this was too hard or too much to ask?  In earlier days we had "me too" posts. Writers and advocates cannot read minds -- especially 400. How do they know when they hit the mark or are offbase. One arguing contributor does not help us to read what many think.   I do my best to contact my friends on the ground from Vladivostok to Tehran, from Cape Cod to Saigon, Falklands to Paris, Johanasberg to Montevideo,,, I read India Times and Al Jazeera, Washington Post (force myself to see some TV and listen to some radio) I study on-line and off -- But I cannot know what the many here think ---. I read Mueller and Williams, Faussett and Cerf, Babtista and Avri but they do not help me know what is thought in your neighborhood.   Even private posts are helpful. --- On Thu, 1/14/10, Dina wrote: From: Dina Subject: Re: [governance] PLEASE RESPOND - draft statement on reform of the To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Presidencia Internauta" Date: Thursday, January 14, 2010, 10:59 PM Dear Sergio, . But when I see somebody has got my opinion  I see no use to repeat the same things . OK I agree with those who think the term "reform" sends a message that could be  misinterpreted and/or exploited by actors that strongly oppose the IGF Kindest regards   Dina     --- On Thu, 1/14/10, Presidencia Internauta wrote: From: Presidencia Internauta Subject: Re: [governance] PLEASE RESPOND - draft statement on reform of the To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Carlos A. Afonso" Date: Thursday, January 14, 2010, 1:23 PM  Spanish & English Spanish Estimados todos: Con respecto a lo sugerido por Souter, creo que es importante la representación de sociedad civil y no la de individuos aislados. Es necesario que la representación sea de un colectivo de opinión y voluntad común y no la del sujeto aislado. Lo que se discute acá es siempre en función del hombre como ser colectivo, como expresión de intereses comunes y no de intereses individuales, nuestra fortaleza radica ahí y no en nuestras individualidades. Me sumo a lo expresado por Baudouin con respecto a seguir lo que se discute en la lista;  estoy al tanto de lo que se discute aunque poco he podido hacer en función de la brecha que impone el idioma, así y todo estoy todos los días intentando poner mi ingles lo mejor posible para poder intervenir más. Saludos cordiales Sergio Salinas Porto Internauta A rgentina Asociación Argentina de Usuarios de Internet http://www.internauta.org.ar   English Dear all: On Souter's suggestion, I think it is important according the representation of civil society and not isolated individuals. It is necessary that the representation is a collective opinion and common will and not the isolated individual, What we discuss here is always in terms of the man as a collective, as an expression of common interests rather than individual interests, our strength lies there and not in ours individualities.  I agree with what Baudouin expressed regarding what is discussed further in the list. I am aware of what is discussed in the list, but little I could do based on the gap imposed by the language; even so I am trying every day my English and I put my best to participate more. Best regards Sergio Salinas Porto Internauta A rgentina Asociación Argentina de Usuarios de Internet http://www.internauta.org.ar ----- Original Message ----- From: "Carlos A. Afonso" To: Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2010 10:08 AM Subject: Re: [governance] PLEASE RESPOND - draft statement on reform of the > Thanks, Jeremy. I agree with the suggestions for modification from > Souter and others and wait for the updated statement. > > frt rgds > > --c.a. > > Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 22:34:55 +0100, Bertrand de La Chapelle >> wrote: >>> Hi Jeremy, >>> >>> Just one (I hope constructive) comment on the interesting draft you >>> circulated. The title currently is : "Statement on the reform of the >> IGF". >>> I believe the use of the term "reform" sends a message that could be >>> misinterpreted and/or exploited by actors that strongly oppose the IGF >> >> Thanks for this point. The title was more of a working title for our use, >> not specifically to be used when the document is submitted. Thus, the word >> "reform" is not used in the body text. Thus we can, I agree, submit it >> under a more neutral title such as "Submission of the IGC in taking stock >> of the Sharm el Sheikh meeting of the IGF". >> >>> A few minor suggested edits (*in blue* with suppressed words in red) are >>> also included in the text. They usually are pointers to coded words in >> the >>> UN language or the governmental discussions and it's important for you to >>> have them in mind. >> >> Thanks, and thanks also to those who have commented on the preamble and >> paragraph 1 so far. Please, anyone, feel free to move on to paragraphs 2, 3 >> and following. I will compile all the suggested changes (where compatible) >> in a day or two and re-circulate. >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -----Inline Attachment Follows----- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -----Inline Attachment Follows----- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -----Inline Attachment Follows----- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Fri Jan 15 10:20:03 2010 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 11:20:03 -0400 Subject: [governance] Text of IRP Statement to Open Consultation for IGF In-Reply-To: <4B507DE2.7090603@gmail.com> References: <4B4F00F9.30500@gmail.com> <4ca4162f1001140652l5fc81e9cg959fb1d11cc5029e@mail.gmail.com> <4B507DE2.7090603@gmail.com> Message-ID: There has been considerable discussion of how we feel the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) should be reformed. It seems that the Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) would benefit from a similar consideration. The statement that the IGC is trying to create needed to be started as soon as the IGF was over. I wonder how many of us would have responded then? I include myself among the delinquent, not least because the task of the co-coordinators seemed to me to be established during the recent election as being to facilitate rather than to lead. Therefore anyone could have begun the process. I am personally ashamed that I allowed myself to be sucked into a whirlpool of make-up teaching for the time I was away, and examinations, and temporarily dropped the IGF concerns because "somebody else" would do it. I suspect that, having volunteered involvement, we need to be rigorous in demanding of ourselves a consistent minimum commitment of time no matter what else is going on. Certainly that will be necessary in the time leading up to the Vilnius