From ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Tue Jun  1 00:13:57 2010
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Tue, 01 Jun 2010 14:13:57 +1000
Subject: [governance] ICANN head warns against putting Internet addresses
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimlfxEI_4gFlNJIYJlrmNtWb6mWRi3_g_gWo1_b@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <C82AC625.E299%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>

Hi Siva,

There are many things that could be done to make ICANN more nimble and
productive without losing user input.

Here¹s a few

Separate policy development activities from day to day management activities
and involve constituencies in policy development heavily, day to day
management sparsely if at all.
Clarify mission and scope of activities
Deal with historic At Large ­ NCUC overlaps
Cut number of face to face meetings to max 2 per annum (1 is probably enough
in fact)
Develop strong policy base for expenditure of internet tax base gathered
Develop base of trust with constituencies so as to eliminate nitpicking
activities based on mistrust of management
Get the high level stuff right, then people will stop nitpicking about the
trivia


Transparency and public participation don¹t have to be inconsistent with
capacity to act quickly and organisational effectiveness.

Ian Peter 


From: Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn at gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 30 May 2010 18:05:01 +0530
To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
Subject: Re: [governance] ICANN head warns against putting Internet
addresses



On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 3:28 AM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
> I'm not sure whether Rod Beckstrom said ICANN was nimble or not - didn't he
> just say that it would be less nimble under UN control? (that is a
> reasonable assumption..)
> 
> I do not think ICANN could be described as nimble by anyone in its current
> state, but it is a good aspiration. To me, its an incredibly bloated
> organisation currently.

Dear Ian

What can we possible expect ICANN to be, as an unusual organization with a
an unusual design of public participation? Would we allow ICANN to be
nimble?

At the atLarge Advisory Committee (don't discuss at-large on this thread, it
is quoted as an example situation)  there was a proposal to delegate
responsibilities of routine decisions to an executive committee of five out
fifteen members. There was an uproar. Everything MUST be discussed by the
whole committe of fifteen before any decision is taken.  So it takes time to
deliberate within alac, with atLarge at large on every issue that is brought
up. One person or a closely knit committee can't take snap decisions and
plunge into action. Same is true of the GNSO, or the NCSG. Would any of
these constituencies be willing to authorize a small group or an individual
to make decisions and act upon such decisions on behalf of the whole group?
Would the icann community authorize its CEO to take snap decisions?

If a working group that I am part of didn't consider my comments and still
made the sanest and wisest decision I would still not keep quiet and would
like the decision of the working group reviewed to reconsider my points of
view. This happens all around, in every working group of every constituency
on every decision. This in a sense is in the spirit of public participation.

The pay off is that decisions and actions aren't as swift as happens in a
private organizations with a somewhat arbitrary decision making process. We
can't possibly complain that ICANN isn't nimble enough.

What Beckstrom probably meant is that under UN the process would become
lethargic, which can't possibly be a word that you can use to describe the
present state of ICANN processes.

Sivasubramanian M. 
 
>  Much of that is because of the lack of appropriate
> internet governance structures and ICANN becoming the default home for lots
> of things it shouldn't be involved in.
> 
> Ian
> 
> 
>> > From: "S. Subbiah" <subbiah at i-dns.net>
>> > Reply-To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>, "S. Subbiah" <subbiah at i-dns.net>
>> > Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 09:02:55 -0700
>> > To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>, Bertrand de LA CHAPELLE
>> > <bdelachapelle at gmail.com>
>> > Cc: Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com>
>> > Subject: Re: [governance] ICANN head warns against putting Internet
>> addresses
>> >
>> > Bertrand,
>> >
>> > I leave the debate of whether ICANN is nimble or not (relative to others
>> > are not) to the collective judgement of all observers - the record I
>> > think clearly speaks for itself.
>> >
>> > However, ss someone who headed the Singapore team that first went to an
>> > ICANN Chairman at ICANN's first meeting in March 1999 and offered the
>> > availability of IDN (having been largely concieved and invented at the
>> > National University of Singapore in 1997/8) and championed its cause
>> > since and as such probably know the history of IDN more than anyone else
>> > alive today, I find it offensive that Rod elects to give the example of
>> > IDN introduction as a centerpeice of ICANN's "nimbleness".
>> >
>> > In particular he uses the example of ".misr"  (the name of egypt in
>> > arabic) - since the interview happens to be in Egypt. My company happens
>> > to have a copy of a contract signed in 2000 (predating ICANN's first
>> > interest in IDN in late 2000) by the same EGNIC for launching the same
>> > .misr (all technology was supplied and and in the end they did not
>> > launch it back then for various reasons inclduing ICANN's sudden
>> > interest in IDN). Oddly it was counter-signed by the then EGNIC chief,
>> > who is now the Minister of Information Technology of Egypt who recently
>> > launched virtually the same thing a decade later.
>> >
>> > In truth all ICANN did was delay things 10 years. If that is the best
>> > crowing example of ICANN's nimbleness, I wonder what slow is.
>> >
>> > And the fact that a new CEO who happens to proclaim widely that the IDN
>> > launch was historic and one of the most important things, if not the
>> > most important one, to happen to the Internet, is completely unaware of
>> > such IDN history and uses a failure in nimbleness as an example of great
>> > nimbleness, only highlights what Wolfgang said - ICANN has repeated
>> > itself for so long, over and over again, with new sets of unaware people
>> > proclaiming the old now new again. And the irony is that our new CEO is
>> > at it as well - no one can escape the curse of procrastination.  If a
>> > failure in nimbleness of an organization can be celebrated  as  the
>> > epitome of nimbleness by the mouthpiece of that organization, the
>> > question of whether that organization is nimble or not pretty much
>> > answers itself.
>> >
>> > Perhaps it is simply nimble in its own mind.
>> >
>> > Cheers
>> >
>> > Subbiah
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote:
>> >
>>> >> ICANN, NIMBLE ???? :-))
>>> >>
>>> >> Not that replacing it with a UN body would improve things. The
>>> >> challenge is how to build a more international, more globally
>>> >> accountable and public interest oriented ICANN, not the mere
>>> >> alternative : either the way ICANN (dis)functions today or another,
>>> >> even more unappealing option. The AoC paves a way forward. Will we
>>> >> collectively be able to move in the right direction ? That is the
>>> >> right question.
>>> >>
>>> >> B.
>>> >>
>>> >> On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 10:43 AM, Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com
>>> >> <mailto:gpaque at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>     ICANN head warns against putting Internet addresses under UN control
>>> >>
>>> >>     Posted by Andrew Adams:
>>> >>
>>> >>     This (Canadian) Globe and Mail article includes details of
>>> >>     Beckstrom's recent
>>> >>     statements against UN oversight of ICANN.
>>> >>
>>> >>     http://tinyurl.com/38m78m2
>>> >>
>>> >>     Summary: UN oversight would make ICANN "less nimble" according to
>>> >>     Beckstrom.
>>> >>
>>> >>     My opinion: could ICANN really be any less nimble given how
>>> >>     glacial it is at
>>> >>     introducing innovative ideas? Perhaps more international oversight
>>> >>     could
>>> >>     pressure ICANN into prioritising the real needs of users and less the
>>> >>     concerns of staff which may or may not coincide with user needs.
>>> >>
>>> >>     --
>>> >>     Professor Andrew A Adams
>>> >>     Professor at Graduate School of Business Administration, and
>>> >>     Deputy Director of the Centre for Business Information Ethics
>>> >>     Meiji University, Tokyo, Japan
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>     ____________________________________________________________
>>> >>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>> >>        governance at lists.cpsr.org <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>>> >>     To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>> >>        governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>> >>     <mailto:governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org>
>>> >>
>>> >>     For all list information and functions, see:
>>> >>        http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>> >>
>>> >>     Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> --
>>> >> ____________________
>>> >> Bertrand de La Chapelle
>>> >> Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for
>>> >> the Information Society
>>> >> Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of
>>> >> Foreign and European Affairs
>>> >> Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32
>>> >>
>>> >> "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de
>>> >> Saint Exupéry
>>> >> ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans")
>>> >>
>>> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> >>
>>> >> ____________________________________________________________
>>> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>> >>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>> >> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>> >>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>> >>
>>> >> For all list information and functions, see:
>>> >>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>> >>
>>> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>> >>
>> >
>> > ____________________________________________________________
>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> >      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> > To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>> >      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>> >
>> > For all list information and functions, see:
>> >      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> >
>> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100601/19492151/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From avri at psg.com  Tue Jun  1 05:12:03 2010
From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2010 11:12:03 +0200
Subject: [governance] ICANN head warns against putting Internet addresses
In-Reply-To: <C82AC625.E299%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
References: <C82AC625.E299%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
Message-ID: <03CA01B8-EC62-40D4-9C57-01902798350D@psg.com>


On 1 Jun 2010, at 06:13, Ian Peter wrote:

> Deal with historic At Large – NCUC overlaps

or rather deal with the mythology of there being an overlap

- the NCSG/NCUC deals only with GTLD issues
- the NCSG/NCUC only included noncommercial actors

- The At Large can deal with anything and give advice on anything
- The At Large can include commercial as well as noncommercial actors.

They are orthogonal to each other:

One is a supporting organization
One is an advisory groups

One sets policy in a constrained area
One defines principles and give advise of any and all policy areas

They can work together, but overlap no more then any two perpendicular things overlap - at just one point - they both care about a civil society perspective.

One more thing, resolving the historical difference between At LArge and NCSG/NCUC would be a good thing as it would save on wear and tear of the people, but would do little to make ICANN more productive.

a.

BTW, i am a members of both At large by being a member of an ALS and am a members of NCUC and hence NCSG.  many people are in both.





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

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

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

From dogwallah at gmail.com  Tue Jun  1 05:44:45 2010
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2010 07:44:45 -0200
Subject: [governance] ICANN head warns against putting Internet addresses
In-Reply-To: <03CA01B8-EC62-40D4-9C57-01902798350D@psg.com>
References: <C82AC625.E299%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
	<03CA01B8-EC62-40D4-9C57-01902798350D@psg.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTik0Iw8OgnSi-UlymbUK3um3Tyxr3F5NZJeXc5sU@mail.gmail.com>

On 6/1/10, Avri Doria <avri at psg.com> wrote:
>
> On 1 Jun 2010, at 06:13, Ian Peter wrote:
>
>> Deal with historic At Large – NCUC overlaps
>
> or rather deal with the mythology of there being an overlap
>
> - the NCSG/NCUC deals only with GTLD issues
> - the NCSG/NCUC only included noncommercial actors
>
> - The At Large can deal with anything and give advice on anything
> - The At Large can include commercial as well as noncommercial actors.
>
> They are orthogonal to each other:
>
> One is a supporting organization
> One is an advisory groups
>
> One sets policy in a constrained area
> One defines principles and give advise of any and all policy areas
>
> They can work together, but overlap no more then any two perpendicular
> things overlap - at just one point - they both care about a civil society
> perspective.
>
> One more thing, resolving the historical difference between At LArge and
> NCSG/NCUC would be a good thing as it would save on wear and tear of the
> people, but would do little to make ICANN more productive.
>
> a.
>
> BTW, i am a members of both At large by being a member of an ALS and am a
> members of NCUC and hence NCSG.  many people are in both.
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From isolatedn at gmail.com  Tue Jun  1 16:36:53 2010
From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M)
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2010 02:06:53 +0530
Subject: [governance] ICANN head warns against putting Internet addresses
In-Reply-To: <C82AC625.E299%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
References: <AANLkTimlfxEI_4gFlNJIYJlrmNtWb6mWRi3_g_gWo1_b@mail.gmail.com>
	<C82AC625.E299%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTilxKqbmVprRzzYTa0mDyWOASKPgqDFVXcJY6Dms@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Ian,


On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 9:43 AM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:

>  Hi Siva,
>
> There are many things that could be done to make ICANN more nimble and
> productive without losing user input.
>

All that you have said are valid and sounds like another set of "Ten
Commandments" from you, similar to the ones that you have
proposed<http://isocmadras.blogspot.com/2010/02/imagining-internet-coverage-of-our.html>at
the IGF for Internet in general.

But these are measures that would strengthen ICANN as an organization, not
necessarily make it more nimble. As an organization ICANN would be 'nimble'
only when committees and working groups find a way to debate and arrive at
solutions faster. Also, some of the lesser decisions need not wait to go
through the usual public comment period. If fellowship grants are to be
extended to five more applicants or if icann fees on domain registrations to
be increased by a few cents, or if components of the budget needs to be
slightly amended, decisions and actions need not wait for a compulsive
public comment period but may be allowed to proceed with the decisions and
actions open for public comments on an ongoing basis.


>
> Here’s a few
>
> Separate policy development activities from day to day management
> activities and involve constituencies in policy development heavily, day to
> day management sparsely if at all.
>

At the same time, there shouldn't be a disconnect between policy as
developed by the constituencies and day to day actions as performed by the
Staff. There may not be a disconnect at the moment, but it may still be
necessary for the constituencies to have a broad 'oversight' of day to day
management activities.


> Clarify mission and scope of activities
> Deal with historic At Large – NCUC overlaps
>

Avri Doria has responded to this point in a later message. There are many
from NCUC / NCSG who are part of at Large and many from at Large who are
part of NCSG. This is positive, but the issues arise because many tend to
'belong' more to one group than to another.If this changes there would be
greater harmony of functions between at-Large and NCUC. Possibly by having
those with an NCUC identity to move to leadership roles within at-Large /
ALAC and vice versa, eventually to pave way for enhanced harmony.

Sivasubramanian M

Cut number of face to face meetings to max 2 per annum (1 is probably enough
> in fact)
>


> Develop strong policy base for expenditure of internet tax base gathered
> Develop base of trust with constituencies so as to eliminate nitpicking
> activities based on mistrust of management
> Get the high level stuff right, then people will stop nitpicking about the
> trivia
>
>
> Transparency and public participation don’t have to be inconsistent with
> capacity to act quickly and organisational effectiveness.
>
> Ian Peter
>
> ------------------------------
> *From: *Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn at gmail.com>
> *Date: *Sun, 30 May 2010 18:05:01 +0530
> *To: *<governance at lists.cpsr.org>, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
>
> *Subject: *Re: [governance] ICANN head warns against putting Internet
> addresses
>
>
>
> On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 3:28 AM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
>
> I'm not sure whether Rod Beckstrom said ICANN was nimble or not - didn't he
> just say that it would be less nimble under UN control? (that is a
> reasonable assumption..)
>
> I do not think ICANN could be described as nimble by anyone in its current
> state, but it is a good aspiration. To me, its an incredibly bloated
> organisation currently.
>
>
> Dear Ian
>
> What can we possible expect ICANN to be, as an unusual organization with a
> an unusual design of public participation? Would we allow ICANN to be
> nimble?
>
> At the atLarge Advisory Committee (don't discuss at-large on this thread,
> it is quoted as an example situation)  there was a proposal to delegate
> responsibilities of routine decisions to an executive committee of five out
> fifteen members. There was an uproar. Everything MUST be discussed by the
> whole committe of fifteen before any decision is taken.  So it takes time to
> deliberate within alac, with atLarge at large on every issue that is brought
> up. One person or a closely knit committee can't take snap decisions and
> plunge into action. Same is true of the GNSO, or the NCSG. Would any of
> these constituencies be willing to authorize a small group or an individual
> to make decisions and act upon such decisions on behalf of the whole group?
> Would the icann community authorize its CEO to take snap decisions?
>
> If a working group that I am part of didn't consider my comments and still
> made the sanest and wisest decision I would still not keep quiet and would
> like the decision of the working group reviewed to reconsider my points of
> view. This happens all around, in every working group of every constituency
> on every decision. This in a sense is in the spirit of public participation.
>
> The pay off is that decisions and actions aren't as swift as happens in a
> private organizations with a somewhat arbitrary decision making process. We
> can't possibly complain that ICANN isn't nimble enough.
>
> What Beckstrom probably meant is that under UN the process would become
> lethargic, which can't possibly be a word that you can use to describe the
> present state of ICANN processes.
>
> Sivasubramanian M.
>
>
> Much of that is because of the lack of appropriate
> internet governance structures and ICANN becoming the default home for lots
> of things it shouldn't be involved in.
>
> Ian
>
>
> > From: "S. Subbiah" <subbiah at i-dns.net>
> > Reply-To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>, "S. Subbiah" <subbiah at i-dns.net>
> > Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 09:02:55 -0700
> > To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>, Bertrand de LA CHAPELLE
> > <bdelachapelle at gmail.com>
> > Cc: Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com>
> > Subject: Re: [governance] ICANN head warns against putting Internet
> addresses
> >
> > Bertrand,
> >
> > I leave the debate of whether ICANN is nimble or not (relative to others
> > are not) to the collective judgement of all observers - the record I
> > think clearly speaks for itself.
> >
> > However, ss someone who headed the Singapore team that first went to an
> > ICANN Chairman at ICANN's first meeting in March 1999 and offered the
> > availability of IDN (having been largely concieved and invented at the
> > National University of Singapore in 1997/8) and championed its cause
> > since and as such probably know the history of IDN more than anyone else
> > alive today, I find it offensive that Rod elects to give the example of
> > IDN introduction as a centerpeice of ICANN's "nimbleness".
> >
> > In particular he uses the example of ".misr"  (the name of egypt in
> > arabic) - since the interview happens to be in Egypt. My company happens
> > to have a copy of a contract signed in 2000 (predating ICANN's first
> > interest in IDN in late 2000) by the same EGNIC for launching the same
> > .misr (all technology was supplied and and in the end they did not
> > launch it back then for various reasons inclduing ICANN's sudden
> > interest in IDN). Oddly it was counter-signed by the then EGNIC chief,
> > who is now the Minister of Information Technology of Egypt who recently
> > launched virtually the same thing a decade later.
> >
> > In truth all ICANN did was delay things 10 years. If that is the best
> > crowing example of ICANN's nimbleness, I wonder what slow is.
> >
> > And the fact that a new CEO who happens to proclaim widely that the IDN
> > launch was historic and one of the most important things, if not the
> > most important one, to happen to the Internet, is completely unaware of
> > such IDN history and uses a failure in nimbleness as an example of great
> > nimbleness, only highlights what Wolfgang said - ICANN has repeated
> > itself for so long, over and over again, with new sets of unaware people
> > proclaiming the old now new again. And the irony is that our new CEO is
> > at it as well - no one can escape the curse of procrastination.  If a
> > failure in nimbleness of an organization can be celebrated  as  the
> > epitome of nimbleness by the mouthpiece of that organization, the
> > question of whether that organization is nimble or not pretty much
> > answers itself.
> >
> > Perhaps it is simply nimble in its own mind.
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > Subbiah
> >
> >
> >
> > Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote:
> >
> >> ICANN, NIMBLE ???? :-))
> >>
> >> Not that replacing it with a UN body would improve things. The
> >> challenge is how to build a more international, more globally
> >> accountable and public interest oriented ICANN, not the mere
> >> alternative : either the way ICANN (dis)functions today or another,
> >> even more unappealing option. The AoC paves a way forward. Will we
> >> collectively be able to move in the right direction ? That is the
> >> right question.
> >>
> >> B.
> >>
> >> On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 10:43 AM, Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com
> >> <mailto:gpaque at gmail.com> <gpaque at gmail.com%3E>> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>     ICANN head warns against putting Internet addresses under UN control
> >>
> >>     Posted by Andrew Adams:
> >>
> >>     This (Canadian) Globe and Mail article includes details of
> >>     Beckstrom's recent
> >>     statements against UN oversight of ICANN.
> >>
> >>     http://tinyurl.com/38m78m2
> >>
> >>     Summary: UN oversight would make ICANN "less nimble" according to
> >>     Beckstrom.
> >>
> >>     My opinion: could ICANN really be any less nimble given how
> >>     glacial it is at
> >>     introducing innovative ideas? Perhaps more international oversight
> >>     could
> >>     pressure ICANN into prioritising the real needs of users and less
> the
> >>     concerns of staff which may or may not coincide with user needs.
> >>
> >>     --
> >>     Professor Andrew A Adams
> >>     Professor at Graduate School of Business Administration, and
> >>     Deputy Director of the Centre for Business Information Ethics
> >>     Meiji University, Tokyo, Japan
> >>
> >>
> >>     ____________________________________________________________
> >>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >>        governance at lists.cpsr.org <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org<governance at lists.cpsr.org>
> >
> >>     To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> >>        governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> >>     <mailto:governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org<governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org>
> >
> >>
> >>     For all list information and functions, see:
> >>        http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> >>
> >>     Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> ____________________
> >> Bertrand de La Chapelle
> >> Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for
> >> the Information Society
> >> Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of
> >> Foreign and European Affairs
> >> Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32
> >>
> >> "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de
> >> Saint Exupéry
> >> ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans")
> >>
> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>
> >> ____________________________________________________________
> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> >> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> >>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> >>
> >> For all list information and functions, see:
> >>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> >>
> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> >>
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> >      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> >
> > For all list information and functions, see:
> >      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> >
> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100602/aedac859/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From katitza at eff.org  Tue Jun  1 20:23:12 2010
From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez)
Date: Tue, 01 Jun 2010 17:23:12 -0700
Subject: [governance] Fwd: EFFector 23.14: Tell Congress: ACTA IS A SHAM!
Message-ID: <4C05A470.9000904@eff.org>

fyi,

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	EFFector 23.14: Tell Congress: ACTA IS A SHAM!
Date: 	Tue, 1 Jun 2010 19:09:20 -0500 (CDT)
From: 	EFFector list <editor at eff.org>
Reply-To: 	EFFector list <editor at eff.org>
Organization: 	EFF
To: 	katitza at eff.org



EFFector Vol. 23, No. 14  June 1, 2010  editor at eff.org

A Publication of the Electronic Frontier Foundation
ISSN 1062-9424

effector: n, Computer Sci. A device for producing a
desired change.

: . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . :

In our 536th issue:

* ACTION ALERT: THE ANTI-COUNTERFEITING TRADE AGREEMENT
(ACTA) -- ALLEGEDLY CONCEIVED TO REDUCE THE FLOW OF FAKE
PHYSICAL GOODS ACROSS BORDERS -- IS A SHAM! ACTA could,
in reality, cut people off of the Internet, turn ISPs into
copyright cops, and create a global framework that puts
severe restrictions on innovation. Use the link below
to see if your member of Congress is on the appropriate
committee. Then tell him or her not to be fooled by this
chicanery and demand that ACTA be limited to addressing
international counterfeiting.

To take action on ACTA:
http://action.eff.org/site/Advocacy?pagename=homepage&id=451

* EFF HAS TAKEN FACEBOOK TO TASK FOR PUSHING USERS INTO
UNPRECEDENTED OVERSHARING, joined by a concerned chorus of
privacy-conscious users. In response to the firestorm of
criticism, Facebook announced a series of privacy changes
to the social networking site last week. The changes are
improvements, and users should make the most of the new
privacy controls, but there are still critical privacy
gaps that Facebook should address.

For an in-depth analysis of the Facebook privacy changes:
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/05/facebooks-new-privacy-improvements-are-positive

For a step-by-step guide to the new privacy options:
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/05/more-privacy-facebook-new-privacy-controls

For the Bill of Privacy Rights for Social Network Users:
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/05/bill-privacy-rights-social-network-users

For a round-up of reactions to the privacy changes:
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/05/facebook-privacy-changes-inspire-praise-optimism

: . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . :

EFF Updates

* Google Launches Encrypted Search
Encrypted search improves user privacy by protecting
against various forms of electronic eavesdropping.
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/05/google-launches-encrypted-search

* Google's Open Wi-Fi Privacy Mistake Must Be the Last
Google's inadvertent collection of unencrypted Wi-Fi data
using Google Street View cars is a rookie mistake and a
wake-up call for users to beef up their use of encryption
on open Wi-Fi.
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/05/time-google-grow-make-open-wi-fi-privacy-mistake

* EFF Seeks Attorneys to Help Alleged Movie Downloaders
Are you an attorney licensed to practice law in the
United States? If you are, EFF needs your help to fight
spamigation.
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/05/eff-seeks-attorneys-help-alleged-movie-downloaders

* EFF Adds to Massive Archive of Government Records
Almost 200 FOIA requests and over a dozen lawsuits
have netted us a treasure trove of government records
on surveillance, contracts with Google, travelers'
complaints, and more.
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/05/eff-adds-thousands-of-pages-to-document-archive

* Judge Shields Identity of Critic Facing Baseless Lawsuit
EFF successfully defended the free speech rights of a
user facing a bogus lawsuit from a company criticized on
a Yahoo! message board.
http://www.eff.org/press/archives/2010/05/18

: . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . :

Announcements

* EFF's DEF CON 18 Getaway Contest Update!

Eighty-one participants have raised approximately $2500
so far in EFF's DEF CON 18 Getaway Contest! This week
the Holy Handgrenades team remains in first place with
a $600 total, followed by Nodes with $500 and individual
contestant Evan Keiser with $65. It's still anyone's game,
so you're not too late to join the fun!

Register for the DEF CON 18 Getaway Contest today and
receive a personalized referral link. Send the link to
your friends and family, and tell them why they should
support EFF. The contestant(s) to raise the most money
for EFF between now and June 30, 2010, will win:

- two DEF CON 18 Human badges;
- a standard room at the Riviera Hotel for the nights of
July 29-31;
- two tickets to the Vegas 2.0 Party at the Top of the
Riv on July 29;
- two tickets to the iSEC Partners Party, location and
date TBD; and
- two badges to the Ninja Networks Party, location TBD,
on July 31.

There are prizes for second and third place winners,
as well. Visit www.eff.org/defcon for more information
and official contest rules. Contact contest at eff.org with
any questions. See you in Sin City!

* Help EFF Go to SouthEast LinuxFest!

EFF is looking for donations of airline miles, flight
vouchers, and hotel points for travel to SouthEast
LinuxFest in Spartanburg, SC, as well as other conferences
and speaking engagements. If you have enough airline miles
for a free ticket and would like to send an EFF staffer
to a conference, let us know, and we will help you with
the process of making the reservation. Please note that
at this time we are unable to combine miles from multiple
individuals. We are also looking for hotel rewards points
to help reduce our overall travel costs.

As a thanks for your donation, we can offer a free
membership and a mention in EFFector (if you'd
like). Please contact aaron at eff.org if you can help!

* EFF Seeking Staff Intellectual Property Attorney

Dream job alert:  EFF is seeking an intellectual property
staff attorney for its legal team. Responsibilities
include litigation, public speaking, media outreach,
plus legislative and regulatory advocacy, all in
connection with a variety of intellectual property and
high technology matters.

Qualified candidates should have at least four years of
legal experience, with knowledge in patent law and at
least one other IP specialty (copyright, trademark, trade
secret). Litigation experience is required, including
significant experience managing cases, both overall case
strategy and day-to-day projects and deadlines. Candidates
should have good communication skills and interest
in working with a team of highly motivated lawyers and
activists in a hard-working nonprofit environment. Strong
writing and analytical skills as well as the ability to
be self-motivated and focused are essential. Tech savvy
and familiarity with Internet civil liberties and high
tech public interest issues preferred. This position is
based in San Francisco.

Interested applicants should submit a resume, writing
sample, and references to ipjob at eff.org.

* EFF Seeking Webmaster

EFF is seeking a full-time webmaster to start
immediately. This person will be responsible for
managing content and building web features on eff.org,
and helping to build and maintain EFF's web initiatives
and campaigns. The environment is fast-paced; the work
is cutting-edge. A love of technology and familiarity
with related civil liberties issues is a must.

The ideal candidate will have a broad range of experience
in web development, including:

* Standards-compliant XHTML/CSS markup
* Web scripting languages: PHP, Javascript
* Open-source web server technologies: Unix, Apache, etc.
*Graphics production, editing and optimization
* An eye for clean user-centric web design and layout
* Organizing and keeping track of large amounts of complex
web content

Additional familiarity with any of the following is
a plus:
* Drupal CMS theming and development
* Subversion (or similar concurrent versioning system)
* MySQL
* Writing blog posts, press releases, web content, etc.

Salary $45,000-$50,000 with benefits. To apply, send a
cover letter and your resume with links to some samples of
your work to webjob at eff.org. Please send these materials
in a non-proprietary format. No phone calls please!

The job is based out of EFF's offices in San Francisco,
CA. Applicants must live in or be able to relocate to
the area.

: . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . :

* Administrivia

EFFector is published by:
The Electronic Frontier Foundation
454 Shotwell Street
San Francisco CA 94110-1914 USA
+1 415 436 9333 (voice)
+1 415 436 9993 (fax)
http://www.eff.org/

Editor:
Richard Esguerra, EFF Activist
  richard at eff.org

Membership&  donation queries:
  membership at eff.org

General EFF, legal, policy, or online resources queries:
  information at eff.org

Reproduction of this publication in electronic media
is encouraged. Signed articles do not necessarily
represent the views of EFF. To reproduce signed articles
individually, please contact the authors for their
express permission.

Press releases and EFF announcements&  articles may be
reproduced individually at will.

Current and back issues of EFFector are available via
the Web at:
  http://www.eff.org/effector/

Click here to unsubscribe or change your subscription
preferences:
  http://action.eff.org/site/CO?i=tk1yyi_C73bK5VnjfBqVKM9vC9gdUagr&cid=1041

Click here to change your email address:
  http://action.eff.org/addresschange

This newsletter is printed on 100% recycled electrons.

EFF appreciates your support and respects your privacy.
http://www.eff.org/policy

Unsubscribe from future mailings or change your email preferences.
http://action.eff.org/site/CO?i=nT9g1dbM4eYoznLj3gfmX2c9Wpes-2ae&cid=1041

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100601/9458b340/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From voxinternet at gmail.com  Wed Jun  2 10:06:42 2010
From: voxinternet at gmail.com (Programme de recherche Vox Internet)
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2010 16:06:42 +0200
Subject: [governance] Lettre de diffusion Vox Internet II mai 2010
Message-ID: <AANLkTinWogfmLm-j-nHojVCoPHcKS9DqALovUH6F2bFc@mail.gmail.com>

>
>   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 toutes et à tous,

 Vous trouverez en pièce jointe la lettre de diffusion Vox Internet II de
mai 2010 qui fait le point sur l’activité récente du programme et sur
l'actualité en lien avec les axes du programme.


cordialement,


L'équipe Vox Internet,



Pour toute information complémentaire, rendez-vous sur le site:
www.voxinternet.org

Ou écrire à contact at voxinternet.org



Notre Adresse : Maison des Sciences de l'Homme

Vox Internet - Bureau 04

54 boulevard Raspail

75006 Paris

France

Notre Tel : +33-1-49-54-21-93
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100602/f5ad0e6e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From voxinternet at gmail.com  Wed Jun  2 10:09:19 2010
From: voxinternet at gmail.com (Programme de recherche Vox Internet)
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2010 16:09:19 +0200
Subject: [governance] Fwd: Lettre de diffusion Vox Internet II mai 2010
 envoi valide
Message-ID: <AANLkTilS2Gwrj6-_byN3qjfpP9UxepUaWSqzC3dtWzI1@mail.gmail.com>

---------- Message transféré ----------
De : Programme de recherche Vox Internet <voxinternet at gmail.com>
Date : 2 juin 2010 16:06
Objet : Lettre de diffusion Vox Internet II mai 2010
À :


   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 toutes et à tous,

 Vous trouverez en pièce jointe la lettre de diffusion Vox Internet II de
mai 2010 qui fait le point sur l’activité récente du programme et sur
l'actualité en lien avec les axes du programme.


cordialement,


L'équipe Vox Internet,



Pour toute information complémentaire, rendez-vous sur le site:
www.voxinternet.org

Ou écrire à contact at voxinternet.org



Notre Adresse : Maison des Sciences de l'Homme

Vox Internet - Bureau 04

54 boulevard Raspail

75006 Paris

France

Notre Tel : +33-1-49-54-21-93
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100602/901b7699/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: lettre de diffusion Vox Internet mai 2010.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 176726 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100602/901b7699/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From fouadbajwa at gmail.com  Thu Jun  3 18:38:09 2010
From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa)
Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2010 03:38:09 +0500
Subject: [governance] Pakistan Facebook Detailed Order
Message-ID: <AANLkTimR2tLthk9ozeHjgX4z8CjWJGGHMfff0rewkrqK@mail.gmail.com>

Facebook ban was lifted in Pakistan on the 1st of June 2010. The following
court orders and proceedings are being shared for information purposes only.
A special thank you note to Barrister Zahid Jamil for sharing this
elsewhere. Zahid also clarified that the text below has not been proofed or
checked by him nor has it been checked by anyone else for typos and hence
should not be relied upon as official/authoritative text of the order and is
a best effort on someone’s part to quickly type out a copy of the order. He
made this available under this understanding and under a complete disclaimer
from any liability as to its use by anyone.

Form No: HCJD/C-121

ORDER SHEET

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT



Writ Petition No.10392 of 2010

Islamic Lawyers Movement

Petitioner

Versus

Federation of Pakistan and three others

 Respondents


  S. No. of

Order/

Proceeding

Date of order/

Proceeding

Order with signature of Judge, and that of parties or counsel, where
necessary



03)                        31.05.2010             M/s. Zulfiqar Ahmed and
Muhammad

                                                            Azhar Siddique,
Advocates for the

                                                            Petitioner.

                                                            Mr. Naveed
Inayat Malik, Deputy

                                                            Attorney-General
for the Respondents

                                                            with Mudassar
Hussain, Director,

                                                            Telecom
Wireless.


             As per the directions of this Court vide order dated 19.05.2010
the Ministry of Foreign affairs on its directions contacted the Embassy of
Pakistan in the United States of America.  The Embassy of Pakistan in United
States of America, at “3517 International Court, NW. WASHINGTON, D.C. 2008,
Tel: (202) 243-6500,” represented the following to the United States
Department of State.



“No.
Pol-4/2/10
21 May 2010



            The Embassy of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan presents its
compliments to the Unites State Department State and has the honor to lodge
a protest over the holding of a blasphemes contests, “EVERYBODY DRAW
MUHAMMAD DAY” by the website “Facebook” and its affiliates.  The
announcement of this contest has immensely hurt and discomforted the people
and the Government of Pakistan.  It was also deliberately and recklessly
enraged millions of Muslims in Pakistan and globally, who attach an immense
sanctity to the very holy and sacred status of Prophet Muhammad (Peace Be
Upon Him).



            It is the understanding of the Government of Pakistan that as
per the laws of commerce and Business, the website ‘Facebook’ is governed by
the legal jurisdiction of the United States of America.  Accordingly, the
Government of Pakistan strongly urges the Government of the United States of
America to take effective measure to prevent, stop or block this blasphemous
contest immediately.



            The Embassy of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan avails itself of
this opportunity to renew to the United States Department of State the
assurances of its highest consideration.



The US Department of State

Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs,

(Mr. Brent R. Hartley,

Director, Pakistan-Bangladesh Desk),

2201, C. Street, NW,

Washington, DC 20520.

Fax: 202-647-3001.



2.         The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Islamic Republic of Pakistan
received the above stated protest via a fax message No.Pol.4/2/10
dated 21stMay 2010 from the Embassy of Islamic Republic of Pakistan
which mentioned
the Ministry of Foreign Affairs fax message “No.AS(Americas)-1/2010 dated 20
th May 2010” stating that an official protest was lodged with the United
States Government Department of State.



3.         The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Islamic Republic of Pakistan
submitted its reply to the Deputy Attorney-General of Pakistan Mr. Naveed
Inayat Malik as under:-



*MOST IMMEDIATE*

25 May 2010



“No.DG (Americas)-1/2010



SUBJECT:      *W.P. NO.10392/10-TITLED ISLAMIC*

                        *LAWYERS MOVEMENT, VS. FOP ETC*.

                        *IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE.*





            Please refer to this Ministry’s letter of even number dated 21
May 2010 on the above subject.

            As directed by the Honourable Lahore High Court order, our
Embassy in Washington was instructed to lodge an official protest with the
U.S. Department of State, which was done on 21 May 2010.  A copy of the
protest note is submitted for information of the Honourable Court.

            While expressing the feelings of immense discomfort and hurt
felt by the Government and the people of Pakistan about the contest, the
U.S. Government was strongly urged to take effective measures to prevent,
stop or block this blasphemous contest immediately.

            President Obama’s Special Representative for Pakistan and
Afghanistan Mr. Richard Holbrooke, in his meeting with our Ambassador,
conveyed that the U.S. Department of State recognized the sensitivities
about the issue and also admitted that many of the images that appeared on
the Facebook were “{deeply offensive” and that the U.S. Government was
deeply concerned about any deliberate attempt to offend Muslims or members
of any other religious groups.



Yours sincerely,



*(Sohail Khan)*

Director General (Americas)



Encl: *As above*.



Mr. Naveed Inayat Malik,

Deputy Attorney General of Pakistan

High Court Building

Lahore.”