meeting which is now not much over half of a year away. And we need to use part of that time to respond - even if only to say "Yes" or "No". So that's my "New Year resolution" - I really hope I can keep it. Yes - even if it is now too late - for the IRP statement. Best wishes to everyone for 2010 Deirdre 2010/1/15 Ginger Paque : > Here is the final version of the IRP Statement to the IGF. (below) > > Since there has been almost no response to this Call for Consensus, the IGC > will not be able to endorse the written statement to be submitted today by > the IRP. However, it is still important to review this document, as we can > support it orally in the Open Consultations in Geneva in February. > > I repeat the suggestions made on the list that the IGC support appropriate > statements by other groups. This one seems particularly appropriate for > support by the IGC. However, without more vocal support on this list, we > cannot endorse it. > > Best, Ginger > > > ****************** > Open Consultation IGF 2010 > > INTERNET RIGHTS AND PRINCIPLES DYNAMIC COALITION Statement > > The comments below from the Internet Rights and Principles Dynamic Coalition > are our contribution to the Open Consultations for IGF 2010. Each of the > four themes below take stock of IGF 2009 by offering practical suggestions > for the format and planning of IGF 2010. > ... -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Fri Jan 15 10:29:58 2010 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 07:29:58 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] French contribution on Reforma In-Reply-To: <954259bd1001141338n648ac6e6r534f96b199b046d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <886640.99614.qm@web83906.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> So someone please explain to me this fear of telling the world that good governance is in need of and should constantly be in a state of REFORM.  Doi Moi, Mao's revolution, the New Deal, European Commonwealth, Reforma de Lay.  At least Monarchs are naturally(or prenaturally) reformed on an ongoing basis. Each election cycle is a reform. And then I read these good and true opening words from the French contribution: ""As mentioned during the consultations on the continuation of the IGF held in Sharm el Sheikh, a major value of the flexible format of the IGF is its capacity to constantly evolve its working methods in a self-organizing manner.""   Why not just be honest???   --- On Thu, 1/14/10, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: From: Bertrand de La Chapelle Subject: [governance] French contribution for the IGF February consultations To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Jeremy Malcolm" Date: Thursday, January 14, 2010, 9:38 PM Dear all, For information, you will find attached the contribution I just sent to the IGF Secretariat in the perspective of the February consultation. It explores possible further improvements of the IGF working methods. I hope you'll find it interesting/useful. Best Bertrand -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the Information Society Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") -----Inline Attachment Follows----- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From goldstein.roxana at gmail.com Fri Jan 15 10:37:45 2010 From: goldstein.roxana at gmail.com (Roxana Goldstein) Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 12:37:45 -0300 Subject: [governance] Text of IRP Statement to Open Consultation for IGF In-Reply-To: <4B507DE2.7090603@gmail.com> References: <4B4F00F9.30500@gmail.com> <4ca4162f1001140652l5fc81e9cg959fb1d11cc5029e@mail.gmail.com> <4B507DE2.7090603@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4ca4162f1001150737u126c2663t69c82c9b23285454@mail.gmail.com> Thanks Ginger. It´s a pitty that this statement will not be support by IGC. I think that the problem is that there are too much lines of debate open at the same time, all around the same or similar topics -the IGF reforma, taking stocks, etc- and it creates some confusion. I suggest that the IGC could evaluate the possibility to open another kind of collaborative virtual space, like ning for example. Thanks again, and best regards, Roxana 2010/1/15 Ginger Paque > Here is the final version of the IRP Statement to the IGF. (below) > > Since there has been almost no response to this Call for Consensus, the IGC > will not be able to endorse the written statement to be submitted today by > the IRP. However, it is still important to review this document, as we can > support it orally in the Open Consultations in Geneva in February. > > I repeat the suggestions made on the list that the IGC support appropriate > statements by other groups. This one seems particularly appropriate for > support by the IGC. However, without more vocal support on this list, we > cannot endorse it. > > Best, Ginger > > > ****************** > Open Consultation IGF 2010 > > INTERNET RIGHTS AND PRINCIPLES DYNAMIC COALITION Statement > > The comments below from the Internet Rights and Principles Dynamic > Coalition are our contribution to the Open Consultations for IGF 2010. Each > of the four themes below take stock of IGF 2009 by offering practical > suggestions for the format and planning of IGF 2010. > > 1) Emerging Key themes: A wide range of stakeholders in the plenary > sessions reaffirmed the importance of upholding human rights in the internet > age. However these sentiments tended to be expressed in general rather than > specific terms. > a. The challenge for this coming year is to focus on how upholding human > rights can be achieved in practice; what roles different stakeholders can or > should play in this regard, and how these play out more specifically in > different Internet governance issue-areas. > b. With this in mind we would like to see not only workshops but also > main sessions that look more closely at what a 'human rights agenda', or > 'development agenda for Internet Governance' might actually look like. > Whilst openness and diversity continue to be important issues, we think this > year is the moment to broach more specific questions or policy dilemmas > within these broader themes > c. The coalition is ready and willing to contribute to organizing and > facilitating main sessions along these Human Rights related themes. > > 2) General Organization: Generally speaking coalition members found the > meeting to be well organised, with signs of continued progress in all > aspects. Coalition members who were participating in or who organised > workshops would like to commend the organisers for their good work in this > regard, particularly given the relatively limited budget and resources > available to the IGF. Aspects that could be paid more attention this year > include: > a. Discussions, especially in plenary sessions tended to become diverted > into the issue of whether the IGF should continue, and if so, how. This is a > key issue however we think it is important to avoid having these issues > sidetrack the topics on hand in main sessions and workshops this year. > b. Continuity and more linking between the main sessions and the > workshops could be strengthened. Clear links in the program by > cross-referencing of session/workshop themes and titles is one way to create > these links before the meeting. During and after the meeting, we would like > to see formal feedback opportunities put in place and integrated into the > stocktaking; from organizers and/or moderators of both main sessions and > workshops. > c. Main sessions based around 'classic' themes of openness, diversity, > and such like need to be supplemented and reinvigorated by including new > themes onto the program. The need for continuity and in-depth discussions of > ongoing themes need to be balanced by new themes as well for this is a > fast-moving area. > d. Some panels in main sessions were overloaded with panellists. This > always means less time for a wider plenary discussion. We realise that > larger panels allow for a greater diversity in some cases. However we would > urge moderators of larger sessions to ensure that there is enough time for > discussion and that when discussion takes place it is dynamic and inclusive > of panellists and other participants. It is important that contributors from > the floor as well as from remote participants get enough time to have their > say and be adequately responded to by panellists and other participants. > e. In light of the above we would also like to see more innovative panel > formats encouraged; modelled on town-hall meetings, brainstorming, and other > sorts of small-group, or interactive forms of discussion for instance. > Formal panels have their place but good work is also done in small > groups/break-out sessions as well. > f. Rather than having main sessions largely based around broad themes, > we think this year is the moment to broach more specific questions or policy > dilemmas. These can be proposed in advance with an eye to opening up the > discussion about specific solutions before the actual session. > > 3) Remote Participation: On the whole the facilities for remote > participation seemed to work well. However, there are some specific issues > that we think need to be attended to this year to ensure fuller and more > diverse participation in the IGF. > a. Workshop organisers were not given enough support in good time or > enough information on how to use the technology provided properly. When > technical hitches did occur, there were not enough technicians on hand so > many moderators found themselves in the role of do-it-yourself technical > supporters. This causes delays, frustration and a loss of focus for > everyone. More information in advance from the IGF in liaison with the > Vilnius venue organisers would be useful. But also during the event, and > given the importance of enabling remote participation but also having it run > smoothly, the need for more dedicated staff in this respect is > indispensable. > b. We would also suggest, in line with suggestions from the Remote > Participation Working Group (RPWG), that Workshops include both a moderator > on-the-ground and an online moderator in their planning. Some-one needs to > monitor remote participation, in partnership with the workshop moderator, in > order to streamline, filter and facilitate remote participation in the > proceedings; e.g. by gathering text-based comments, setting up a queue for > spoken interventions, or having remote participants be given the floor en > bloc if this is more practicable. We would also urge all moderators to > understand the many remote participants are doing this at difficult times of > their 24 hour day and that time-lags require careful attention be paid to > timing responses and requests by moderators on the ground. > c. The above points underscore our support for proposals to organise > adequate guidelines as well as a brief training session/module/virtual tour > for all moderators before the IGF meeting. During the meeting is not the > time to experiment. > > 4) Participation: Increasing diversity in terms of cultural, regional, > and linguistic representation remains a core issue for a number of dynamic > coalitions. Our comments and suggestions about continuing to improve remote > participation technically and organizationally relate to these concerns. > Practically there is a need to > a. Setting up coherent - vertical and lateral - links between > discussions and themes from national, regional and international IGFs > better, during the meetings as well as in the record of these various > meetings. At present the public record is piecemeal and not easily > accessible. We recognise that this is process that needs dedicated time and > resources to do so and urge the IGF to put aside some resources for this. > b. Find more ways to open up the meetings to lay-participants. By this > we mean that preparatory consultations, main sessions, and specialised > workshops need to be more accessible to 'everyday internet users', any > interested communities or groups from areas where the Internet is either > less extensive or who have other communication priorities. > > > Roxana Goldstein wrote: > > Hi Ginger and all, > > In my humild opinion, I think that it is ok to support this statement. > > Anyway, I think that points 3 and 4 must be core issues for the IGC, and I > suggest to continue debating here about them, and how to improve the IGFs > -global, regional, national, preparatory meetings, etc.