4.         While respondents No.3 and 4 have also submitted written reply
which is reproduced as under:



*That his Hon’ble High Court through the letter dated 18th May, 2010 of the
Deputy Attorney-General for Pakistan Mr. Naveed Inayat Malik forwarded the
copy of the captioned petition of Islamic Lawyer Movement regarding the
issue of, “Every Body Draw Muhammad Day” on the website namely “Facebook”
and thereby requiring the answering Respondents No.3 and 4 to submit report
and parawise comments in the instant matter.*

* *

*2.         “That pursuant to the directions of this Hon’ble High Court
communicated to the answering respondents No.3 nd 4 by the Ministry of
Information Technology (MoIT) vide letter No.5-1/2005-DFU, dated 18th May,
2010 and requiring the answering Respondents to block the mentioned website
on Universal Resource Locator (URL) level immediately and to inform the MoIT
accordingly.  Soon upon the receipt of said directions the answering
Respondents, i.e. PTA in respectful compliance of this Hon’ble High Court’s
directions dated 18th May 2010, issued directions vide letter
No.2-Misc/2010/Enf/PTA dated 18th May, 2010 to all Internet Service
Providers (ISPs) to immediately block the mentioned Website at URL level and
continuously monitor the same to ensure compliant with the instructions of
the Authority (Copies of said MoIT and PTA’s letters are annexed as Annexure
“A” & “B”).*

* *

*3.         That on the next day MoIT vide letter No.5-1/2005-DFU
dated 19thMay, 2010 required the answering respondents to block
mentioned website on
Internet Protocol (IP) level immediately.  Pursuant to this direction of
MoIT, the answering respondents again issued directions vide letter
No.2-Misc/2010/Enf/PTA dated 19th May, 2010 to all ISPs to immediately block
the mentioned Website at IP level and continuously monitor the same to
ensure compliance with the instructions of the Authority (copies of said
MoIT and PTA’s letters are annexed as Annexure “C” & “D”).  It is worth
mentioning here that the answering Respondents, with the aim and objective
of sound/secure enforcement and compliance of this Hon’ble Court’s
directions in the instant matter of grave concern of all the citizen of
Pakistan established a dedicated “Crises Cell” exclusively
working/monitoring on 24 hrs basis to observe the directions in true letter
and spirit.  It is also worthy pointing out here that the answering
Respondents, while mindful of this Hon’ble Court’s directions in the instant
manner and during the course of monitoring of the mentioned Website, found
that the mentioned website was accessible from the Mobile Black Berry
Service (MBBS) as the main control of this service is outside the country.
Accordingly, MBBS was blocked by answering Respondents on 20th May, 2010 at
12:30 a.m. with a view to block access to the mentioned Website in
Pakistan.  However, MBBS was later restored only for the e-mail access and
not for the Internet Surfing.  In addition, the answering Respondents during
the course of strict monitoring found that majority of objectionable
contents was reported on ”YouTube” Website, leaving the answering
Respondents with no other option but to block the viewing of “YouTube”
Website also in Pakistasn.  This fact was intimated to MoIT by the answering
Respondents vide letter No.10/12/Dir(ICT)PTA/10 dated 20th May, 2010, as the
subject of “Content Regulation” does not fall within the domain of answering
Respondents (Copy of said PTA’s letter annexed as Annexure “E”).*

* *

*4.         That the answering Respondents, in respectful compliance of this
Hon’ble High Court’s directions and the MoIT’s directives to, have blocked
up until now a total of 10,548 web-links (approximately) either hosting the
objectionable contents or providing access to the same mentioned blasphemous
contents.  As mentioned earlier, till date two websites namely
http://www.facebook.com *and *http://www.youtube.com have been completely
blocked in Pakistan.  The complete blocking of “YouTube” was done because of
the number of objectionable links be increased to such an extent that PTA
had no option but to block the whole website.*

* *

*5.         It also worth considering here that the answering respondents on
their own have no authority to cause blocking of any website(s) rather it
has to follow the decision/directions of Inter-ministerial Committee for
Evaluation of Offensive Websites, formed by the Prime Minister of Pakistan
in the year 2006.  The meetings of the committee are held in MoIT on regular
basis, wherein it reviews the cases and complaints received with regard to
offensive website and grant approval for blocking of the same.  As a
consequence, the answering Respondents cause blocking of such websites as
and when communicated through MoIT.*

* *

*6.         The following report is hereby submitted in respectful
compliance of the aforementioned orders/directions of this Hon’ble High
Court. *

* *

5.         That due to the immediate and efficient response of the concerned
Departments of the Government of Islamic Republic of Pakistan the
blasphemous contents published on the portal “Facebook” was blocked and the
access to the portal “Facebook” was blocked for its subscribers and
non-subscribers in the territory of Islamic Republic of Pakistan with
immediate effect.  After perusing the above said steps taken by the Foreign
Ministry for lodging an official and sovereign protest to the United States
of America’s Department of State as well as reply submitted by Government of
Pakistan, Ministry of Information Technology (IT & Telecom Division) this
Court feels that some effective measure in respect of publication of
blasphemous contest have been taken.  Thus, the order regarding blockage of
website URL, http://www.facebook.com is recalled.



6.         Although the efficient and effective measures of the Government
of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, considering the sensitivity of the core
issue, are worthy of praise and appreciation, this Court objectively
reserves considerable apprehensions regarding a lack of effective mechanisms
which could ensure avoidance of any such like events occurring in future,
leading to unrest and chaos in the society.



7.         There are many and numerous countries with majority Muslim
populations who have many sustainable and effective mechanisms in place
which block or deny, to the general public, access to such blasphemous
contents.  The example of such countries could include the countries of
majority of Muslim population in Middle East and Asia.



8.         This Court directs PTA, MoIT and all other related and concerned
authorities, dealing with regulation and monitoring of telecommunication and
internet access to the general public, to come up with effective monitoring
control and implementation guidelines regarding access towards such
blasphemous contents over the internet.  As a matter of reference these
guidelines could be borrowed from the telecommunication and internet
regulatory authorities of the above mentioned countries.



9.         It should be made clear to PTA and MoIT authorities that a
contextual summary of effective monitoring, control and implementation
guidelines regarding access to such blasphemous and objectionable contents
available over the internet should be submitted to this Court  in a the
detailed, comprehensive and written format by the next date of hearing.



10.       There are now available International Regulations regarding the
publication of blasphemous contents.  The United Nations Resolution on,
“Combating Defamation of Religious”, No..62/154, reproduced as per the
official data available regarding this Resolution on the United Nations
portal was came into force on 181.12.2007.  This Resolution came into its
final structure *vide* a Resolution, “A/C 3/62/L.35, reproduced as per the
official data regarding this Resolution on United Nations portal was
presented and voted at on 20th November 2007 with 95 votes in favour, 52
against and 30 absentees.  Thus, passing the resolution and making it part
of the International Law regime.  The Government of Islamic Republic of
Pakistan and other countries of Muslim majority voted in favour of this
resolution.



11.       The genesis of this resolution, “Combating of Defamation of
Religious”, which deals with laws governing the effective control of
Anti-Religious materials publication in the individual countries, had its
origins in the 1999 Organization of Islamic Countries (OIC) Conference where
Pakistan drafted and presented the resolution, “Combating Defamation of
Islam”, which was passed by the delegates present at the conference.  The
title of this resolution was subsequently changed to, “Combating Defamation
of Religions” to broaden the scope and implications.  Since 1999, this
resolution “Combating Defamation of Religions” was presented at the United
Nations Human Rights Commission.  In 2005 a parallel resolution was
presented at the General Assembly of the United Nations as well.  The
resolution “Combating Defamation of Religions” came into in its present
state when the Government of Islamic Republic of Pakistan and other
countries of Muslim majority population who wanted and to inform and
enlighten the world regarding the deeply sentimental and sensitive
perspectives of there majority population regarding publications of
Anti-Religious and blasphemous contents.  These countries comprising of
majority Muslim population resolved and worked together to formulate an
international regime administering the publication of Anti-Religious and
blasphemous contents, which would to govern the future conduct of States and
individuals regarding the publication of Anti-Religious and blasphemous
contents.  Although this above mentioned resolution is non-binding in
nature, still the critics of this resolution hypothesize its far reaching
consequences to be a deliberate attempt to regulate not just the lives of
individuals but also the context, thus, breaching an individual’s
universally accepted rights of freedom of expression and speech.



12.       That it would be pertinent to mention that the cannons of Islam do
not prohibit or limit any individual’s right to freedom of expression and
speech rather it cumulates the phrase “*Your liberty ends where the nose of
other person starts”*, meaning thereby that any right to freedom of
expression and speech of one person would not prejudice the right of self
respect and dignity of the other person.



13.       The core issue involved in this matter is the publication and
advertisement of blasphemous material which was viewed as a deliberate or
reckless attempt to malign the very holy and sanctimonious stature of
Prophet of Islam, Hazrat Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him), on “Facebook”.  This
had deeply hurt and emotionally injured individual and collective sentiments
of hundreds of millions of Muslims not just living in the geographical
territory of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Keeping in view this deeply
sensitive e and emotional attachment the majority population of Islamic
Republic of Pakistan experiences towards the Prophet of Islam, Hazrat
Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him), any regulations made for the protection of
there deeply sensitive and emotional sentiments should not be viewed as in
conflict with and individual’s universally accepted rights of freedom,
expressions and speech.



14.       Keeping in view the protection of deeply sensitive and emotional
values of the majority population of Pakistan, and for the purpose of
keeping harmony and peace in the society this Court directs the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs, Islamic Republic of Pakistan to direct its Permanent
Ambassador to the United Nations at its Headquarter in New York to present a
resolution in the General Assembly of United Nations, in context with the
United Nations Resolution, “Combating Defamation of Religions” conveying the
hurt and discomfort suffered by the majority population of Pakistan by the
publication and promotion of such blasphemous material on “Facebook”.



15.       This Court directs the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Government
of Pakistan to comply with the above mentioned directions of this Court in
letter and spirit by the next date of hearing and to submit a written and
official copy of this direction given to the Permanent Ambassador of Islamic
Republic of Pakistan to the United Nations regarding the presentation of a
resolution to the United Nations General Assembly conveying  the hurt and
discomfort suffered by the majority population of Islamic Republic of
Pakistan by publication and promotion of such blasphemous material on
“Facebook”.



16.       In case of non-compliance of these above mentioned directions of
this Court by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Islamic Republic of
Pakistan in relation to specific directions to the Permanent Ambassador of
Islamic Republic of Pakistan to the United Nations to present a resolution
in the General Assembly of United Nations, conveying the hurt and discomfort
suffered by the majority population of Islamic Republic of Pakistan by
publication and promotion of such blasphemous material on “Facebook” the
Minister of Foreign Affairs of Islamic Republic of Pakistan has to appear in
this Court in person to explain why he has not complied with the directions
of this Court in exact letter and spirit.



17.       The Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Islamic Republic of Pakistan through fax,
today.



18.               To come up on 15.06.2010.



         Sd/-

                                         (Ijaz Ahmad Chaudhry)

                                                       Judge
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100604/f8572f01/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From tracyhackshaw at gmail.com  Thu Jun  3 21:47:44 2010
From: tracyhackshaw at gmail.com (Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google)
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2010 21:47:44 -0400
Subject: [governance] ICANN 39 to be held in Cartagena, Colombia from
 December 5-10, 2010
Message-ID: <AANLkTin1h8EsYkH6_cl8aylo5JRtIDwkfD3veEbWvnAq@mail.gmail.com>

Don't know if you know as yet, but ICANN 39 is going to be held in
Cartagena, Colombia. See the first official reference I have found to it at
http://brussels38.icann.org/sponsorship
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100603/71005ef3/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From karl at cavebear.com  Thu Jun  3 22:19:38 2010
From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach)
Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2010 19:19:38 -0700
Subject: [governance] Pakistan Facebook Detailed Order
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimR2tLthk9ozeHjgX4z8CjWJGGHMfff0rewkrqK@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTimR2tLthk9ozeHjgX4z8CjWJGGHMfff0rewkrqK@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4C0862BA.20107@cavebear.com>

On 06/03/2010 03:38 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote:
> Facebook ban was lifted in Pakistan on the 1st of June 2010. The
> following court orders and proceedings are being shared for information
> purposes only....

Thanks for posting the order.

One has to recognize that Facebook is a private corporation created 
under the laws of California.  Under the Constitution of the United 
States the Federal government and the State of California have very 
limited authority to tell Facebook what it may or may not say, and even 
that power, to the extent it exists at all, is reduced if the United 
States Federal government or the State of California were to try to 
coerce Facebook's actions on the basis of a religious feeling one way or 
the other.

Let's turn the situation around with a hypothetical - Suppose someone 
here in California were to take offense at some action by someone in 
Pakistan (which I would hope would never be the case - my own 
experiences with people from Pakistan have always been most positive and 
enlightening.)  Let's suppose further that a California court were to 
issue an order that demands the national government of Pakistan take 
coercive action to stop that activity.  One can imagine that the result 
at the receiving end would be a feeling of resentment and foreign intrusion.

Here in the United States the belief that people (including corporations 
like Facebook) are allowed to engage in open, and even offensive, speech 
is a kind of national axiom.  And here we have perhaps even stronger 
feelings that governmental power and authority must never be allowed to 
be exercised on the basis of any religious ground.  So to a certain 
extent the order of the court in Pakistan is an order for us here in the 
US to violate what are, to us, precepts of our most fundamental national 
belief, that of free and open expression and of no governmental 
intrusion into or on behalf of matters of religion.

It is perhaps somewhat illuminating that one of our most revered writers 
- Mark Twain - will be publishing his autobiography in a few months. 
Twain deeply lashed Christian beliefs with disdain wrapped in humor. 
The only person who ever was able to formally edit, much less suppress, 
Twain was Twain himself - which is why his autobiography was held back 
for 100 years according to his own wishes.  The US government simply 
does not have the authority to step into verbal and written battles 
among religions (and non-religion).

There is a detail that is often lost when discussing free and open 
expression as practiced here in the United States: That detail is that 
it is governmental bodies, such as the US Federal government or the 
State of California, that are prohibited from limiting expression. 
Private actors - such as Facebook or any person - are not so 
constrained.  Thus Facebook may, if it so chooses, may deny use of its 
private services.  Facebook can chose to not allow web pages supporting 
some practice that Facebook does not favor - such as, to pick a fanciful 
example, the practice of singing operatic arias to goats.

(In actual practice we *do* have some limitations - such as laws that 
prohibit discrimination in employment on the basis or race or religion - 
and as a result we here in the US have an continuous re-balancing of the 
boundaries and limits of governmental power.)

The point of all of my text is that these situations are going to cause 
discomfort.  But it may be discomfort that we ought to absorb rather 
than exacerbate.

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

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

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


From hongxueipr at gmail.com  Thu Jun  3 22:47:11 2010
From: hongxueipr at gmail.com (Hong Xue)
Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2010 10:47:11 +0800
Subject: [governance] Pakistan Facebook Detailed Order
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimR2tLthk9ozeHjgX4z8CjWJGGHMfff0rewkrqK@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTimR2tLthk9ozeHjgX4z8CjWJGGHMfff0rewkrqK@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTinvnjw43nhUJkEcZHXyzjkmCA9CaSbYvLeNu9OA@mail.gmail.com>

Many thanks for posting this. It exposes us a new dimension of international
law and enforcement in the context of Internet governance.

A Court in a sovereign state referred to the United Nations Resolution on,
“Combating Defamation of Religious”, No..62/154 as the source of
international law and ordered the "Permanent Ambassador of Islamic Republic
of Pakistan to the United Nations to present a resolution in the General
Assembly of United Nations."

It deserves a careful thinking what the role of pubic international law
plays in the Internet Governance.

Hong





On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 6:38 AM, Fouad Bajwa <fouadbajwa at gmail.com> wrote:

> Facebook ban was lifted in Pakistan on the 1st of June 2010. The following
> court orders and proceedings are being shared for information purposes only.
> A special thank you note to Barrister Zahid Jamil for sharing this
> elsewhere. Zahid also clarified that the text below has not been proofed or
> checked by him nor has it been checked by anyone else for typos and hence
> should not be relied upon as official/authoritative text of the order and is
> a best effort on someone’s part to quickly type out a copy of the order. He
> made this available under this understanding and under a complete disclaimer
> from any liability as to its use by anyone.
>
> Form No: HCJD/C-121
>
> ORDER SHEET
>
> IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE
>
> JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
>
>
>
> Writ Petition No.10392 of 2010
>
> Islamic Lawyers Movement
>
> Petitioner
>
> Versus
>
> Federation of Pakistan and three others
>
>  Respondents
>
>
>   S. No. of
>
> Order/
>
> Proceeding
>
> Date of order/
>
> Proceeding
>
> Order with signature of Judge, and that of parties or counsel, where
> necessary
>
>
>
> 03)                        31.05.2010             M/s. Zulfiqar Ahmed and
> Muhammad
>
>                                                             Azhar Siddique,
> Advocates for the
>
>                                                             Petitioner.
>
>                                                             Mr. Naveed
> Inayat Malik, Deputy
>
>
> Attorney-General for the Respondents
>
>                                                             with Mudassar
> Hussain, Director,
>
>                                                             Telecom
> Wireless.
>
>
>              As per the directions of this Court vide order dated
> 19.05.2010 the Ministry of Foreign affairs on its directions contacted the
> Embassy of Pakistan in the United States of America.  The Embassy of
> Pakistan in United States of America, at “3517 International Court, NW.
> WASHINGTON, D.C. 2008, Tel: (202) 243-6500,” represented the following to
> the United States Department of State.
>
>
>
> “No.
> Pol-4/2/10
> 21 May 2010
>
>
>
>             The Embassy of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan presents its
> compliments to the Unites State Department State and has the honor to lodge
> a protest over the holding of a blasphemes contests, “EVERYBODY DRAW
> MUHAMMAD DAY” by the website “Facebook” and its affiliates.  The
> announcement of this contest has immensely hurt and discomforted the people
> and the Government of Pakistan.  It was also deliberately and recklessly
> enraged millions of Muslims in Pakistan and globally, who attach an immense
> sanctity to the very holy and sacred status of Prophet Muhammad (Peace Be
> Upon Him).
>
>
>
>             It is the understanding of the Government of Pakistan that as
> per the laws of commerce and Business, the website ‘Facebook’ is governed by
> the legal jurisdiction of the United States of America.  Accordingly, the
> Government of Pakistan strongly urges the Government of the United States of
> America to take effective measure to prevent, stop or block this blasphemous
> contest immediately.
>
>
>
>             The Embassy of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan avails itself
> of this opportunity to renew to the United States Department of State the
> assurances of its highest consideration.
>
>
>
> The US Department of State
>
> Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs,
>
> (Mr. Brent R. Hartley,
>
> Director, Pakistan-Bangladesh Desk),
>
> 2201, C. Street, NW,
>
> Washington, DC 20520.
>
> Fax: 202-647-3001.
>
>
>
> 2.         The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Islamic Republic of Pakistan
> received the above stated protest via a fax message No.Pol.4/2/10 dated 21
> st May 2010 from the Embassy of Islamic Republic of Pakistan which
> mentioned the Ministry of Foreign Affairs fax message
> “No.AS(Americas)-1/2010 dated 20th May 2010” stating that an official
> protest was lodged with the United States Government Department of State.
>
>
>
> 3.         The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Islamic Republic of Pakistan
> submitted its reply to the Deputy Attorney-General of Pakistan Mr. Naveed
> Inayat Malik as under:-
>
>
>
> *MOST IMMEDIATE*
>
> 25 May 2010
>
>
>
> “No.DG (Americas)-1/2010
>
>
>
> SUBJECT:      *W.P. NO.10392/10-TITLED ISLAMIC*
>
>                         *LAWYERS MOVEMENT, VS. FOP ETC*.
>
>                         *IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE.*
>
>
>
>
>
>             Please refer to this Ministry’s letter of even number dated 21
> May 2010 on the above subject.
>
>             As directed by the Honourable Lahore High Court order, our
> Embassy in Washington was instructed to lodge an official protest with the
> U.S. Department of State, which was done on 21 May 2010.  A copy of the
> protest note is submitted for information of the Honourable Court.
>
>             While expressing the feelings of immense discomfort and hurt
> felt by the Government and the people of Pakistan about the contest, the
> U.S. Government was strongly urged to take effective measures to prevent,
> stop or block this blasphemous contest immediately.
>
>             President Obama’s Special Representative for Pakistan and
> Afghanistan Mr. Richard Holbrooke, in his meeting with our Ambassador,
> conveyed that the U.S. Department of State recognized the sensitivities
> about the issue and also admitted that many of the images that appeared on
> the Facebook were “{deeply offensive” and that the U.S. Government was
> deeply concerned about any deliberate attempt to offend Muslims or members
> of any other religious groups.
>
>
>
> Yours sincerely,
>
>
>
> *(Sohail Khan)*
>
> Director General (Americas)
>
>
>
> Encl: *As above*.
>
>
>
> Mr. Naveed Inayat Malik,
>
> Deputy Attorney General of Pakistan
>
> High Court Building
>
> Lahore.”
>
>
>
>
>
> 4.         While respondents No.3 and 4 have also submitted written reply
> which is reproduced as under:
>
>
>
> *That his Hon’ble High Court through the letter dated 18th May, 2010 of
> the Deputy Attorney-General for Pakistan Mr. Naveed Inayat Malik forwarded
> the copy of the captioned petition of Islamic Lawyer Movement regarding the
> issue of, “Every Body Draw Muhammad Day” on the website namely “Facebook”
> and thereby requiring the answering Respondents No.3 and 4 to submit report
> and parawise comments in the instant matter.*
>
> * *
>
> *2.         “That pursuant to the directions of this Hon’ble High Court
> communicated to the answering respondents No.3 nd 4 by the Ministry of
> Information Technology (MoIT) vide letter No.5-1/2005-DFU, dated 18th May,
> 2010 and requiring the answering Respondents to block the mentioned website
> on Universal Resource Locator (URL) level immediately and to inform the MoIT
> accordingly.  Soon upon the receipt of said directions the answering
> Respondents, i.e. PTA in respectful compliance of this Hon’ble High Court’s
> directions dated 18th May 2010, issued directions vide letter
> No.2-Misc/2010/Enf/PTA dated 18th May, 2010 to all Internet Service
> Providers (ISPs) to immediately block the mentioned Website at URL level and
> continuously monitor the same to ensure compliant with the instructions of
> the Authority (Copies of said MoIT and PTA’s letters are annexed as Annexure
> “A” & “B”).*
>
> * *
>
> *3.         That on the next day MoIT vide letter No.5-1/2005-DFU dated 19
> th May, 2010 required the answering respondents to block mentioned website
> on Internet Protocol (IP) level immediately.  Pursuant to this direction of
> MoIT, the answering respondents again issued directions vide letter
> No.2-Misc/2010/Enf/PTA dated 19th May, 2010 to all ISPs to immediately
> block the mentioned Website at IP level and continuously monitor the same to
> ensure compliance with the instructions of the Authority (copies of said
> MoIT and PTA’s letters are annexed as Annexure “C” & “D”).  It is worth
> mentioning here that the answering Respondents, with the aim and objective
> of sound/secure enforcement and compliance of this Hon’ble Court’s
> directions in the instant matter of grave concern of all the citizen of
> Pakistan established a dedicated “Crises Cell” exclusively
> working/monitoring on 24 hrs basis to observe the directions in true letter
> and spirit.  It is also worthy pointing out here that the answering
> Respondents, while mindful of this Hon’ble Court’s directions in the instant
> manner and during the course of monitoring of the mentioned Website, found
> that the mentioned website was accessible from the Mobile Black Berry
> Service (MBBS) as the main control of this service is outside the country.
> Accordingly, MBBS was blocked by answering Respondents on 20th May, 2010
> at 12:30 a.m. with a view to block access to the mentioned Website in
> Pakistan.  However, MBBS was later restored only for the e-mail access and
> not for the Internet Surfing.  In addition, the answering Respondents during
> the course of strict monitoring found that majority of objectionable
> contents was reported on ”YouTube” Website, leaving the answering
> Respondents with no other option but to block the viewing of “YouTube”
> Website also in Pakistasn.  This fact was intimated to MoIT by the answering
> Respondents vide letter No.10/12/Dir(ICT)PTA/10 dated 20th May, 2010, as
> the subject of “Content Regulation” does not fall within the domain of
> answering Respondents (Copy of said PTA’s letter annexed as Annexure “E”).
> *
>
> * *
>
> *4.         That the answering Respondents, in respectful compliance of
> this Hon’ble High Court’s directions and the MoIT’s directives to, have
> blocked up until now a total of 10,548 web-links (approximately) either
> hosting the objectionable contents or providing access to the same mentioned
> blasphemous contents.  As mentioned earlier, till date two websites namely
> http://www.facebook.com *and *http://www.youtube.com have been completely
> blocked in Pakistan.  The complete blocking of “YouTube” was done because of
> the number of objectionable links be increased to such an extent that PTA
> had no option but to block the whole website.*
>
> * *
>
> *5.         It also worth considering here that the answering respondents
> on their own have no authority to cause blocking of any website(s) rather it
> has to follow the decision/directions of Inter-ministerial Committee for
> Evaluation of Offensive Websites, formed by the Prime Minister of Pakistan
> in the year 2006.  The meetings of the committee are held in MoIT on regular
> basis, wherein it reviews the cases and complaints received with regard to
> offensive website and grant approval for blocking of the same.  As a
> consequence, the answering Respondents cause blocking of such websites as
> and when communicated through MoIT.*
>
> * *
>
> *6.         The following report is hereby submitted in respectful
> compliance of the aforementioned orders/directions of this Hon’ble High
> Court. *
>
> * *
>
> 5.         That due to the immediate and efficient response of the
> concerned Departments of the Government of Islamic Republic of Pakistan the
> blasphemous contents published on the portal “Facebook” was blocked and the
> access to the portal “Facebook” was blocked for its subscribers and
> non-subscribers in the territory of Islamic Republic of Pakistan with
> immediate effect.  After perusing the above said steps taken by the Foreign
> Ministry for lodging an official and sovereign protest to the United States
> of America’s Department of State as well as reply submitted by Government of
> Pakistan, Ministry of Information Technology (IT & Telecom Division) this
> Court feels that some effective measure in respect of publication of
> blasphemous contest have been taken.  Thus, the order regarding blockage of
> website URL, http://www.facebook.com is recalled.
>
>
>
> 6.         Although the efficient and effective measures of the Government
> of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, considering the sensitivity of the core
> issue, are worthy of praise and appreciation, this Court objectively
> reserves considerable apprehensions regarding a lack of effective mechanisms
> which could ensure avoidance of any such like events occurring in future,
> leading to unrest and chaos in the society.
>
>
>
> 7.         There are many and numerous countries with majority Muslim
> populations who have many sustainable and effective mechanisms in place
> which block or deny, to the general public, access to such blasphemous
> contents.  The example of such countries could include the countries of
> majority of Muslim population in Middle East and Asia.
>
>
>
> 8.         This Court directs PTA, MoIT and all other related and concerned
> authorities, dealing with regulation and monitoring of telecommunication and
> internet access to the general public, to come up with effective monitoring
> control and implementation guidelines regarding access towards such
> blasphemous contents over the internet.  As a matter of reference these
> guidelines could be borrowed from the telecommunication and internet
> regulatory authorities of the above mentioned countries.
>
>
>
> 9.         It should be made clear to PTA and MoIT authorities that a
> contextual summary of effective monitoring, control and implementation
> guidelines regarding access to such blasphemous and objectionable contents
> available over the internet should be submitted to this Court  in a the
> detailed, comprehensive and written format by the next date of hearing.
>
>
>
> 10.       There are now available International Regulations regarding the
> publication of blasphemous contents.  The United Nations Resolution on,
> “Combating Defamation of Religious”, No..62/154, reproduced as per the
> official data available regarding this Resolution on the United Nations
> portal was came into force on 181.12.2007.  This Resolution came into its
> final structure *vide* a Resolution, “A/C 3/62/L.35, reproduced as per the
> official data regarding this Resolution on United Nations portal was
> presented and voted at on 20th November 2007 with 95 votes in favour, 52
> against and 30 absentees.  Thus, passing the resolution and making it part
> of the International Law regime.  The Government of Islamic Republic of
> Pakistan and other countries of Muslim majority voted in favour of this
> resolution.
>
>
>
> 11.       The genesis of this resolution, “Combating of Defamation of
> Religious”, which deals with laws governing the effective control of
> Anti-Religious materials publication in the individual countries, had its
> origins in the 1999 Organization of Islamic Countries (OIC) Conference where
> Pakistan drafted and presented the resolution, “Combating Defamation of
> Islam”, which was passed by the delegates present at the conference.  The
> title of this resolution was subsequently changed to, “Combating Defamation
> of Religions” to broaden the scope and implications.  Since 1999, this
> resolution “Combating Defamation of Religions” was presented at the United
> Nations Human Rights Commission.  In 2005 a parallel resolution was
> presented at the General Assembly of the United Nations as well.  The
> resolution “Combating Defamation of Religions” came into in its present
> state when the Government of Islamic Republic of Pakistan and other
> countries of Muslim majority population who wanted and to inform and
> enlighten the world regarding the deeply sentimental and sensitive
> perspectives of there majority population regarding publications of
> Anti-Religious and blasphemous contents.  These countries comprising of
> majority Muslim population resolved and worked together to formulate an
> international regime administering the publication of Anti-Religious and
> blasphemous contents, which would to govern the future conduct of States and
> individuals regarding the publication of Anti-Religious and blasphemous
> contents.  Although this above mentioned resolution is non-binding in
> nature, still the critics of this resolution hypothesize its far reaching
> consequences to be a deliberate attempt to regulate not just the lives of
> individuals but also the context, thus, breaching an individual’s
> universally accepted rights of freedom of expression and speech.
>
>
>
> 12.       That it would be pertinent to mention that the cannons of Islam
> do not prohibit or limit any individual’s right to freedom of expression and
> speech rather it cumulates the phrase “*Your liberty ends where the nose
> of other person starts”*, meaning thereby that any right to freedom of
> expression and speech of one person would not prejudice the right of self
> respect and dignity of the other person.
>
>
>
> 13.       The core issue involved in this matter is the publication and
> advertisement of blasphemous material which was viewed as a deliberate or
> reckless attempt to malign the very holy and sanctimonious stature of
> Prophet of Islam, Hazrat Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him), on “Facebook”.  This
> had deeply hurt and emotionally injured individual and collective sentiments
> of hundreds of millions of Muslims not just living in the geographical
> territory of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Keeping in view this deeply
> sensitive e and emotional attachment the majority population of Islamic
> Republic of Pakistan experiences towards the Prophet of Islam, Hazrat
> Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him), any regulations made for the protection of
> there deeply sensitive and emotional sentiments should not be viewed as in
> conflict with and individual’s universally accepted rights of freedom,
> expressions and speech.
>
>
>
> 14.       Keeping in view the protection of deeply sensitive and emotional
> values of the majority population of Pakistan, and for the purpose of
> keeping harmony and peace in the society this Court directs the Ministry of
> Foreign Affairs, Islamic Republic of Pakistan to direct its Permanent
> Ambassador to the United Nations at its Headquarter in New York to present a
> resolution in the General Assembly of United Nations, in context with the
> United Nations Resolution, “Combating Defamation of Religions” conveying the
> hurt and discomfort suffered by the majority population of Pakistan by the
> publication and promotion of such blasphemous material on “Facebook”.
>
>
>
> 15.       This Court directs the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Government
> of Pakistan to comply with the above mentioned directions of this Court in
> letter and spirit by the next date of hearing and to submit a written and
> official copy of this direction given to the Permanent Ambassador of Islamic
> Republic of Pakistan to the United Nations regarding the presentation of a
> resolution to the United Nations General Assembly conveying  the hurt and
> discomfort suffered by the majority population of Islamic Republic of
> Pakistan by publication and promotion of such blasphemous material on
> “Facebook”.
>
>
>
> 16.       In case of non-compliance of these above mentioned directions of
> this Court by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Islamic Republic of
> Pakistan in relation to specific directions to the Permanent Ambassador of
> Islamic Republic of Pakistan to the United Nations to present a resolution
> in the General Assembly of United Nations, conveying the hurt and discomfort
> suffered by the majority population of Islamic Republic of Pakistan by
> publication and promotion of such blasphemous material on “Facebook” the
> Minister of Foreign Affairs of Islamic Republic of Pakistan has to appear in
> this Court in person to explain why he has not complied with the directions
> of this Court in exact letter and spirit.
>
>
>
> 17.       The Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the
> Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Islamic Republic of Pakistan through fax,
> today.
>
>
>
> 18.               To come up on 15.06.2010.
>
>
>
>          Sd/-
>
>                                          (Ijaz Ahmad Chaudhry)
>
>                                                        Judge
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>



-- 
Dr. Hong Xue
Professor of Law
Director of Institute for the Internet Policy & Law (IIPL)
Beijing Normal University
http://www.cdnua.org/
19 Xin Jie Kou Wai Street
Beijing 100875 China
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100604/b881c7b7/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From andrespiazza at gmail.com  Thu Jun  3 23:21:21 2010
From: andrespiazza at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Andr=E9s_Piazza?=)
Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2010 00:21:21 -0300
Subject: [governance] ICANN 39 to be heldt in Cartagena, Colombia from
Message-ID: <AANLkTil0Jx0iKRJQkmjY9rZGHxaeBh0IJCDs7kT8l6bd@mail.gmail.com>

Indeed, Tracy.

It's public information. The Board was supposed to make the desition
in Nairobi. But was posponed until April.

I personally expressed my preference for Buenos Aires to host the
meeting, but this doesn't mean that a problem may appear in Cartagena.

Taking in consideration what happened last meeting in Nairobi, I want
to express my opinion in advance. If you (or any other member of this
list, specially Americans and Europeans) are planning to attend, I
would strongly encourage to you not to be afraid.

I undestand security concerns and statistics in Latin America and
specially in Colombia (BTW Cartagena is a turistic city, perfectly
safe), but sometimes information can be tricky.

Regards,

Andrés Piazza
LACRALO Chair



2010/6/3, Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google <tracyhackshaw at gmail.com>:
> Don't know if you know as yet, but ICANN 39 is going to be held in
> Cartagena, Colombia. See the first official reference I have found to it at
> http://brussels38.icann.org/sponsorship
>

-- 
Enviado desde mi dispositivo móvil

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

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

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

From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch  Fri Jun  4 04:21:40 2010
From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake)
Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2010 10:21:40 +0200
Subject: [governance] Pakistan Facebook Detailed Order
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinvnjw43nhUJkEcZHXyzjkmCA9CaSbYvLeNu9OA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTimR2tLthk9ozeHjgX4z8CjWJGGHMfff0rewkrqK@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTinvnjw43nhUJkEcZHXyzjkmCA9CaSbYvLeNu9OA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CC5DE087-6B5E-4AF2-BD46-0D8E599636F0@graduateinstitute.ch>

Hi Hong

On Jun 4, 2010, at 4:47 AM, Hong Xue wrote:

> 
> Many thanks for posting this. It exposes us a new dimension of international law and enforcement in the context of Internet governance. 
> 
> A Court in a sovereign state referred to the United Nations Resolution on, “Combating Defamation of Religious”, No..62/154 as the source of international law and ordered the "Permanent Ambassador of Islamic Republic of Pakistan to the United Nations to present a resolution in the General Assembly of United Nations." 

The government that sponsored the non-binding resolution citing it as a source of international law is not too surprising.  But more countries voted against or abstained than supported it; whether they or any international court would have the same interpretation is open to question.  Which is not to say that it can't be used politically, especially to justify national-level actions.
> 
> It deserves a careful thinking what the role of pubic international law plays in the Internet Governance.

Agree.  Also the emergence of world-wide censorship driven by non-state as well as state actors.  Interesting times...