- in this regard. > > Best, > Roxana > > > > 2010/1/14 Ginger Paque > >> Hello all: this is the current draft of the IRP contribution, which is up >> for Consensus for IGC support. There will be a "tightened" draft later, >> probably this afternoon, but this appears to be the essence of the >> statement. >> >> Please read it carefully, and advise whether the IGC should sign on in >> support of this statement. This is independent of any IGC statement. >> >> We need to do this quickly if we want to ask the IRP to add our signature >> to their written contribution. Please post. >> >> >> Open Consultation IGF 2010 >> >> INTERNET RIGHTS AND PRINCIPLES DYNAMIC COALITION Statement >> >> The IRP Dynamic Coalition would like to contribute to the Open >> Consultation for IGF 2010 in two areas: observations for taking stock of IGF >> 2009 and suggestions for the format and agenda of the Vilnius meeting. The >> comments below are organised under [..] themes, under which we take stock of >> IGF 2009 and then offer practical suggestions for the format and planning of >> IGF 2010. >> >> 1) General Organization: Generally speaking coalition members found >> the meeting to be well organised, with signs of continued progress in all >> aspects. Coalition members who were participating in or who organised >> workshops would like to commend the organisers for their good work in this >> regard, particularly given the relatively limited budget and resources >> available to the IGF. Some specific concerns include: >> a. Discussions, especially in plenary sessions tended to become >> diverted into the issue of whether the IGF should continue, and if so, how. >> We think it is time to move on and to keep these issues from overwhelming >> the topics in hand. >> b. Continuity and more explicit links between the main sessions and >> the workshops could have been stronger. Clear links in the program by >> cross-referencing of session/workshop themes and titles is one way to create >> these links before the meeting. During and after the meeting, we would like >> to see formal feedback opportunities put in place and integrated into the >> stocktaking; from organizers and/or moderators of both main sessions and >> workshops. >> c. Main sessions based around the "traditional" themes of openness, >> diversity, and such like started to feel a bit repetitive particularly in >> relation to the freshness of new themes introduced onto the program. The >> need for continuity and depth needs to be balanced by new themes as well >> d. Some panels in main sessions were overloaded with panellists. This >> always means less time for a wider plenary discussion. Moderators of larger >> sessions need to find ways to ensure that discussion actually takes place >> and when it does it dynamic and inclusive. To this end we would suggest that >> there is an upper limit set on the number of panellists and/or length of >> formal presentations. Moreover that enough time is set aside for discussion. >> It is important that contributions from the floor, and remote participants >> get enough time to have their say and be adequately responded to by >> panellists and other participants. >> e. Rather than having main sessions based around broad themes, we >> think this year is the moment to broach more specific questions or policy >> dilemmas. These can be proposed in advance with an eye to opening up the >> discussion about specific solutions before the actual session. >> >> 2) Remote Participation: On the whole the facilities for remote >> participation seemed to work well. However, there are some specific issues >> that we think need to be attended to this year to ensure fuller and more >> diverse participation in the IGF. >> a. Workshop organisers were not given enough support in good time or >> enough information on how to use the technology provided properly. When >> technical hitches did occur, there were not enough technicians on hand so >> many moderators found themselves doing DIY instead. This is unprofessional >> and causes delays and loss of focus for everyone. More information in >> advance from IGF HQ would be useful. But also during the event, and given >> the importance of enabling remote participation but also having it run >> smoothly, the need for more dedicated staff in this respect is >> indispensable. >> b. We would also suggest, in line with suggestions from the Remote >> Participation Working Group (RPWG), that Workshops include both a moderator >> on-the-ground and an online moderator in their planning. Some-one needs to >> monitor remote participation, in partnership with the workshop moderator, in >> order to streamline, filter and facilitate remote participation in the >> proceedings; e.g. by gathering text-based comments, setting up a queue for >> spoken interventions, or having remote participants be given the floor en >> bloc if this is more practicable. We would also urge all moderators to >> understand the many remote participants are doing this at difficult times of >> their 24 hour day and that time-lags require careful attention be paid to >> timing responses and requests by moderators on the ground. >> c. The above points underscore our support for proposals to organise >> adequate guidelines as well as a brief training session/module/virtual tour >> for all moderators before the IGF meeting. During the meeting is not the >> time to experiment. >> >> 3) Emerging Key themes: A wide range of stakeholders in the plenary >> sessions reaffirmed the importance of upholding human rights in the internet >> age. However these sentiments tended to be expressed in general rather than >> specific terms. >> a. The challenge for this coming year is to focus on how upholding >> human rights can be achieved in practice; what roles different stakeholders >> can or should play in this regard, and how these play out more specifically >> in different Internet governance issue-areas. >> b. With this in mind we would like to see not only workshops but also >> main sessions that look more closely at what a "human rights agenda" or >> "development agenda: for Internet Governance might actually look like. >> Discussions around broad themes such as openness and diversity have already >> taken place. It is time to get down to specifics and we do not see why these >> specifics always have to be covered in workshop sessions. >> >> 4) Participation: Increasing diversity in terms of cultural, >> regional, and linguistic representation remains a core issue for a number of >> dynamic coalitions. Our comments and suggestions about continuing to improve >> remote participation technically and organizationally relate to these >> concerns. Practically there is a need to >> a. Setting up coherent - vertical and lateral - links between >> discussions and themes from national, regional and international IGFs >> better, during the meetings as well as in the record of these various >> meetings. At present the public record is piecemeal and not easily >> accessible. We recognise that this is process that needs dedicated time and >> resources to do so and urge the IGF to put aside some resources for this. >> b. Find more ways to open up the meetings to lay-participants. By >> this we mean that preparatory consultations, main sessions, and specialised >> workshops need to be more accessible not only to 'everyday internet users' >> but also for any communities or groups from areas where the Internet is >> either less extensive or who have other communication priorities. >> >> ********************************************************************88 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Dr Marianne Franklin >> Reader >> Convener of the Transnational Communications & Global Media Program >> Media & Communications >> Goldsmiths, University of London >> New Cross >> London SE14 6NW >> United Kingdom >> Tel (direct): #44 (0)207 919-7072 >> Fax: #44 (0) 207 919-7616 >> email: m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk >> http://www.goldsmiths.ac.uk/media-communications/staff/franklin.php >> >> http://www.goldsmiths.ac.uk/pg/ma-transnational-communications-global-media.php >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 Fri Jan 15 10:43:09 2010 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 07:43:09 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Bottom Paragraphs Please Respond Message-ID: <692105.40833.qm@web83914.