Best

Bill
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 6:38 AM, Fouad Bajwa <fouadbajwa at gmail.com> wrote:
> Facebook ban was lifted in Pakistan on the 1st of June 2010. The following court orders and proceedings are being shared for information purposes only. A special thank you note to Barrister Zahid Jamil for sharing this elsewhere. Zahid also clarified that the text below has not been proofed or checked by him nor has it been checked by anyone else for typos and hence should not be relied upon as official/authoritative text of the order and is a best effort on someone’s part to quickly type out a copy of the order. He made this available under this understanding and under a complete disclaimer from any liability as to its use by anyone.  
> Form No: HCJD/C-121 
> 
> ORDER SHEET
> 
> IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE
> 
> JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
> 
>  
> Writ Petition No.10392 of 2010
> 
> Islamic Lawyers Movement
> 
> Petitioner
> 
> Versus
> 
> Federation of Pakistan and three others
> 
>  Respondents
> 
> 
> 
> S. No. of
> 
> Order/
> 
> Proceeding
> 
> Date of order/
> 
> Proceeding
> 
> Order with signature of Judge, and that of parties or counsel, where necessary
> 
>  
> 03)                        31.05.2010             M/s. Zulfiqar Ahmed and Muhammad
> 
>                                                             Azhar Siddique, Advocates for the
> 
>                                                             Petitioner.
> 
>                                                             Mr. Naveed Inayat Malik, Deputy
> 
>                                                             Attorney-General for the Respondents
> 
>                                                             with Mudassar Hussain, Director,
> 
>                                                             Telecom Wireless.
> 
> 
> 
>              As per the directions of this Court vide order dated 19.05.2010 the Ministry of Foreign affairs on its directions contacted the Embassy of Pakistan in the United States of America.  The Embassy of Pakistan in United States of America, at “3517 International Court, NW. WASHINGTON, D.C. 2008, Tel: (202) 243-6500,” represented the following to the United States Department of State.
> 
>  
> “No. Pol-4/2/10                                                                                21 May 2010
> 
>  
>             The Embassy of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan presents its compliments to the Unites State Department State and has the honor to lodge a protest over the holding of a blasphemes contests, “EVERYBODY DRAW MUHAMMAD DAY” by the website “Facebook” and its affiliates.  The announcement of this contest has immensely hurt and discomforted the people and the Government of Pakistan.  It was also deliberately and recklessly enraged millions of Muslims in Pakistan and globally, who attach an immense sanctity to the very holy and sacred status of Prophet Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him).
> 
>  
>             It is the understanding of the Government of Pakistan that as per the laws of commerce and Business, the website ‘Facebook’ is governed by the legal jurisdiction of the United States of America.  Accordingly, the Government of Pakistan strongly urges the Government of the United States of America to take effective measure to prevent, stop or block this blasphemous contest immediately. 
> 
>  
>             The Embassy of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the United States Department of State the assurances of its highest consideration.
> 
>  
> The US Department of State
> 
> Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs,
> 
> (Mr. Brent R. Hartley,
> 
> Director, Pakistan-Bangladesh Desk),
> 
> 2201, C. Street, NW,
> 
> Washington, DC 20520.
> 
> Fax: 202-647-3001.
> 
>  
> 2.         The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Islamic Republic of Pakistan received the above stated protest via a fax message No.Pol.4/2/10 dated 21st May 2010 from the Embassy of Islamic Republic of Pakistan which mentioned the Ministry of Foreign Affairs fax message “No.AS(Americas)-1/2010 dated 20th May 2010” stating that an official protest was lodged with the United States Government Department of State.
> 
>  
> 3.         The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Islamic Republic of Pakistan submitted its reply to the Deputy Attorney-General of Pakistan Mr. Naveed Inayat Malik as under:-
> 
>  
> MOST IMMEDIATE
> 
> 25 May 2010
> 
>  
> “No.DG (Americas)-1/2010
> 
>  
> SUBJECT:      W.P. NO.10392/10-TITLED ISLAMIC
> 
>                         LAWYERS MOVEMENT, VS. FOP ETC.
> 
>                         IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE.
> 
>  
>  
>             Please refer to this Ministry’s letter of even number dated 21 May 2010 on the above subject.
> 
>             As directed by the Honourable Lahore High Court order, our Embassy in Washington was instructed to lodge an official protest with the U.S. Department of State, which was done on 21 May 2010.  A copy of the protest note is submitted for information of the Honourable Court.
> 
>             While expressing the feelings of immense discomfort and hurt felt by the Government and the people of Pakistan about the contest, the U.S. Government was strongly urged to take effective measures to prevent, stop or block this blasphemous contest immediately.
> 
>             President Obama’s Special Representative for Pakistan and Afghanistan Mr. Richard Holbrooke, in his meeting with our Ambassador, conveyed that the U.S. Department of State recognized the sensitivities about the issue and also admitted that many of the images that appeared on the Facebook were “{deeply offensive” and that the U.S. Government was deeply concerned about any deliberate attempt to offend Muslims or members of any other religious groups. 
> 
>  
> Yours sincerely,
> 
>  
> (Sohail Khan)
> 
> Director General (Americas)
> 
>  
> Encl: As above.
> 
>  
> Mr. Naveed Inayat Malik,
> 
> Deputy Attorney General of Pakistan
> 
> High Court Building
> 
> Lahore.”
> 
>  
>  
> 4.         While respondents No.3 and 4 have also submitted written reply which is reproduced as under:
> 
>  
> That his Hon’ble High Court through the letter dated 18th May, 2010 of the Deputy Attorney-General for Pakistan Mr. Naveed Inayat Malik forwarded the copy of the captioned petition of Islamic Lawyer Movement regarding the issue of, “Every Body Draw Muhammad Day” on the website namely “Facebook” and thereby requiring the answering Respondents No.3 and 4 to submit report and parawise comments in the instant matter.
> 
>  
> 
> 2.         “That pursuant to the directions of this Hon’ble High Court communicated to the answering respondents No.3 nd 4 by the Ministry of Information Technology (MoIT) vide letter No.5-1/2005-DFU, dated 18th May, 2010 and requiring the answering Respondents to block the mentioned website on Universal Resource Locator (URL) level immediately and to inform the MoIT accordingly.  Soon upon the receipt of said directions the answering Respondents, i.e. PTA in respectful compliance of this Hon’ble High Court’s directions dated 18th May 2010, issued directions vide letter No.2-Misc/2010/Enf/PTA dated 18th May, 2010 to all Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to immediately block the mentioned Website at URL level and continuously monitor the same to ensure compliant with the instructions of the Authority (Copies of said MoIT and PTA’s letters are annexed as Annexure “A” & “B”).
> 
>  
> 
> 3.         That on the next day MoIT vide letter No.5-1/2005-DFU dated 19th May, 2010 required the answering respondents to block mentioned website on Internet Protocol (IP) level immediately.  Pursuant to this direction of MoIT, the answering respondents again issued directions vide letter No.2-Misc/2010/Enf/PTA dated 19th May, 2010 to all ISPs to immediately block the mentioned Website at IP level and continuously monitor the same to ensure compliance with the instructions of the Authority (copies of said MoIT and PTA’s letters are annexed as Annexure “C” & “D”).  It is worth mentioning here that the answering Respondents, with the aim and objective of sound/secure enforcement and compliance of this Hon’ble Court’s directions in the instant matter of grave concern of all the citizen of Pakistan established a dedicated “Crises Cell” exclusively working/monitoring on 24 hrs basis to observe the directions in true letter and spirit.  It is also worthy pointing out here that the answering Respondents, while mindful of this Hon’ble Court’s directions in the instant manner and during the course of monitoring of the mentioned Website, found that the mentioned website was accessible from the Mobile Black Berry Service (MBBS) as the main control of this service is outside the country.  Accordingly, MBBS was blocked by answering Respondents on 20th May, 2010 at 12:30 a.m. with a view to block access to the mentioned Website in Pakistan.  However, MBBS was later restored only for the e-mail access and not for the Internet Surfing.  In addition, the answering Respondents during the course of strict monitoring found that majority of objectionable contents was reported on ”YouTube” Website, leaving the answering Respondents with no other option but to block the viewing of “YouTube” Website also in Pakistasn.  This fact was intimated to MoIT by the answering Respondents vide letter No.10/12/Dir(ICT)PTA/10 dated 20th May, 2010, as the subject of “Content Regulation” does not fall within the domain of answering Respondents (Copy of said PTA’s letter annexed as Annexure “E”).
> 
>  
> 
> 4.         That the answering Respondents, in respectful compliance of this Hon’ble High Court’s directions and the MoIT’s directives to, have blocked up until now a total of 10,548 web-links (approximately) either hosting the objectionable contents or providing access to the same mentioned blasphemous contents.  As mentioned earlier, till date two websites namely http://www.facebook.com and http://www.youtube.com have been completely blocked in Pakistan.  The complete blocking of “YouTube” was done because of the number of objectionable links be increased to such an extent that PTA had no option but to block the whole website.
> 
>  
> 
> 5.         It also worth considering here that the answering respondents on their own have no authority to cause blocking of any website(s) rather it has to follow the decision/directions of Inter-ministerial Committee for Evaluation of Offensive Websites, formed by the Prime Minister of Pakistan in the year 2006.  The meetings of the committee are held in MoIT on regular basis, wherein it reviews the cases and complaints received with regard to offensive website and grant approval for blocking of the same.  As a consequence, the answering Respondents cause blocking of such websites as and when communicated through MoIT.
> 
>  
> 
> 6.         The following report is hereby submitted in respectful compliance of the aforementioned orders/directions of this Hon’ble High Court.
> 
>  
> 
> 5.         That due to the immediate and efficient response of the concerned Departments of the Government of Islamic Republic of Pakistan the blasphemous contents published on the portal “Facebook” was blocked and the access to the portal “Facebook” was blocked for its subscribers and non-subscribers in the territory of Islamic Republic of Pakistan with immediate effect.  After perusing the above said steps taken by the Foreign Ministry for lodging an official and sovereign protest to the United States of America’s Department of State as well as reply submitted by Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Information Technology (IT & Telecom Division) this Court feels that some effective measure in respect of publication of blasphemous contest have been taken.  Thus, the order regarding blockage of website URL, http://www.facebook.com is recalled.
> 
>  
> 6.         Although the efficient and effective measures of the Government of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, considering the sensitivity of the core issue, are worthy of praise and appreciation, this Court objectively reserves considerable apprehensions regarding a lack of effective mechanisms which could ensure avoidance of any such like events occurring in future, leading to unrest and chaos in the society.
> 
>  
> 7.         There are many and numerous countries with majority Muslim populations who have many sustainable and effective mechanisms in place which block or deny, to the general public, access to such blasphemous contents.  The example of such countries could include the countries of majority of Muslim population in Middle East and Asia.
> 
>  
> 8.         This Court directs PTA, MoIT and all other related and concerned authorities, dealing with regulation and monitoring of telecommunication and internet access to the general public, to come up with effective monitoring control and implementation guidelines regarding access towards such blasphemous contents over the internet.  As a matter of reference these guidelines could be borrowed from the telecommunication and internet regulatory authorities of the above mentioned countries.
> 
>  
> 9.         It should be made clear to PTA and MoIT authorities that a contextual summary of effective monitoring, control and implementation guidelines regarding access to such blasphemous and objectionable contents available over the internet should be submitted to this Court  in a the detailed, comprehensive and written format by the next date of hearing.
> 
>  
> 10.       There are now available International Regulations regarding the publication of blasphemous contents.  The United Nations Resolution on, “Combating Defamation of Religious”, No..62/154, reproduced as per the official data available regarding this Resolution on the United Nations portal was came into force on 181.12.2007.  This Resolution came into its final structure vide a Resolution, “A/C 3/62/L.35, reproduced as per the official data regarding this Resolution on United Nations portal was presented and voted at on 20th November 2007 with 95 votes in favour, 52 against and 30 absentees.  Thus, passing the resolution and making it part of the International Law regime.  The Government of Islamic Republic of Pakistan and other countries of Muslim majority voted in favour of this resolution.
> 
>  
> 11.       The genesis of this resolution, “Combating of Defamation of Religious”, which deals with laws governing the effective control of Anti-Religious materials publication in the individual countries, had its origins in the 1999 Organization of Islamic Countries (OIC) Conference where Pakistan drafted and presented the resolution, “Combating Defamation of Islam”, which was passed by the delegates present at the conference.  The title of this resolution was subsequently changed to, “Combating Defamation of Religions” to broaden the scope and implications.  Since 1999, this resolution “Combating Defamation of Religions” was presented at the United Nations Human Rights Commission.  In 2005 a parallel resolution was presented at the General Assembly of the United Nations as well.  The resolution “Combating Defamation of Religions” came into in its present state when the Government of Islamic Republic of Pakistan and other countries of Muslim majority population who wanted and to inform and enlighten the world regarding the deeply sentimental and sensitive perspectives of there majority population regarding publications of Anti-Religious and blasphemous contents.  These countries comprising of majority Muslim population resolved and worked together to formulate an international regime administering the publication of Anti-Religious and blasphemous contents, which would to govern the future conduct of States and individuals regarding the publication of Anti-Religious and blasphemous contents.  Although this above mentioned resolution is non-binding in nature, still the critics of this resolution hypothesize its far reaching consequences to be a deliberate attempt to regulate not just the lives of individuals but also the context, thus, breaching an individual’s universally accepted rights of freedom of expression and speech.
> 
>  
> 12.       That it would be pertinent to mention that the cannons of Islam do not prohibit or limit any individual’s right to freedom of expression and speech rather it cumulates the phrase “Your liberty ends where the nose of other person starts”, meaning thereby that any right to freedom of expression and speech of one person would not prejudice the right of self respect and dignity of the other person.
> 
>  
> 13.       The core issue involved in this matter is the publication and advertisement of blasphemous material which was viewed as a deliberate or reckless attempt to malign the very holy and sanctimonious stature of Prophet of Islam, Hazrat Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him), on “Facebook”.  This had deeply hurt and emotionally injured individual and collective sentiments of hundreds of millions of Muslims not just living in the geographical territory of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Keeping in view this deeply sensitive e and emotional attachment the majority population of Islamic Republic of Pakistan experiences towards the Prophet of Islam, Hazrat Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him), any regulations made for the protection of there deeply sensitive and emotional sentiments should not be viewed as in conflict with and individual’s universally accepted rights of freedom, expressions and speech.
> 
>  
> 14.       Keeping in view the protection of deeply sensitive and emotional values of the majority population of Pakistan, and for the purpose of keeping harmony and peace in the society this Court directs the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Islamic Republic of Pakistan to direct its Permanent Ambassador to the United Nations at its Headquarter in New York to present a resolution in the General Assembly of United Nations, in context with the United Nations Resolution, “Combating Defamation of Religions” conveying the hurt and discomfort suffered by the majority population of Pakistan by the publication and promotion of such blasphemous material on “Facebook”.
> 
>  
> 15.       This Court directs the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Government of Pakistan to comply with the above mentioned directions of this Court in letter and spirit by the next date of hearing and to submit a written and official copy of this direction given to the Permanent Ambassador of Islamic Republic of Pakistan to the United Nations regarding the presentation of a resolution to the United Nations General Assembly conveying  the hurt and discomfort suffered by the majority population of Islamic Republic of Pakistan by publication and promotion of such blasphemous material on “Facebook”.
> 
>  
> 16.       In case of non-compliance of these above mentioned directions of this Court by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Islamic Republic of Pakistan in relation to specific directions to the Permanent Ambassador of Islamic Republic of Pakistan to the United Nations to present a resolution in the General Assembly of United Nations, conveying the hurt and discomfort suffered by the majority population of Islamic Republic of Pakistan by publication and promotion of such blasphemous material on “Facebook” the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Islamic Republic of Pakistan has to appear in this Court in person to explain why he has not complied with the directions of this Court in exact letter and spirit.
> 
>  
> 17.       The Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Islamic Republic of Pakistan through fax, today.
> 
>  
> 18.               To come up on 15.06.2010.
> 
>                                                                                                          Sd/-
> 
>                                          (Ijaz Ahmad Chaudhry)
> 
>                                                        Judge 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Dr. Hong Xue
> Professor of Law
> Director of Institute for the Internet Policy & Law (IIPL)
> Beijing Normal University
> http://www.cdnua.org/
> 19 Xin Jie Kou Wai Street
> Beijing 100875 China
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

***********************************************************
William J. Drake
Senior Associate
Centre for International Governance
Graduate Institute of International and
 Development Studies
Geneva, Switzerland
william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch
www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html
www.linkedin.com/in/williamjdrake
***********************************************************


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100604/e9f5975e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de  Fri Jun  4 06:04:43 2010
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=)
Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2010 12:04:43 +0200
Subject: AW: [governance] Pakistan Facebook Detailed Order
References: <AANLkTimR2tLthk9ozeHjgX4z8CjWJGGHMfff0rewkrqK@mail.gmail.com>
 <AANLkTinvnjw43nhUJkEcZHXyzjkmCA9CaSbYvLeNu9OA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CC5DE087-6B5E-4AF2-BD46-0D8E599636F0@graduateinstitute.ch>
Message-ID:  <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A06CBF@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

Hi
 
good discussion.
 
1. UN Resolutions are NOT binding instruments and do not constitute "international law".  They express the political position of the majority of UN member states (you need simple majority in the UN General Assembly to get it adopted) and it can be used - as Bill has outlined - to support politically your position. But this has no legal meaning for other UN member sates.
 
2. Interestingly, the very often forgotten Articles of Incorproation of ICANN make a clear reference to internaitonal law and internaitonal conventions as you can see here: 

 

"4. The Corporation shall operate for the benefit of the Internet community as a whole, carrying out its activities in conformity with relevant principles of international law and applicable international conventions and local law and, to the extent appropriate and consistent with these Articles and its Bylaws, through open and transparent processes that enable competition and open entry in Internet-related markets. To this effect, the Corporation shall cooperate as appropriate with relevant international organizations."

More comments are welcome

Wolfgang


________________________________

Von: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch]
Gesendet: Fr 04.06.2010 10:21
An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Hong Xue
Cc: Fouad Bajwa
Betreff: Re: [governance] Pakistan Facebook Detailed Order


Hi Hong 

On Jun 4, 2010, at 4:47 AM, Hong Xue wrote:



	Many thanks for posting this. It exposes us a new dimension of international law and enforcement in the context of Internet governance. 
	
	A Court in a sovereign state referred to the United Nations Resolution on, "Combating Defamation of Religious", No..62/154 as the source of international law and ordered the "Permanent Ambassador of Islamic Republic of Pakistan to the United Nations to present a resolution in the General Assembly of United Nations." 
	


The government that sponsored the non-binding resolution citing it as a source of international law is not too surprising.  But more countries voted against or abstained than supported it; whether they or any international court would have the same interpretation is open to question.  Which is not to say that it can't be used politically, especially to justify national-level actions.

	
	It deserves a careful thinking what the role of pubic international law plays in the Internet Governance.
	


Agree.  Also the emergence of world-wide censorship driven by non-state as well as state actors.  Interesting times...

Best

Bill


	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 6:38 AM, Fouad Bajwa <fouadbajwa at gmail.com> wrote:
	

		Facebook ban was lifted in Pakistan on the 1st of June 2010. The following court orders and proceedings are being shared for information purposes only. A special thank you note to Barrister Zahid Jamil for sharing this elsewhere. Zahid also clarified that the text below has not been proofed or checked by him nor has it been checked by anyone else for typos and hence should not be relied upon as official/authoritative text of the order and is a best effort on someone's part to quickly type out a copy of the order. He made this available under this understanding and under a complete disclaimer from any liability as to its use by anyone.  
		

		Form No: HCJD/C-121 

		ORDER SHEET

		IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE

		JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

		
		 

		Writ Petition No.10392 of 2010

		Islamic Lawyers Movement

		Petitioner

		Versus

		Federation of Pakistan and three others

		 Respondents

		
		

S. No. of

Order/

Proceeding

Date of order/

Proceeding

Order with signature of Judge, and that of parties or counsel, where necessary

		
		 

		03)                        31.05.2010             M/s. Zulfiqar Ahmed and Muhammad

		                                                            Azhar Siddique, Advocates for the 

		                                                            Petitioner.

		                                                            Mr. Naveed Inayat Malik, Deputy

		                                                            Attorney-General for the Respondents 

		                                                            with Mudassar Hussain, Director,

		                                                            Telecom Wireless.

		
		

		             As per the directions of this Court vide order dated 19.05.2010 the Ministry of Foreign affairs on its directions contacted the Embassy of Pakistan in the United States of America.  The Embassy of Pakistan in United States of America, at "3517 International Court, NW. WASHINGTON, D.C. 2008, Tel: (202) 243-6500," represented the following to the United States Department of State.

		
		 

		"No. Pol-4/2/10                                                                                21 May 2010

		
		 

		            The Embassy of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan presents its compliments to the Unites State Department State and has the honor to lodge a protest over the holding of a blasphemes contests, "EVERYBODY DRAW MUHAMMAD DAY" by the website "Facebook" and its affiliates.  The announcement of this contest has immensely hurt and discomforted the people and the Government of Pakistan.  It was also deliberately and recklessly enraged millions of Muslims in Pakistan and globally, who attach an immense sanctity to the very holy and sacred status of Prophet Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him).

		
		 

		            It is the understanding of the Government of Pakistan that as per the laws of commerce and Business, the website 'Facebook' is governed by the legal jurisdiction of the United States of America.  Accordingly, the Government of Pakistan strongly urges the Government of the United States of America to take effective measure to prevent, stop or block this blasphemous contest immediately.  

		
		 

		            The Embassy of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the United States Department of State the assurances of its highest consideration.

		
		 

		The US Department of State

		Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs,

		(Mr. Brent R. Hartley,

		Director, Pakistan-Bangladesh Desk),

		2201, C. Street, NW,

		Washington, DC 20520.

		Fax: 202-647-3001.

		
		 

		2.         The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Islamic Republic of Pakistan received the above stated protest via a fax message No.Pol.4/2/10 dated 21st May 2010 from the Embassy of Islamic Republic of Pakistan which mentioned the Ministry of Foreign Affairs fax message "No.AS(Americas)-1/2010 dated 20th May 2010" stating that an official protest was lodged with the United States Government Department of State.

		
		 

		3.         The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Islamic Republic of Pakistan submitted its reply to the Deputy Attorney-General of Pakistan Mr. Naveed Inayat Malik as under:-

		
		 

		MOST IMMEDIATE

		25 May 2010

		
		 

		"No.DG (Americas)-1/2010

		
		 

		SUBJECT:      W.P. NO.10392/10-TITLED ISLAMIC

		                        LAWYERS MOVEMENT, VS. FOP ETC.

		                        IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE.

		
		 
		
		 

		            Please refer to this Ministry's letter of even number dated 21 May 2010 on the above subject.

		            As directed by the Honourable Lahore High Court order, our Embassy in Washington was instructed to lodge an official protest with the U.S. Department of State, which was done on 21 May 2010.  A copy of the protest note is submitted for information of the Honourable Court.

		            While expressing the feelings of immense discomfort and hurt felt by the Government and the people of Pakistan about the contest, the U.S. Government was strongly urged to take effective measures to prevent, stop or block this blasphemous contest immediately.

		            President Obama's Special Representative for Pakistan and Afghanistan Mr. Richard Holbrooke, in his meeting with our Ambassador, conveyed that the U.S. Department of State recognized the sensitivities about the issue and also admitted that many of the images that appeared on the Facebook were "{deeply offensive" and that the U.S. Government was deeply concerned about any deliberate attempt to offend Muslims or members of any other religious groups.  

		
		 

		Yours sincerely,

		
		 

		(Sohail Khan)

		Director General (Americas)

		
		 

		Encl: As above.

		
		 

		Mr. Naveed Inayat Malik,

		Deputy Attorney General of Pakistan

		High Court Building

		Lahore."

		
		 
		
		 

		4.         While respondents No.3 and 4 have also submitted written reply which is reproduced as under:

		
		 

		That his Hon'ble High Court through the letter dated 18th May, 2010 of the Deputy Attorney-General for Pakistan Mr. Naveed Inayat Malik forwarded the copy of the captioned petition of Islamic Lawyer Movement regarding the issue of, "Every Body Draw Muhammad Day" on the website namely "Facebook" and thereby requiring the answering Respondents No.3 and 4 to submit report and parawise comments in the instant matter.

		 

		2.         "That pursuant to the directions of this Hon'ble High Court communicated to the answering respondents No.3 nd 4 by the Ministry of Information Technology (MoIT) vide letter No.5-1/2005-DFU, dated 18th May, 2010 and requiring the answering Respondents to block the mentioned website on Universal Resource Locator (URL) level immediately and to inform the MoIT accordingly.  Soon upon the receipt of said directions the answering Respondents, i.e. PTA in respectful compliance of this Hon'ble High Court's directions dated 18th May 2010, issued directions vide letter No.2-Misc/2010/Enf/PTA dated 18th May, 2010 to all Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to immediately block the mentioned Website at URL level and continuously monitor the same to ensure compliant with the instructions of the Authority (Copies of said MoIT and PTA's letters are annexed as Annexure "A" & "B").

		 

		3.         That on the next day MoIT vide letter No.5-1/2005-DFU dated 19th May, 2010 required the answering respondents to block mentioned website on Internet Protocol (IP) level immediately.  Pursuant to this direction of MoIT, the answering respondents again issued directions vide letter No.2-Misc/2010/Enf/PTA dated 19th May, 2010 to all ISPs to immediately block the mentioned Website at IP level and continuously monitor the same to ensure compliance with the instructions of the Authority (copies of said MoIT and PTA's letters are annexed as Annexure "C" & "D").  It is worth mentioning here that the answering Respondents, with the aim and objective of sound/secure enforcement and compliance of this Hon'ble Court's directions in the instant matter of grave concern of all the citizen of Pakistan established a dedicated "Crises Cell" exclusively working/monitoring on 24 hrs basis to observe the directions in true letter and spirit.  It is also worthy pointing out here that the answering Respondents, while mindful of this Hon'ble Court's directions in the instant manner and during the course of monitoring of the mentioned Website, found that the mentioned website was accessible from the Mobile Black Berry Service (MBBS) as the main control of this service is outside the country.  Accordingly, MBBS was blocked by answering Respondents on 20th May, 2010 at 12:30 a.m. with a view to block access to the mentioned Website in Pakistan.  However, MBBS was later restored only for the e-mail access and not for the Internet Surfing.  In addition, the answering Respondents during the course of strict monitoring found that majority of objectionable contents was reported on "YouTube" Website, leaving the answering Respondents with no other option but to block the viewing of "YouTube" Website also in Pakistasn.  This fact was intimated to MoIT by the answering Respondents vide letter No.10/12/Dir(ICT)PTA/10 dated 20th May, 2010, as the subject of "Content Regulation" does not fall within the domain of answering Respondents (Copy of said PTA's letter annexed as Annexure "E").

		 

		4.         That the answering Respondents, in respectful compliance of this Hon'ble High Court's directions and the MoIT's directives to, have blocked up until now a total of 10,548 web-links (approximately) either hosting the objectionable contents or providing access to the same mentioned blasphemous contents.  As mentioned earlier, till date two websites namely http://www.facebook.com <http://www.facebook.com/>  and http://www.youtube.com <http://www.youtube.com/>  have been completely blocked in Pakistan.  The complete blocking of "YouTube" was done because of the number of objectionable links be increased to such an extent that PTA had no option but to block the whole website.

		 

		5.         It also worth considering here that the answering respondents on their own have no authority to cause blocking of any website(s) rather it has to follow the decision/directions of Inter-ministerial Committee for Evaluation of Offensive Websites, formed by the Prime Minister of Pakistan in the year 2006.  The meetings of the committee are held in MoIT on regular basis, wherein it reviews the cases and complaints received with regard to offensive website and grant approval for blocking of the same.  As a consequence, the answering Respondents cause blocking of such websites as and when communicated through MoIT.

		 

		6.         The following report is hereby submitted in respectful compliance of the aforementioned orders/directions of this Hon'ble High Court. 

		 

		5.         That due to the immediate and efficient response of the concerned Departments of the Government of Islamic Republic of Pakistan the blasphemous contents published on the portal "Facebook" was blocked and the access to the portal "Facebook" was blocked for its subscribers and non-subscribers in the territory of Islamic Republic of Pakistan with immediate effect.  After perusing the above said steps taken by the Foreign Ministry for lodging an official and sovereign protest to the United States of America's Department of State as well as reply submitted by Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Information Technology (IT & Telecom Division) this Court feels that some effective measure in respect of publication of blasphemous contest have been taken.  Thus, the order regarding blockage of website URL, http://www.facebook.com <http://www.facebook.com/>  is recalled.

		
		 

		6.         Although the efficient and effective measures of the Government of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, considering the sensitivity of the core issue, are worthy of praise and appreciation, this Court objectively reserves considerable apprehensions regarding a lack of effective mechanisms which could ensure avoidance of any such like events occurring in future, leading to unrest and chaos in the society.

		
		 

		7.         There are many and numerous countries with majority Muslim populations who have many sustainable and effective mechanisms in place which block or deny, to the general public, access to such blasphemous contents.  The example of such countries could include the countries of majority of Muslim population in Middle East and Asia.

		
		 

		8.         This Court directs PTA, MoIT and all other related and concerned authorities, dealing with regulation and monitoring of telecommunication and internet access to the general public, to come up with effective monitoring control and implementation guidelines regarding access towards such blasphemous contents over the internet.  As a matter of reference these guidelines could be borrowed from the telecommunication and internet regulatory authorities of the above mentioned countries.

		
		 

		9.         It should be made clear to PTA and MoIT authorities that a contextual summary of effective monitoring, control and implementation guidelines regarding access to such blasphemous and objectionable contents available over the internet should be submitted to this Court  in a the detailed, comprehensive and written format by the next date of hearing. 

		
		 

		10.       There are now available International Regulations regarding the publication of blasphemous contents.  The United Nations Resolution on, "Combating Defamation of Religious", No..62/154, reproduced as per the official data available regarding this Resolution on the United Nations portal was came into force on 181.12.2007.  This Resolution came into its final structure vide a Resolution, "A/C 3/62/L.35, reproduced as per the official data regarding this Resolution on United Nations portal was presented and voted at on 20th November 2007 with 95 votes in favour, 52 against and 30 absentees.  Thus, passing the resolution and making it part of the International Law regime.  The Government of Islamic Republic of Pakistan and other countries of Muslim majority voted in favour of this resolution.

		
		 

		11.       The genesis of this resolution, "Combating of Defamation of Religious", which deals with laws governing the effective control of Anti-Religious materials publication in the individual countries, had its origins in the 1999 Organization of Islamic Countries (OIC) Conference where Pakistan drafted and presented the resolution, "Combating Defamation of Islam", which was passed by the delegates present at the conference.  The title of this resolution was subsequently changed to, "Combating Defamation of Religions" to broaden the scope and implications.  Since 1999, this resolution "Combating Defamation of Religions" was presented at the United Nations Human Rights Commission.  In 2005 a parallel resolution was presented at the General Assembly of the United Nations as well.  The resolution "Combating Defamation of Religions" came into in its present state when the Government of Islamic Republic of Pakistan and other countries of Muslim majority population who wanted and to inform and enlighten the world regarding the deeply sentimental and sensitive perspectives of there majority population regarding publications of Anti-Religious and blasphemous contents.  These countries comprising of majority Muslim population resolved and worked together to formulate an international regime administering the publication of Anti-Religious and blasphemous contents, which would to govern the future conduct of States and individuals regarding the publication of Anti-Religious and blasphemous contents.  Although this above mentioned resolution is non-binding in nature, still the critics of this resolution hypothesize its far reaching consequences to be a deliberate attempt to regulate not just the lives of individuals but also the context, thus, breaching an individual's universally accepted rights of freedom of expression and speech.

		
		 

		12.       That it would be pertinent to mention that the cannons of Islam do not prohibit or limit any individual's right to freedom of expression and speech rather it cumulates the phrase "Your liberty ends where the nose of other person starts", meaning thereby that any right to freedom of expression and speech of one person would not prejudice the right of self respect and dignity of the other person.

		
		 

		13.       The core issue involved in this matter is the publication and advertisement of blasphemous material which was viewed as a deliberate or reckless attempt to malign the very holy and sanctimonious stature of Prophet of Islam, Hazrat Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him), on "Facebook".  This had deeply hurt and emotionally injured individual and collective sentiments of hundreds of millions of Muslims not just living in the geographical territory of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Keeping in view this deeply sensitive e and emotional attachment the majority population of Islamic Republic of Pakistan experiences towards the Prophet of Islam, Hazrat Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him), any regulations made for the protection of there deeply sensitive and emotional sentiments should not be viewed as in conflict with and individual's universally accepted rights of freedom, expressions and speech.

		
		 

		14.       Keeping in view the protection of deeply sensitive and emotional values of the majority population of Pakistan, and for the purpose of keeping harmony and peace in the society this Court directs the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Islamic Republic of Pakistan to direct its Permanent Ambassador to the United Nations at its Headquarter in New York to present a resolution in the General Assembly of United Nations, in context with the United Nations Resolution, "Combating Defamation of Religions" conveying the hurt and discomfort suffered by the majority population of Pakistan by the publication and promotion of such blasphemous material on "Facebook".

		
		 

		15.       This Court directs the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Government of Pakistan to comply with the above mentioned directions of this Court in letter and spirit by the next date of hearing and to submit a written and official copy of this direction given to the Permanent Ambassador of Islamic Republic of Pakistan to the United Nations regarding the presentation of a resolution to the United Nations General Assembly conveying  the hurt and discomfort suffered by the majority population of Islamic Republic of Pakistan by publication and promotion of such blasphemous material on "Facebook".

		
		 

		16.       In case of non-compliance of these above mentioned directions of this Court by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Islamic Republic of Pakistan in relation to specific directions to the Permanent Ambassador of Islamic Republic of Pakistan to the United Nations to present a resolution in the General Assembly of United Nations, conveying the hurt and discomfort suffered by the majority population of Islamic Republic of Pakistan by publication and promotion of such blasphemous material on "Facebook" the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Islamic Republic of Pakistan has to appear in this Court in person to explain why he has not complied with the directions of this Court in exact letter and spirit.

		
		 

		17.       The Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Islamic Republic of Pakistan through fax, today.

		
		 

		18.               To come up on 15.06.2010.

		                                                                                                         Sd/-

		                                         (Ijaz Ahmad Chaudhry)

		                                                       Judge 


		____________________________________________________________
		You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
		    governance at lists.cpsr.org
		To be removed from the list, send any message to:
		    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
		
		For all list information and functions, see:
		    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
		
		Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
		




	-- 
	Dr. Hong Xue
	Professor of Law
	Director of Institute for the Internet Policy & Law (IIPL)
	Beijing Normal University
	http://www.cdnua.org/
	19 Xin Jie Kou Wai Street
	Beijing 100875 China
	
	____________________________________________________________
	You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
	    governance at lists.cpsr.org
	To be removed from the list, send any message to:
	    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
	
	For all list information and functions, see:
	    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
	
	Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


***********************************************************
William J. Drake
Senior Associate
Centre for International Governance
Graduate Institute of International and
 Development Studies
Geneva, Switzerland
william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch
www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html
www.linkedin.com/in/williamjdrake
***********************************************************



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

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

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

From jeremy at ciroap.org  Fri Jun  4 07:57:04 2010
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2010 19:57:04 +0800
Subject: [governance] [1 of 6] Has the work of the MAG been consistent with
 the mandate set out in the Tunis Agenda and subsequent decisions?
Message-ID: <DA7DB4D7-3747-4686-BDDD-2F211A8ACA90@ciroap.org>

The MAG has put out a request for comments (at http://intgovforum.org/cms/the-preparatory-process/510) on improvements to the MAG and other IGF preparatory processes.  The IGC coordinators are now commencing one thread per question for discussion of the issues raised.  The results will go towards the development of a statement in due course.  This message is to kick off the first of the six threads.  The next thread will begin once this one is sufficiently advanced.

Has the work of the MAG been consistent with the mandate set out in the Tunis Agenda and subsequent decisions?

Background points for the assistance of newcomers:

The Tunis Agenda simply called for the UN Secretary-General to "establish an effective and cost-efficient bureau to support the IGF, ensuring multi-stakeholder participation."
Most of the important "subsequent decisions" made about its structure and working methods were made in February-March 2006.
There were to have been "about 40" members, though this has crept up to 57 currently.
The members of the MAG are appointed by the UN Secretary-General, based on nominations from stakeholders.  No formal application criteria have ever been posted.
The balance between members from government, the private sector, general civil society and the technical community favours government and the technical community.
The Chair ex officio is the UN Secretary-General's advisor on Internet governance issues.  
The MAG meets several times per year in Geneva, in private sessions - though intergovernmental observers attend freely.  Most members attend at their own expense.
Meetings utilise the "Chatham House" rule whereby statements made in the meetings can be repeated outside, but not the identities of the speakers.
There is a closed electronic mailing list, anonymised excerpts from which are posted online periodically.
So far, the MAG's work has mainly consisted of agenda-setting for the annual IGF meeting and the selection of speakers. Decisions on these matters are made by rough consensus as declared by the Chair.
The MAG has not taken any significant roles outside of the above, such as  developing outputs for the IGF or liaising with external institutions.
Formally, the MAG's role is simply to advise the UN Secretary-General and does not exercise any authority on its own behalf.

So questions to be addressed in this thread include:

Are we happy with the above arrangements?
How could they be improved?

Let the discussion commence.

-- 
Jeremy Malcolm
Project Coordinator
Consumers International
Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East
Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Tel: +60 3 7726 1599

CI is 50
Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010.
Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer rights around the world. 
http://www.consumersinternational.org/50

Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100604/395af339/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From hongxueipr at gmail.com  Fri Jun  4 09:50:48 2010
From: hongxueipr at gmail.com (Hong Xue)
Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2010 21:50:48 +0800
Subject: [governance] Pakistan Facebook Detailed Order
In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A06CBF@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <AANLkTimR2tLthk9ozeHjgX4z8CjWJGGHMfff0rewkrqK@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTinvnjw43nhUJkEcZHXyzjkmCA9CaSbYvLeNu9OA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CC5DE087-6B5E-4AF2-BD46-0D8E599636F0@graduateinstitute.ch>
	<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A06CBF@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <AANLkTim4CLQN56aqfII5X9hv6cWYmOhgCXZ9te_Ub3MB@mail.gmail.com>

Bill and Wolfgang,

You both are absolutely right. UN resolutions are NOT the source of
international law.

According to the Statute of International Court of Justice, the
International Court of Justice shall apply the following sources of
law, ranked in order of precedence:

    a. international conventions, whether general or particular,
establishing rules expressly recognized by the contesting states;

    b. international custom, as evidence of a general practice accepted as law;

    c. the general principles of law recognized by civilized nations;

    d. subject to the provisions of Article 59, judicial decisions and
the teachings of the most highly qualified publicists of the various
nations, as subsidiary means for the determination of rules of law.

Apart from this, it is still rare for a judicial body to order the
diplomats to present a "resolution" at UN as a measure to enforce the
domestic law. Isn't extraterritorial?