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> I guess I just am surpised and don't believe these are the right terms:   A second aspect in which there is room for improvement in the accountability of the IGF to its stakeholders is in setting the substantive agenda of IGF meetings.  Although at present this responsibility falls to the MAG, the IGC was surprised that the very strongly and widely expressed views of stakeholders from civil society as to the importance of a human rights agenda for the IGF was not reflected in the agenda set by the MAG for the Sharm el Sheikh meeting.     Others believe that the main responsibility for intersessional work can be left to dynamic coalitions (and perhaps other issue-specific working groups).  In that case, it is widely accepted that there should be a better mechanism than at present for these groups to present their outputs to the IGF as a whole.  This would require the IGF to begin to set more stringent standards for such groups, including open membership, democratic processes, and perhaps multi-stakeholder composition. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From bdelachapelle at gmail.com Fri Jan 15 11:13:39 2010 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 17:13:39 +0100 Subject: [governance] French contribution on Reforma In-Reply-To: <886640.99614.qm@web83906.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> References: <954259bd1001141338n648ac6e6r534f96b199b046d@mail.gmail.com> <886640.99614.qm@web83906.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <954259bd1001150813p3ef3e7fcu276085899d0a1443@mail.gmail.com> Dear Eric, Thanks for your appreciation of the French contribution. However, as you may have noticed from a previous post from Jeremy on this list, I have issued a note of caution upon the use of the term "reform" in this case. It is useful to make a distinction between "reform of the IGF" and "constant evolution of the IGF working methods in a self-organizing manner". The term "reform" implies a strong approach and seem to suppose a preliminary negative assessment of the object of the reform. As the Merriam-Webster dictionary indicates in its definition : *REFORM* *transitive verb* *1 a* *:* to put or change into an improved form or condition *b* *:* to amend or improve by change of form or *removal of faults or abuses* *2* *:* to *put an end to an evil* by enforcing or introducing a better method or course of action *3* *:* to induce or cause to *abandon evil ways* . This is even stronger for the noun : *1* *:* amendment of what is defective, vicious, corrupt, or depraved *2* *:* a removal or correction of an abuse, a wrong, or errors The latin etymology (re+formare) also evokes a somewhat radical structural reconstruction. On the other hand, the verb "improve" would have a more positive tone per the same source : *IMPROVE **1* *:* to advance or make progress in what is desirable *2* *:* to make useful additions or amendments Finally, the term employed in the French contribution, "evolution" introduces the notion of process that feels appropriate here : *EVOLUTION* *2 ** **c **(1)* *:* a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state** *(2)* *:* a process of gradual and relatively peaceful social, political, and economic advance ** *3* *:* the process of working out or developing In view of the above, should the IGF use the expression "Reform of the IGF" as the overarching angle of its contribution, it would naturally be understood as putting the accent on criticism rather than the possible progress; it could further give the surprising impression that civil society actors on this list position themselves on the outside of a precious and fragile process that is more open to them than any in the international arena, that they largely initiated and very positively contributed to shape so far. As mentioned in a previous mail, discussions within and statements from the Internet Governance Caucus do carry weight in the broader community : this brings additional responsibility to the IGC in defining precisely the content and tone of its messages, in order to make sure that they are not misused or misinterpreted. This does not prevent suggestions for significant improvements, on the contrary, as I hope our contribution illustrates. I hope these elements help and respond to your interrogations. Thank you in any case for having raised the point, which led me to examine the above definitions that (fortunately) confirmed my initial gut feeling in the preparation of this contribution. Best Bertrand On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 4:29 PM, Eric Dierker wrote: > So someone please explain to me this fear of telling the world that good > governance is in need of and should constantly be in a state of *REFORM*. > Doi Moi, Mao's revolution, the New Deal, European Commonwealth, Reforma de > Lay. At least Monarchs are naturally(or prenaturally) reformed on an > ongoing basis. Each election cycle is a reform. And then I read these good > and true opening words from the French contribution: > ""As mentioned during the consultations on the continuation of the IGF > held in Sharm el Sheikh, a major value of the flexible format of the IGF is > its capacity to constantly evolve its working methods *in a > self-organizing manner*."" > > Why not just be honest??? > > > --- On *Thu, 1/14/10, Bertrand de La Chapelle *wrote: > > > From: Bertrand de La Chapelle > Subject: [governance] French contribution for the IGF February > consultations > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Jeremy Malcolm" > Date: Thursday, January 14, 2010, 9:38 PM > > Dear all, > > For information, you will find attached the contribution I just sent to the > IGF Secretariat in the perspective of the February consultation. It explores > possible further improvements of the IGF working methods. > > I hope you'll find it interesting/useful. > > Best > > Bertrand > > -- > ____________________ > Bertrand de La Chapelle > Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the > Information Society > Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of > Foreign and European Affairs > Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 > > "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint > Exupéry > ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") > > -----Inline Attachment Follows----- > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the Information Society Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Fri Jan 15 11:46:51 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 16:46:51 +0000 Subject: [governance] IGC statement REVISION 2.0: any further comments? Message-ID: <176CE6EA-7FE8-4205-BD4A-D11D6A06582C@ciroap.org> Submission of the IGC in taking stock of the Sharm el Sheikh meeting of the IGF The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) strongly supports the continuation of the IGF as a multi-stakeholder forum for the discussion of Internet-related public policy issues. However if, as we hope, the forum's mandate is to be extended for a further term, there are a number of adjustments that we believe should be taken into account, continuing the IGF's pattern of incremental improvement since its inauguration in 2006. None of these suggestions would fundamentally alter the IGF as an institution; thus for example, we believe it should remain formally convened by the UN Secretary General, with an independent budget and a Secretariat under contract with the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA). One question on which the IGC is in clear agreement is that the composition of the MAG itself should be more evenly divided between the stakeholder groups, rather than being slanted towards particular stakeholder groups as it is at present. Many also believe that the stakeholders should have a more direct role in the selection of MAG members, and that MAG discussions should be more transparent - for example, perhaps it could revisit the idea of a second, open mailing list, on which the MAG and Secretariat can discuss their operations publicly. One particular aspect of the IGF's operations in which the participation of stakeholders could be improved is in the making of decisions relating to the IGF's structure and processes. Many of the IGC's members believe that the MAG, drawing on input received at open consultation meetings, ought to exercise a greater influence than in the past on decisions about the future structure and processes of the IGF. A second aspect in which there is room for further improvement in the accountability of the IGF to its stakeholders is in setting the substantive agenda of IGF meetings. Although at present this responsibility falls to the MAG, the IGC was surprised that for instance the very strongly and widely expressed views of stakeholders from civil society as to the importance of a human rights agenda for the IGF was not reflected in the agenda set by the MAG for the Sharm el Sheikh meeting. The IGC also believes that the IGF ought to improve its orientation towards the development of tangible outputs, even if these do not amount to recommendations, declarations or statements (though many of our members would support outputs of such kinds). Whatever form its outputs take, efforts should be taken to ensure that they are transmitted to relevant external institutions, either by the MAG directly, through publications on the IGF's Web site, or through the media as appropriate. Similarly, there is a strong view within the IGC that in order to maximise its effectiveness, the IGF should have an intersessional work program, rather than being limited to a single annual meeting. Many of our members believe that this should include the development of an ongoing work program for the IGF as a whole, to be carried on through online tools and intersessional and regional meetings. Others believe that the main responsibility for intersessional work can be left to dynamic coalitions (and perhaps other issue-specific working groups). In that case, it is widely accepted that there should be a better mechanism than at present for these groups to present their outputs to the IGF as a whole. This would require the IGF to begin to set more stringent standards for such groups, including open membership, democratic processes, and perhaps multi-stakeholder composition. We thank you for the opportunity to present you with these thoughts, which reflect a "rough consensus" of our several hundred members from civil society, with a wide spread of geographic and gender representation. We look forward to continuing to constructively engage with and participate in the IGF over the course of its renewed term. About the IGC The IGC is an association of individuals in civil society who are actively engaged in internet governance and the IGF. Formed during the lead up to the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), our mission is to promote global public interest objectives in Internet governance policy making. It now comprises more than 400 individual subscribers to its mailing list, who have subscribed to its Charter. More about our coalition can be found at http://www.igcaucus.org. -- 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 jeanette at wzb.eu Fri Jan 15 13:12:22 2010 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 18:12:22 +0000 Subject: [governance] IGC statement REVISION 2.0: any further comments? In-Reply-To: <176CE6EA-7FE8-4205-BD4A-D11D6A06582C@ciroap.org> References: <176CE6EA-7FE8-4205-BD4A-D11D6A06582C@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <4B50B006.4090203@wzb.eu> Hi Jeremy, thanks for posting an updated version. You did not include Ian's comments did you? I have more issues with the text, I just havn't posted them yet since I thought we would proceed para by para. jeanette Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > *Submission of the IGC in taking stock of the Sharm el Sheikh meeting of > the IGF* > > The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) strongly supports the continuation > of the IGF as a multi-stakeholder forum for the discussion of > Internet-related public policy issues. However if, as we hope, the > forum's mandate is to be extended for a further term, there are a number > of adjustments that we believe should be taken into account, continuing > the IGF's pattern of incremental improvement since its inauguration in > 2006. None of these suggestions would fundamentally alter the IGF as an > institution; thus for example, we believe it should remain formally > convened by the UN Secretary General, with an independent budget and a > Secretariat under contract with the United Nations Department > of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA). > > One question on which