Hong


2010/6/4 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"
<wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>:
> Hi
>
> good discussion.
>
> 1. UN Resolutions are NOT binding instruments and do not constitute "international law".  They express the political position of the majority of UN member states (you need simple majority in the UN General Assembly to get it adopted) and it can be used - as Bill has outlined - to support politically your position. But this has no legal meaning for other UN member sates.
>
> 2. Interestingly, the very often forgotten Articles of Incorproation of ICANN make a clear reference to internaitonal law and internaitonal conventions as you can see here:
>
>
>
> "4. The Corporation shall operate for the benefit of the Internet community as a whole, carrying out its activities in conformity with relevant principles of international law and applicable international conventions and local law and, to the extent appropriate and consistent with these Articles and its Bylaws, through open and transparent processes that enable competition and open entry in Internet-related markets. To this effect, the Corporation shall cooperate as appropriate with relevant international organizations."
>
> More comments are welcome
>
> Wolfgang
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> Von: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch]
> Gesendet: Fr 04.06.2010 10:21
> An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Hong Xue
> Cc: Fouad Bajwa
> Betreff: Re: [governance] Pakistan Facebook Detailed Order
>
>
> Hi Hong
>
> On Jun 4, 2010, at 4:47 AM, Hong Xue wrote:
>
>
>
>        Many thanks for posting this. It exposes us a new dimension of international law and enforcement in the context of Internet governance.
>
>        A Court in a sovereign state referred to the United Nations Resolution on, "Combating Defamation of Religious", No..62/154 as the source of international law and ordered the "Permanent Ambassador of Islamic Republic of Pakistan to the United Nations to present a resolution in the General Assembly of United Nations."
>
>
>
> The government that sponsored the non-binding resolution citing it as a source of international law is not too surprising.  But more countries voted against or abstained than supported it; whether they or any international court would have the same interpretation is open to question.  Which is not to say that it can't be used politically, especially to justify national-level actions.
>
>
>        It deserves a careful thinking what the role of pubic international law plays in the Internet Governance.
>
>
>
> Agree.  Also the emergence of world-wide censorship driven by non-state as well as state actors.  Interesting times...
>
> Best
>
> Bill
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>        On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 6:38 AM, Fouad Bajwa <fouadbajwa at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>                Facebook ban was lifted in Pakistan on the 1st of June 2010. The following court orders and proceedings are being shared for information purposes only. A special thank you note to Barrister Zahid Jamil for sharing this elsewhere. Zahid also clarified that the text below has not been proofed or checked by him nor has it been checked by anyone else for typos and hence should not be relied upon as official/authoritative text of the order and is a best effort on someone's part to quickly type out a copy of the order. He made this available under this understanding and under a complete disclaimer from any liability as to its use by anyone.
>
>
>                Form No: HCJD/C-121
>
>                ORDER SHEET
>
>                IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE
>
>                JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
>
>
>
>
>                Writ Petition No.10392 of 2010
>
>                Islamic Lawyers Movement
>
>                Petitioner
>
>                Versus
>
>                Federation of Pakistan and three others
>
>                 Respondents
>
>
>
>
> S. No. of
>
> Order/
>
> Proceeding
>
> Date of order/
>
> Proceeding
>
> Order with signature of Judge, and that of parties or counsel, where necessary
>
>
>
>
>                03)                        31.05.2010             M/s. Zulfiqar Ahmed and Muhammad
>
>                                                                            Azhar Siddique, Advocates for the
>
>                                                                            Petitioner.
>
>                                                                            Mr. Naveed Inayat Malik, Deputy
>
>                                                                            Attorney-General for the Respondents
>
>                                                                            with Mudassar Hussain, Director,
>
>                                                                            Telecom Wireless.
>
>
>
>
>                             As per the directions of this Court vide order dated 19.05.2010 the Ministry of Foreign affairs on its directions contacted the Embassy of Pakistan in the United States of America.  The Embassy of Pakistan in United States of America, at "3517 International Court, NW. WASHINGTON, D.C. 2008, Tel: (202) 243-6500," represented the following to the United States Department of State.
>
>
>
>
>                "No. Pol-4/2/10                                                                                21 May 2010
>
>
>
>
>                            The Embassy of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan presents its compliments to the Unites State Department State and has the honor to lodge a protest over the holding of a blasphemes contests, "EVERYBODY DRAW MUHAMMAD DAY" by the website "Facebook" and its affiliates.  The announcement of this contest has immensely hurt and discomforted the people and the Government of Pakistan.  It was also deliberately and recklessly enraged millions of Muslims in Pakistan and globally, who attach an immense sanctity to the very holy and sacred status of Prophet Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him).
>
>
>
>
>                            It is the understanding of the Government of Pakistan that as per the laws of commerce and Business, the website 'Facebook' is governed by the legal jurisdiction of the United States of America.  Accordingly, the Government of Pakistan strongly urges the Government of the United States of America to take effective measure to prevent, stop or block this blasphemous contest immediately.
>
>
>
>
>                            The Embassy of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the United States Department of State the assurances of its highest consideration.
>
>
>
>
>                The US Department of State
>
>                Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs,
>
>                (Mr. Brent R. Hartley,
>
>                Director, Pakistan-Bangladesh Desk),
>
>                2201, C. Street, NW,
>
>                Washington, DC 20520.
>
>                Fax: 202-647-3001.
>
>
>
>
>                2.         The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Islamic Republic of Pakistan received the above stated protest via a fax message No.Pol.4/2/10 dated 21st May 2010 from the Embassy of Islamic Republic of Pakistan which mentioned the Ministry of Foreign Affairs fax message "No.AS(Americas)-1/2010 dated 20th May 2010" stating that an official protest was lodged with the United States Government Department of State.
>
>
>
>
>                3.         The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Islamic Republic of Pakistan submitted its reply to the Deputy Attorney-General of Pakistan Mr. Naveed Inayat Malik as under:-
>
>
>
>
>                MOST IMMEDIATE
>
>                25 May 2010
>
>
>
>
>                "No.DG (Americas)-1/2010
>
>
>
>
>                SUBJECT:      W.P. NO.10392/10-TITLED ISLAMIC
>
>                                        LAWYERS MOVEMENT, VS. FOP ETC.
>
>                                        IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>                            Please refer to this Ministry's letter of even number dated 21 May 2010 on the above subject.
>
>                            As directed by the Honourable Lahore High Court order, our Embassy in Washington was instructed to lodge an official protest with the U.S. Department of State, which was done on 21 May 2010.  A copy of the protest note is submitted for information of the Honourable Court.
>
>                            While expressing the feelings of immense discomfort and hurt felt by the Government and the people of Pakistan about the contest, the U.S. Government was strongly urged to take effective measures to prevent, stop or block this blasphemous contest immediately.
>
>                            President Obama's Special Representative for Pakistan and Afghanistan Mr. Richard Holbrooke, in his meeting with our Ambassador, conveyed that the U.S. Department of State recognized the sensitivities about the issue and also admitted that many of the images that appeared on the Facebook were "{deeply offensive" and that the U.S. Government was deeply concerned about any deliberate attempt to offend Muslims or members of any other religious groups.
>
>
>
>
>                Yours sincerely,
>
>
>
>
>                (Sohail Khan)
>
>                Director General (Americas)
>
>
>
>
>                Encl: As above.
>
>
>
>
>                Mr. Naveed Inayat Malik,
>
>                Deputy Attorney General of Pakistan
>
>                High Court Building
>
>                Lahore."
>
>
>
>
>
>
>                4.         While respondents No.3 and 4 have also submitted written reply which is reproduced as under:
>
>
>
>
>                That his Hon'ble High Court through the letter dated 18th May, 2010 of the Deputy Attorney-General for Pakistan Mr. Naveed Inayat Malik forwarded the copy of the captioned petition of Islamic Lawyer Movement regarding the issue of, "Every Body Draw Muhammad Day" on the website namely "Facebook" and thereby requiring the answering Respondents No.3 and 4 to submit report and parawise comments in the instant matter.
>
>
>
>                2.         "That pursuant to the directions of this Hon'ble High Court communicated to the answering respondents No.3 nd 4 by the Ministry of Information Technology (MoIT) vide letter No.5-1/2005-DFU, dated 18th May, 2010 and requiring the answering Respondents to block the mentioned website on Universal Resource Locator (URL) level immediately and to inform the MoIT accordingly.  Soon upon the receipt of said directions the answering Respondents, i.e. PTA in respectful compliance of this Hon'ble High Court's directions dated 18th May 2010, issued directions vide letter No.2-Misc/2010/Enf/PTA dated 18th May, 2010 to all Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to immediately block the mentioned Website at URL level and continuously monitor the same to ensure compliant with the instructions of the Authority (Copies of said MoIT and PTA's letters are annexed as Annexure "A" & "B").
>
>
>
>                3.         That on the next day MoIT vide letter No.5-1/2005-DFU dated 19th May, 2010 required the answering respondents to block mentioned website on Internet Protocol (IP) level immediately.  Pursuant to this direction of MoIT, the answering respondents again issued directions vide letter No.2-Misc/2010/Enf/PTA dated 19th May, 2010 to all ISPs to immediately block the mentioned Website at IP level and continuously monitor the same to ensure compliance with the instructions of the Authority (copies of said MoIT and PTA's letters are annexed as Annexure "C" & "D").  It is worth mentioning here that the answering Respondents, with the aim and objective of sound/secure enforcement and compliance of this Hon'ble Court's directions in the instant matter of grave concern of all the citizen of Pakistan established a dedicated "Crises Cell" exclusively working/monitoring on 24 hrs basis to observe the directions in true letter and spirit.  It is also worthy pointing out here that the answering Respondents, while mindful of this Hon'ble Court's directions in the instant manner and during the course of monitoring of the mentioned Website, found that the mentioned website was accessible from the Mobile Black Berry Service (MBBS) as the main control of this service is outside the country.  Accordingly, MBBS was blocked by answering Respondents on 20th May, 2010 at 12:30 a.m. with a view to block access to the mentioned Website in Pakistan.  However, MBBS was later restored only for the e-mail access and not for the Internet Surfing.  In addition, the answering Respondents during the course of strict monitoring found that majority of objectionable contents was reported on "YouTube" Website, leaving the answering Respondents with no other option but to block the viewing of "YouTube" Website also in Pakistasn.  This fact was intimated to MoIT by the answering Respondents vide letter No.10/12/Dir(ICT)PTA/10 dated 20th May, 2010, as the subject of "Content Regulation" does not fall within the domain of answering Respondents (Copy of said PTA's letter annexed as Annexure "E").
>
>
>
>                4.         That the answering Respondents, in respectful compliance of this Hon'ble High Court's directions and the MoIT's directives to, have blocked up until now a total of 10,548 web-links (approximately) either hosting the objectionable contents or providing access to the same mentioned blasphemous contents.  As mentioned earlier, till date two websites namely http://www.facebook.com <http://www.facebook.com/>  and http://www.youtube.com <http://www.youtube.com/>  have been completely blocked in Pakistan.  The complete blocking of "YouTube" was done because of the number of objectionable links be increased to such an extent that PTA had no option but to block the whole website.
>
>
>
>                5.         It also worth considering here that the answering respondents on their own have no authority to cause blocking of any website(s) rather it has to follow the decision/directions of Inter-ministerial Committee for Evaluation of Offensive Websites, formed by the Prime Minister of Pakistan in the year 2006.  The meetings of the committee are held in MoIT on regular basis, wherein it reviews the cases and complaints received with regard to offensive website and grant approval for blocking of the same.  As a consequence, the answering Respondents cause blocking of such websites as and when communicated through MoIT.
>
>
>
>                6.         The following report is hereby submitted in respectful compliance of the aforementioned orders/directions of this Hon'ble High Court.
>
>
>
>                5.         That due to the immediate and efficient response of the concerned Departments of the Government of Islamic Republic of Pakistan the blasphemous contents published on the portal "Facebook" was blocked and the access to the portal "Facebook" was blocked for its subscribers and non-subscribers in the territory of Islamic Republic of Pakistan with immediate effect.  After perusing the above said steps taken by the Foreign Ministry for lodging an official and sovereign protest to the United States of America's Department of State as well as reply submitted by Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Information Technology (IT & Telecom Division) this Court feels that some effective measure in respect of publication of blasphemous contest have been taken.  Thus, the order regarding blockage of website URL, http://www.facebook.com <http://www.facebook.com/>  is recalled.
>
>
>
>
>                6.         Although the efficient and effective measures of the Government of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, considering the sensitivity of the core issue, are worthy of praise and appreciation, this Court objectively reserves considerable apprehensions regarding a lack of effective mechanisms which could ensure avoidance of any such like events occurring in future, leading to unrest and chaos in the society.
>
>
>
>
>                7.         There are many and numerous countries with majority Muslim populations who have many sustainable and effective mechanisms in place which block or deny, to the general public, access to such blasphemous contents.  The example of such countries could include the countries of majority of Muslim population in Middle East and Asia.
>
>
>
>
>                8.         This Court directs PTA, MoIT and all other related and concerned authorities, dealing with regulation and monitoring of telecommunication and internet access to the general public, to come up with effective monitoring control and implementation guidelines regarding access towards such blasphemous contents over the internet.  As a matter of reference these guidelines could be borrowed from the telecommunication and internet regulatory authorities of the above mentioned countries.
>
>
>
>
>                9.         It should be made clear to PTA and MoIT authorities that a contextual summary of effective monitoring, control and implementation guidelines regarding access to such blasphemous and objectionable contents available over the internet should be submitted to this Court  in a the detailed, comprehensive and written format by the next date of hearing.
>
>
>
>
>                10.       There are now available International Regulations regarding the publication of blasphemous contents.  The United Nations Resolution on, "Combating Defamation of Religious", No..62/154, reproduced as per the official data available regarding this Resolution on the United Nations portal was came into force on 181.12.2007.  This Resolution came into its final structure vide a Resolution, "A/C 3/62/L.35, reproduced as per the official data regarding this Resolution on United Nations portal was presented and voted at on 20th November 2007 with 95 votes in favour, 52 against and 30 absentees.  Thus, passing the resolution and making it part of the International Law regime.  The Government of Islamic Republic of Pakistan and other countries of Muslim majority voted in favour of this resolution.
>
>
>
>
>                11.       The genesis of this resolution, "Combating of Defamation of Religious", which deals with laws governing the effective control of Anti-Religious materials publication in the individual countries, had its origins in the 1999 Organization of Islamic Countries (OIC) Conference where Pakistan drafted and presented the resolution, "Combating Defamation of Islam", which was passed by the delegates present at the conference.  The title of this resolution was subsequently changed to, "Combating Defamation of Religions" to broaden the scope and implications.  Since 1999, this resolution "Combating Defamation of Religions" was presented at the United Nations Human Rights Commission.  In 2005 a parallel resolution was presented at the General Assembly of the United Nations as well.  The resolution "Combating Defamation of Religions" came into in its present state when the Government of Islamic Republic of Pakistan and other countries of Muslim majority population who wanted and to inform and enlighten the world regarding the deeply sentimental and sensitive perspectives of there majority population regarding publications of Anti-Religious and blasphemous contents.  These countries comprising of majority Muslim population resolved and worked together to formulate an international regime administering the publication of Anti-Religious and blasphemous contents, which would to govern the future conduct of States and individuals regarding the publication of Anti-Religious and blasphemous contents.  Although this above mentioned resolution is non-binding in nature, still the critics of this resolution hypothesize its far reaching consequences to be a deliberate attempt to regulate not just the lives of individuals but also the context, thus, breaching an individual's universally accepted rights of freedom of expression and speech.
>
>
>
>
>                12.       That it would be pertinent to mention that the cannons of Islam do not prohibit or limit any individual's right to freedom of expression and speech rather it cumulates the phrase "Your liberty ends where the nose of other person starts", meaning thereby that any right to freedom of expression and speech of one person would not prejudice the right of self respect and dignity of the other person.
>
>
>
>
>                13.       The core issue involved in this matter is the publication and advertisement of blasphemous material which was viewed as a deliberate or reckless attempt to malign the very holy and sanctimonious stature of Prophet of Islam, Hazrat Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him), on "Facebook".  This had deeply hurt and emotionally injured individual and collective sentiments of hundreds of millions of Muslims not just living in the geographical territory of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Keeping in view this deeply sensitive e and emotional attachment the majority population of Islamic Republic of Pakistan experiences towards the Prophet of Islam, Hazrat Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him), any regulations made for the protection of there deeply sensitive and emotional sentiments should not be viewed as in conflict with and individual's universally accepted rights of freedom, expressions and speech.
>
>
>
>
>                14.       Keeping in view the protection of deeply sensitive and emotional values of the majority population of Pakistan, and for the purpose of keeping harmony and peace in the society this Court directs the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Islamic Republic of Pakistan to direct its Permanent Ambassador to the United Nations at its Headquarter in New York to present a resolution in the General Assembly of United Nations, in context with the United Nations Resolution, "Combating Defamation of Religions" conveying the hurt and discomfort suffered by the majority population of Pakistan by the publication and promotion of such blasphemous material on "Facebook".
>
>
>
>
>                15.       This Court directs the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Government of Pakistan to comply with the above mentioned directions of this Court in letter and spirit by the next date of hearing and to submit a written and official copy of this direction given to the Permanent Ambassador of Islamic Republic of Pakistan to the United Nations regarding the presentation of a resolution to the United Nations General Assembly conveying  the hurt and discomfort suffered by the majority population of Islamic Republic of Pakistan by publication and promotion of such blasphemous material on "Facebook".
>
>
>
>
>                16.       In case of non-compliance of these above mentioned directions of this Court by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Islamic Republic of Pakistan in relation to specific directions to the Permanent Ambassador of Islamic Republic of Pakistan to the United Nations to present a resolution in the General Assembly of United Nations, conveying the hurt and discomfort suffered by the majority population of Islamic Republic of Pakistan by publication and promotion of such blasphemous material on "Facebook" the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Islamic Republic of Pakistan has to appear in this Court in person to explain why he has not complied with the directions of this Court in exact letter and spirit.
>
>
>
>
>                17.       The Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Islamic Republic of Pakistan through fax, today.
>
>
>
>
>                18.               To come up on 15.06.2010.
>
>                                                                                                                         Sd/-
>
>                                                         (Ijaz Ahmad Chaudhry)
>
>                                                                       Judge
>
>
>                ____________________________________________________________
>                You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>                    governance at lists.cpsr.org
>                To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>                    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
>                For all list information and functions, see:
>                    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>                Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>
>
>
>        --
>        Dr. Hong Xue
>        Professor of Law
>        Director of Institute for the Internet Policy & Law (IIPL)
>        Beijing Normal University
>        http://www.cdnua.org/
>        19 Xin Jie Kou Wai Street
>        Beijing 100875 China
>
>        ____________________________________________________________
>        You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>            governance at lists.cpsr.org
>        To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>            governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
>        For all list information and functions, see:
>            http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>        Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
> ***********************************************************
> William J. Drake
> Senior Associate
> Centre for International Governance
> Graduate Institute of International and
>  Development Studies
> Geneva, Switzerland
> william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch
> www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html
> www.linkedin.com/in/williamjdrake
> ***********************************************************
>
>
>
>



-- 
Dr. Hong Xue
Professor of Law
Director of Institute for the Internet Policy & Law (IIPL)
Beijing Normal University
http://www.cdnua.org/
19 Xin Jie Kou Wai Street
Beijing 100875 China
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From vanda at uol.com.br  Fri Jun  4 12:16:00 2010
From: vanda at uol.com.br (Vanda UOL)
Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2010 13:16:00 -0300
Subject: [governance] ICANN 39 to be held in Cartagena, Colombia from
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTil0Jx0iKRJQkmjY9rZGHxaeBh0IJCDs7kT8l6bd@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTil0Jx0iKRJQkmjY9rZGHxaeBh0IJCDs7kT8l6bd@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <00ca01cb0401$3a6a3b30$af3eb190$@com.br>

It is done Andres. Cartagena will be. Cartagena is an amazing beautiful and
interesting city! 
We all love Buenos Aires, but we will love to meet in Cartagena de las
Indias.
Abrazos
Vanda
-----Original Message-----
From: Andrés Piazza [mailto:andrespiazza at gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, June 04, 2010 12:21 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google
Subject: Re: [governance] ICANN 39 to be heldt in Cartagena, Colombia from

Indeed, Tracy.

It's public information. The Board was supposed to make the desition
in Nairobi. But was posponed until April.

I personally expressed my preference for Buenos Aires to host the
meeting, but this doesn't mean that a problem may appear in Cartagena.

Taking in consideration what happened last meeting in Nairobi, I want
to express my opinion in advance. If you (or any other member of this
list, specially Americans and Europeans) are planning to attend, I
would strongly encourage to you not to be afraid.

I undestand security concerns and statistics in Latin America and
specially in Colombia (BTW Cartagena is a turistic city, perfectly
safe), but sometimes information can be tricky.