the IGC is in clear agreement is that the > composition of the MAG itself should be more evenly divided between the > stakeholder groups, rather than being slanted towards particular > stakeholder groups as it is at present. Many also believe that the > stakeholders should have a more direct role in the selection of MAG > members, and that MAG discussions should be more transparent - for > example, perhaps it could revisit the idea of a second, open mailing > list, on which the MAG and Secretariat can discuss their operations > publicly. > > One particular aspect of the IGF's operations in which the participation > of stakeholders could be improved is in the making of decisions relating > to the IGF's structure and processes. Many of the IGC's members believe > that the MAG, drawing on input received at open consultation meetings, > ought to exercise a greater influence than in the past on decisions > about the future structure and processes of the IGF. > > A second aspect in which there is room for further improvement in the > accountability of the IGF to its stakeholders is in setting the > substantive agenda of IGF meetings. Although at present this > responsibility falls to the MAG, the IGC was surprised that for instance > the very strongly and widely expressed views of stakeholders from civil > society as to the importance of a human rights agenda for the IGF was > not reflected in the agenda set by the MAG for the Sharm el Sheikh meeting. > > The IGC also believes that the IGF ought to improve its orientation > towards the development of tangible outputs, even if these do not amount > to recommendations, declarations or statements (though many of our > members would support outputs of such kinds). Whatever form its outputs > take, efforts should be taken to ensure that they are transmitted to > relevant external institutions, either by the MAG directly, through > publications on the IGF's Web site, or through the media as appropriate. > > Similarly, there is a strong view within the IGC that in order to > maximise its effectiveness, the IGF should have an intersessional work > program, rather than being limited to a single annual meeting. Many of > our members believe that this should include the development of an > ongoing work program for the IGF as a whole, to be carried on through > online tools and intersessional and regional meetings. > > Others believe that the main responsibility for intersessional work can > be left to dynamic coalitions (and perhaps other issue-specific working > groups). In that case, it is widely accepted that there should be a > better mechanism than at present for these groups to present their > outputs to the IGF as a whole. This would require the IGF to begin to > set more stringent standards for such groups, including open membership, > democratic processes, and perhaps multi-stakeholder composition. > > We thank you for the opportunity to present you with these thoughts, > which reflect a "rough consensus" of our several hundred members from > civil society, with a wide spread of geographic and gender > representation. We look forward to continuing to constructively engage > with and participate in the IGF over the course of its renewed term. > > *About the IGC* > > The IGC is an association of individuals in civil society who are > actively engaged in internet governance and the IGF. Formed during the > lead up to the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), our > mission is to promote global public interest objectives in Internet > governance policy making. It now comprises more than 400 individual > subscribers to its mailing list, who have subscribed to its Charter. > More about our coalition can be found at http://www.igcaucus.org > . > > -- > > *Jeremy Malcolm > Project Coordinator* > Consumers International > Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > *CI is 50* > Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement > in 2010. > Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect > consumer rights around the world. > _http://www.consumersinternational.org/50_ > > Read our email confidentiality notice > . > Don't print this email unless necessary. > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Jan 15 13:13:35 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 23:43:35 +0530 Subject: [governance] the matter of MAG rotation 2010 In-Reply-To: <4B503878.1080709@wzb.eu> References: <4B4F3E60.9070103@wzb.eu> <4B4FF654.70501@itforchange.net> <4B503878.1080709@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <4B50B04F.4050808@itforchange.net> Hi Jeanette, The proposal continues to bother me a lot in its possible wider ramifications. So excuse me to seek some clarifications, and engage in a bit of debate on the issue. Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > Hi, > > we discussed some of the implications you mention below. > > This year's meetings following the February meeting could be regarded > as an experiment to find out if a MAG is needed at all. But why this experiment and not many others that could be attempted. Like MAG taking a more pro-active role of doing more inter-sessional work, preparing background papers etc - stuff which has been a part of many a proposals for IGF evolution, including from the IGC. I think this thing being done in the name of an experiment can be very pre-emptive. > Perhaps open planning meetings such as the one we had in September > 2009 are sufficient for setting the agenda; perhaps the need for some > sort of steering committee does arise, perhaps not. The view that the MAG does and should only do the narrow work of setting a very broad agenda presupposes that only one part of the WSIS mandate for the IGF - acting as a policy discussion space (and that too in a largely unstructured way) - is relevant and should ever be attempted. This is what I mean by saying that the 'experiment' is pre-emptive. Without MAG - in fact ,without a MAG that takes up a larger set of goals and activities - these other parts of the IGF mandate can just not begun to be addressed. > > Since it is unclear whether after 2010 there will be a new mandate for > an IGF and if so, whether the new IGF will continue to have a > secretariat and a non-bureau like preparatory structure, this year's > preparation seems to be a good opportunity to experiment with > processes that are more open and transparent and less burdensome. Burdensome! Well that depends on what we look to the IGF to achieve. and it is well known that there are very different views on this subject. So why a certain view at one end of the spectrum is made to look like the obvious and natural one, and processes being described as burdensome or not in relation to that view of the IGF's objective. Any serious difficult work can look burdensome. Helping along global policy making can look burdensome, but to others it may be immensely necessary, and also mandated by the WSIS. IGC has often sought that IGF/MAG does inter-sessional work, form WGs, develop background material, make more specific agenda with specific questions of policy (IRP dynamic coalition's recent statement too seeks this)... any of this may look burdensome, but still be very necessary to evolve towards. What happens to all those demands of the IGC and many others? Why cant we do some experiment towards this direction rather than in the opposite direction to it? > The annual rotation does involve a lot of work for both the > secretariat and all stakeholder groups. Now, I dont see why simply extending the term of the old MAG does not solve that problem. Why should it entail an experiment to see if MAG is at all necessary or not. That too an experiment done in the year when some new 'text' on IGF processes etc may get written as a part of its renewal. A couple of different things are being mixed here which are needed to be separated. First is the issue of nominating new members for the purpose of rotation of MAG members. While I am for going ahead and doing the rotation, even if we do not want to, simply extending the tenure of the old MAG solves this problem. (I still dont have the answer to my question whether there will be any MAG at all post Feb.) So, the 'do we even need a MAG' experiment seems to not have much to do with the rotation issue, does it. Second is the wrapping up of this issue in the very tempting cover of more openness. (As an aside I may mention that many who seem to support the no-MAG experiment did not support the proposal that the discussion list of MAG be public, which is a contradiction if the most pressing objective here may just be 'openness'.) Greater openness and even participation is a very different issue than doing away with a representative body, which may be required to accomplish many task that cannot be done by 'open houses'. We all know there are many such tasks, some of them stated above as expectations expressed by the IGC from the IGF process. So if we indeed want to explore experiments and people's views and where to move forward from here, we can as well be posing questions like "Do you think IGF should accomplish certain objectives, beyond what it may be achieving at present? If so. will it require a more structured IGF, with an active core representative multistakeholder group steering it?" And in the spirit of these questions experiment with a few different activities and ways of work in the MAG, instead of a do-we-need-a-MAG-at-all experiment. Parminder > > jeanette > > Parminder wrote: >> Hi All >> >> I just now posted the following message to the IGF MAG list. More >> openness is always welcome but there are also some larger structural >> questions about the mandate and efficacy of the IGF which worry me >> since the proposal of 'only open meetings' has been made in >> connection with the need or not of renewing the MAG. I will posit >> these larger questions a little later while I share my mentioned >> email. Parminder >> >> (Disclosure: I am some kind of a member of the MAG system and am >> funded for attending its meeting. However, to be fair to me, I was >> also funded to attend the planning meeting in Sept which was *not* a >> MAG meeting.) >> >> Dear Markus and others, >> >> A couple of questions come to my mind regarding the new proposal >> which could merit some discussion. >> >> Does this mean that there will be no MAG post Feb? (I understand that >> MAG could exist while there be only open planning meeting as in Sept >> last.) >> >> If so, have we looked at all the implication - tangible and >> intangible - of there being no MAG in existence for a whole year in >> the run-up to an IGF meeting, and during the meeting? >> >> Does this in fact suggest that we could anyway more or less do >> without a MAG, and a couple of open preparatory/ planning meetings in >> Geneva, outcomes of which are culled/interpreted by the secretariat, >> is all that is needed to hold the IGF and comply with the WSIS >> requirements? >> >> Does trying out this practice in the year of possible structural >> changes to the IGF - possibly taken up along with its renewal if it >> comes - can have even more special significance? >> >> Thanks and best regards >> >> Parminder >> >> >> Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> the MAG started discussing the issue of rotation for this year. Some >>> people were in favor of an extended term for the present membership >>> because it is not clear if the IGF's mandate will be extended and, >>> should it be extended, under what terms. It could be that the MAG >>> meeting in May would be the only one for the new MAG. >>> >>> I argued that the MAG or the secretariat should not decide on this >>> matter without consulting the various stakeholder groups. This >>> afternoon, Markus and I discussed the options and we came up with a >>> third solution. Markus just sent the following message to the MAG >>> list and asked me to forward it to the caucus list as well. I expect >>> the caucus will be happy about the proposed solution? >>> >>> Dear colleagues, >>> >>> Jeanette has got a point! It might not go down well if any decision >>> were taken in this matter without consulting the broader community! >>> However, as there is a distinct possibility that a renewed MAG will >>> hold one meeting only, there is also a strong argument against >>> launching the heavy rotation machinery just for the sake of this >>> principle. >>> >>> I consulted with Jeanette and going through the pros and cons of >>> both approaches we both came to the conclusion that there might be a >>> third way. We both wondered whether there was any need for a closed >>> meeting at all in May. As last September's planning meeting went >>> rather well, we wondered whether we could not prepare most of this >>> year's meeting in an open process. By doing so, we would also take >>> into account the calls for more inclusiveness and transparency made >>> during the consultation in Sharm. >>> >>> The MAG would thus meet a last time next month and set the agenda >>> for the Vilnius meeting. The programme could be fleshed out in two >>> open planning meetings in May and June. >>> >>> This could also be an experiment in view of a possible renewal of >>> the mandate. Should the mandate be renewed, any decision on how to >>> continue could be taken in light of this experiment. >>> >>> Please let me know what you think about this possible approach. >>> >>> Best regards >>> Markus >>> _____________________________________________________