Regards,

Andrés Piazza
LACRALO Chair



2010/6/3, Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google <tracyhackshaw at gmail.com>:
> Don't know if you know as yet, but ICANN 39 is going to be held in
> Cartagena, Colombia. See the first official reference I have found to it
at
> http://brussels38.icann.org/sponsorship
>

-- 
Enviado desde mi dispositivo móvil

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

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

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

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

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

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

From fouadbajwa at gmail.com  Mon Jun  7 06:06:51 2010
From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa)
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2010 15:06:51 +0500
Subject: [governance] Pakistani Wedding goes Green with a Website and
 Facebook Preparations
Message-ID: <AANLkTinWS4vCvTN96IMidjPLC5R6ZHPfAUR9bQA6yqJI@mail.gmail.com>

Pakistani Wedding goes Green with a Website and Facebook Preparations

We have always believed that the Internet would impact our lives a
culture of its usage evolved integrating into the primary processes of
social and economic aspects of our daily lives. This Internet culture
would penetrate into the ways we express on daily basis, the content
we use, the content we produce, the content we distribute, the content
we present, the reuse of our content and the citizen dialogues that
are created as a result of this, thus, building the foundation for
positive socio-economic growth.

The above statement may come true with what a Canadian Couple that are
tying the wedding knot next week are using the Internet for making
most of their wedding preparations. The beautiful couple put up a
website at http://www.kurtandnimra.com/ and have been sharing all the
images from their engagement leading to preparations of their dresses
as well as what kind of wedding gifts they are looking forward to from
their friends. All the wedding reception scheduling have been done as
Facebook event invites where their friends can share beforehand
whether they will be able to attend or not. Why has this been the mode
used by the couple, well it doesn't waste paper and keeps the
environment green! Read on...

In a note by the couple on Facebook event's page, they share their
intentions of why they used the Internet and in particular Facebook
for their wedding invitations and the rest tells the whole story:

Kurt and Nimra's Wedding
Event Type:       Wedding
Start Time:	Friday, June 11, 2010 at 6:30pm
End Time:	        Saturday, June 12, 2010 at 9:30pm
Location:	        Lahore, Pakistan

Description:
Our marriage brought together two families from two opposite corners
of the world and two completely different cultures. It forges
life-long bonds that transcend all tangible boundaries. It it with
overwhelming excitement that we extend this invitation to you, our
dearest friends to join us on this very special day of celebration.

You may be wondering why you have not received an invite card, and
although Facebook is a rather impersonal invitation, it was also a
conscious decision on our part to save paper in our effort to host an
event that is as aligned with environmental values as we are. Please
visit our website to see how else we plan to make our wedding as low
impact as possible.

See how you too can contribute by visiting
http://www.kurtandnimra.com/. Also see the above website for how to
send gifts or "salaami" via PayPal and our request for sustainable
gifts (if they are non-monetary).

The dates to put in your calendar are:

Day 1: June 11th - Menhdi (come prepared to dance, play music or sing!)
Starts at 6.pm SHARP
Due to the recent law dictating that all wedding halls must shut off
electricity by 9.00pm, the Mehndi will start and end on time.

Day 2: June 12th - Baraat (wedding)
Removed for Privacy Purposes. Lahore.
Starts at 6.30 pm SHARP
Music and Dinner : 7.00pm to 9.00pm
Rukhsati: 9.30pm

All those who RSVP'd will be emailed a map of the location and
directions to the venue and details on transport options (buses leave
from --Privacy:University-- if you don't want to make your own way
there). I know some of you won't be able to join us in Pakistan so we
will be hosting a Valima reception and special ceremony in Calgary,
Canada however the date has not been confirmed but we are estimating
late August. We will update this list and all of you when a date is
finalized.

To RSVP for our wedding, please visit:
http://www.kurtandnimra.com/rsvp
If you have any questions about RSVP'ing, email rsvp [at] kurtandnimra.com
If you have any specific questions for the wedding party, please write to:
bride--privacy---
groom at --privacy--

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

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

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


From jefsey at jefsey.com  Mon Jun  7 07:55:52 2010
From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin)
Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2010 13:55:52 +0200
Subject: [governance] The work on IDNA2010 has begun.
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20100607125640.059a2da8@jefsey.com>

Dear all,

I forward you the mail of the workon at idna2010.org facilitator. The 
post-IDNA2008 appeal phase is finished on my side (now the response 
is to the IAB). Let me recall you the situation.

* IDNA2008 is the new and final way to support IDNs after the 
IDNA2003 current live experimentation period, and the IAB RFC 4690 review.

* IDNA2008 replaces IDNA2003 _ONLY_ on the network side, making it 
rock solidly based on the DNS and transparent to IDNs (except for 
exceptions like Latin majuscule, etc.).

* IDNA2008 is documented by four Standard propositions + an 
Informational document that introduces for developpers the way to 
match it on the userside.

* The Area Director and the IESG have killed that Informational 
document, and approved the four Standard propositions. The apeal is 
about the fact they have not informed the Internet community on the 
way they want to document how build userside IDNA interfaces. Manage 
exceptions like Latin majuscule, etc. Ans probably foster a dramatic 
innovation. Something IDNA2008 has permitted to stabilize and the IAB 
is investigating (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-iab-idn-encoding-02).

* What I says is: "IDNA2010 is therefore about matching IDNA2080 on 
the userside. Then IDNA2012 should be about building a common 
IDNA2008/IDNA2010 Internet User Interface".

Now, the ball is in the IAB field. The Internet Users and IAB 
positions are not practically so different, but they still belong to 
two different architectural paradigms of the Internet (pre and post 
IDNA). The difference is that the Internet is "end to end dump rope" 
and IDNA2008 permit to extend it (intelligence is to be on the 
fringes) to "fringe to fringe smart wire" - this is Internet 2.0 with 
additional network/users layers (at least the presentation layer, 
probably two others on debate).

The difficulty is that the "fringe to fringe smart wire" namespace 
does not belong to the ICANN scope and technically may use a unique 
virtual root matrix (VROOM) some have to coordinate. This "some 
people" MUST technically include users because they build it. FAST 
TRACK is about testing if ICANN can resist Internet 2.0.

jfc


>Dear all,
>
>the text of the appeal to the IAB can now be found on the IDNA2010 
>page (<http://idna2010.org>http://idna2010.org).
>Direct access 
>: 
><http://iucg.org/wiki/100606_-_JFCM_Appeal_to_the_IAB>http://iucg.org/wiki/100606_-_JFCM_Appeal_to_the_IAB
>
>This publication being the last possible general action to get the 
>Internet community alerted about the IDNA2008 Internet architectural 
>paradigmatic change and the missing work and information on the way 
>to support IDNA2008. The work to be achieved is now identified at 
>the IUCG as four different and independant tasks:
>
>* IDNA2010: general integration of IDNA2008 on the userside from an 
>Internet User point of view
>* IDNA2012: joint adminance of IDNA2008 and IDN2010
>* Interplus: encapsulation of the Internet in a smart Internet Use 
>Interface (IUI)
>* Interbox: JEDI's ("jefsey's disciples") project of prototype 
>Interplus support for the Intertest (the Internet as its own test-bed).
>
>As a result:
>
>1. the <mailto:workon at idna2010.org>workon at idna2010.org is not 
>moderated anymore.
>2. the <http://idna2010.org>http://idna2010.org page is now the 
>portal of the IDNA2010 section in the 
><http://iucg.org/wiki>http://iucg.org/wiki page.
>3. the <http://idna2012.org>http://idna2012.org page has been 
>created and is dormant
>
>The other actions will be documented on the 
><mailto:workon at idna2010.org>workon at idna2010.org mailing list and on 
><mailto:iucg at ietf.org>iucg at ietf.org.
>
>Best regards.
>
>Portzamparc
>
>_______________________________________________
>Idna-update mailing list
>Idna-update at alvestrand.no
>http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100607/ee5195fd/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From jefsey at jefsey.com  Mon Jun  7 07:57:31 2010
From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin)
Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2010 13:57:31 +0200
Subject: [governance] The work on IDNA2010 has begun.
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20100607135653.059a3038@jefsey.com>

Dear all,

I forward you the mail of the workon at idna2010.org facilitator. The 
post-IDNA2008 appeal phase is finished on my side (now the response 
is to the IAB). Let me recall you the situation.

* IDNA2008 is the new and final way to support IDNs after the 
IDNA2003 current live experimentation period, and the IAB RFC 4690 review.

* IDNA2008 replaces IDNA2003 _ONLY_ on the network side, making it 
rock solidly based on the DNS and transparent to IDNs (except for 
exceptions like Latin majuscule, etc.).

* IDNA2008 is documented by four Standard propositions + an 
Informational document that introduces for developpers the way to 
match it on the userside.

* The Area Director and the IESG have killed that Informational 
document, and approved the four Standard propositions. The apeal is 
about the fact they have not informed the Internet community on the 
way they want to document how build userside IDNA interfaces. Manage 
exceptions like Latin majuscule, etc. Ans probably foster a dramatic 
innovation. Something IDNA2008 has permitted to stabilize and the IAB 
is investigating (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-iab-idn-encoding-02).

* What I says is: "IDNA2010 is therefore about matching IDNA2080 on 
the userside. Then IDNA2012 should be about building a common 
IDNA2008/IDNA2010 Internet User Interface".

Now, the ball is in the IAB field. The Internet Users and IAB 
positions are not practically so different, but they still belong to 
two different architectural paradigms of the Internet (pre and post 
IDNA). The difference is that the Internet is "end to end dump rope" 
and IDNA2008 permit to extend it (intelligence is to be on the 
fringes) to "fringe to fringe smart wire" - this is Internet 2.0 with 
additional network/users layers (at least the presentation layer, 
probably two others on debate).

The difficulty is that the "fringe to fringe smart wire" namespace 
does not belong to the ICANN scope and technically may use a unique 
virtual root matrix (VROOM) some have to coordinate. This "some 
people" MUST technically include users because they build it. FAST 
TRACK is about testing if ICANN can resist Internet 2.0.

jfc


>Dear all,
>
>the text of the appeal to the IAB can now be found on the IDNA2010 
>page (<http://idna2010.org>http://idna2010.org).
>Direct access 
>: 
><http://iucg.org/wiki/100606_-_JFCM_Appeal_to_the_IAB>http://iucg.org/wiki/100606_-_JFCM_Appeal_to_the_IAB
>
>This publication being the last possible general action to get the 
>Internet community alerted about the IDNA2008 Internet architectural 
>paradigmatic change and the missing work and information on the way 
>to support IDNA2008. The work to be achieved is now identified at 
>the IUCG as four different and independant tasks:
>
>* IDNA2010: general integration of IDNA2008 on the userside from an 
>Internet User point of view
>* IDNA2012: joint adminance of IDNA2008 and IDN2010
>* Interplus: encapsulation of the Internet in a smart Internet Use 
>Interface (IUI)
>* Interbox: JEDI's ("jefsey's disciples") project of prototype 
>Interplus support for the Intertest (the Internet as its own test-bed).
>
>As a result:
>
>1. the <mailto:workon at idna2010.org>workon at idna2010.org is not 
>moderated anymore.
>2. the <http://idna2010.org>http://idna2010.org page is now the 
>portal of the IDNA2010 section in the 
><http://iucg.org/wiki>http://iucg.org/wiki page.
>3. the <http://idna2012.org>http://idna2012.org page has been 
>created and is dormant
>
>The other actions will be documented on the 
><mailto:workon at idna2010.org>workon at idna2010.org mailing list and on 
><mailto:iucg at ietf.org>iucg at ietf.org.
>
>Best regards.
>
>Portzamparc
>
>_______________________________________________
>Idna-update mailing list
>Idna-update at alvestrand.no
>http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100607/e28d37fc/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From parminder at itforchange.net  Mon Jun  7 11:56:43 2010
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2010 21:26:43 +0530
Subject: [governance] conflict of interests and multistakeholderism
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinWS4vCvTN96IMidjPLC5R6ZHPfAUR9bQA6yqJI@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTinWS4vCvTN96IMidjPLC5R6ZHPfAUR9bQA6yqJI@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4C0D16BB.5050908@itforchange.net>


A news like " Possible WHO-Industry Conflict of Interest on Pandemic Flu 
Under Investigation"

(see 
http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2010/06/07/possible-who-industry-conflict-on-pandemic-flu-under-investigation/ 
)

 looks to be an anachronism from an old bygone era for those in the 
brave new world of information society discourse.

One wonders why should there be so much uproar about the simple fact of 
industry players with clear vested interest in policy outcomes being 
involved in giving policy advice.... Is that not what 
multistakeholderism is all about.

    "A report by the BMJ with the Bureau of Investigative Journalism
    <http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/340/jun03_4/c2912> found that
    WHO guidelines for handling a pandemic originally drawn up in 1999
    were prepared in collaboration with the European Scientific Working
    Group (ESWI), funded by Roche and other drug manufacturers and
    staffed by scientists who had participated in creating marketing
    material for Roche and also in trials testing the efficacy of a
    Roche-owned influenza treatment."

Apart from actual participation of interested actors in policy advice, 
why would anyone bother with anything as innocuous as who funds what.... 
After all, even the IGF is funded by private players. UN - GAID has 
actually made announcements which more or less ties advisory positions 
in GAID with contributing funds. There has been considerable talk of 
multistakeholder funding (read, private sector funding) of policy 
forums/ bodies, in this (civil society) list, in some recent official 
government statements etc...


 It is not important whether the allegations in the above WHO related 
news item are true or not. It is about the discourse (and normative 
frameworks) of public interest and public policies. See how WHO defends 
itself against the allegations. Its spokesperson asserted that

    "WHO has all of its expert advisers complete a declaration of
    interest and if necessary recuse themselves from discussions."


What a stupid idea really!! How would it work in a multistakeholder (MS) 
system, I wonder.  Would it not be so impolite to ask all the private 
sector players sitting on a policy advice body to declare their 
interests, and opt out if they have any.... So terribly old fashioned !! 
Isnt MSism actually about having interest in a policy decision; so what 
is all this ruckus about.

Apologies for the ironic tone, but i do think it is really quite ironic 
how the contemporary discourse in global health policy arena should be 
so much bothered with issues that in another arena - which, 
unfortunately, may be the pointer to the future - are considered simply 
meaningless, and perhaps absurd.

Maybe, it is time, before it gets too late, to give some thought to what 
the new 'governance think' in IG, and perhaps all of information society 
arena, means to the long cherished ideals of public life - to democracy, 
equity, rights etc.....

Parminder


    / /

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100607/3707fab5/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From parminder at itforchange.net  Mon Jun  7 12:37:14 2010
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2010 22:07:14 +0530
Subject: [governance] conflict of interests and multistakeholderism
In-Reply-To: <4C0D16BB.5050908@itforchange.net>
References: <AANLkTinWS4vCvTN96IMidjPLC5R6ZHPfAUR9bQA6yqJI@mail.gmail.com> <4C0D16BB.5050908@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <4C0D203A.80202@itforchange.net>

There are many instances of glaring conflict of interest in the 
information society policy spaces, but this one takes the cake....

ITU and UNESCO has set up a Broadband Commission with the 'key aim of 
accelerating the attainment of the goal of introduction of ubiquitous 
access to broadband within the global partnership for development". The 
commission will give its report to UN secy gen in sept 2010 immediately 
before the summit to be held in New York to review MDG progress

The commission is chaired by the President of Rwanda and the world's 
richest person, Carlos Slim Helu, who made his money by acquiring 
Mexico's public sector telecom companies through means which, as per the 
wikipedia entry on him ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_Slim ), 
have been questioned. Now, hold your breath, Carlos's company owns 90 
percent of the landlines in Mexico and 80 % of the mobile lines.... 
(same source as above)

Now does it look like as if Carlos has a clear and strong conflict of 
interest in whatever the Broadband Commission will recommend to the NY 
Summit on MDGs. but who cares.... this is the brave new world of 
partnerships and openness... Carlos will make recommendations to the UN 
general assembly on broadband policies which, it is assumed, will in 
turn recommend to the Mexican government ......

parminder wrote:
>
> A news like " Possible WHO-Industry Conflict of Interest on Pandemic 
> Flu Under Investigation"
>
> (see 
> http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2010/06/07/possible-who-industry-conflict-on-pandemic-flu-under-investigation/ 
> )
>
>  looks to be an anachronism from an old bygone era for those in the 
> brave new world of information society discourse.
>
> One wonders why should there be so much uproar about the simple fact 
> of industry players with clear vested interest in policy outcomes 
> being involved in giving policy advice.... Is that not what 
> multistakeholderism is all about.
>
>     "A report by the BMJ with the Bureau of Investigative Journalism
>     <http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/340/jun03_4/c2912> found that
>     WHO guidelines for handling a pandemic originally drawn up in 1999
>     were prepared in collaboration with the European Scientific
>     Working Group (ESWI), funded by Roche and other drug manufacturers
>     and staffed by scientists who had participated in creating
>     marketing material for Roche and also in trials testing the
>     efficacy of a Roche-owned influenza treatment."
>
> Apart from actual participation of interested actors in policy advice, 
> why would anyone bother with anything as innocuous as who funds 
> what.... After all, even the IGF is funded by private players. UN - 
> GAID has actually made announcements which more or less ties advisory 
> positions in GAID with contributing funds. There has been considerable 
> talk of multistakeholder funding (read, private sector funding) of 
> policy forums/ bodies, in this (civil society) list, in some recent 
> official government statements etc...
>
>
>  It is not important whether the allegations in the above WHO related 
> news item are true or not. It is about the discourse (and normative 
> frameworks) of public interest and public policies. See how WHO 
> defends itself against the allegations. Its spokesperson asserted that
>
>     "WHO has all of its expert advisers complete a declaration of
>     interest and if necessary recuse themselves from discussions."
>
>
> What a stupid idea really!! How would it work in a multistakeholder 
> (MS) system, I wonder.  Would it not be so impolite to ask all the 
> private sector players sitting on a policy advice body to declare 
> their interests, and opt out if they have any.... So terribly old 
> fashioned !! Isnt MSism actually about having interest in a policy 
> decision; so what is all this ruckus about.
>
> Apologies for the ironic tone, but i do think it is really quite 
> ironic how the contemporary discourse in global health policy arena 
> should be so much bothered with issues that in another arena - which, 
> unfortunately, may be the pointer to the future - are considered 
> simply meaningless, and perhaps absurd.
>
> Maybe, it is time, before it gets too late, to give some thought to 
> what the new 'governance think' in IG, and perhaps all of information 
> society arena, means to the long cherished ideals of public life - to 
> democracy, equity, rights etc.....
>
> Parminder
>
>
>     / /
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100607/8fa0da5e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From avri at psg.com  Mon Jun  7 13:30:05 2010
From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2010 13:30:05 -0400
Subject: [governance] conflict of interests and multistakeholderism
In-Reply-To: <4C0D16BB.5050908@itforchange.net>
References: <AANLkTinWS4vCvTN96IMidjPLC5R6ZHPfAUR9bQA6yqJI@mail.gmail.com> <4C0D16BB.5050908@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <175C271D-B41E-4FC1-9C80-EFE27F0BEA67@psg.com>

Hi,

I think the conflict of interest comes in when there isn't full stakeholder representation (including those individuals who define themselves as being outside all stakeholder groups).

i think that when any and all stakeholders - including the absolute individuals -  can be represented at the table then what is a conflict of interest elsewhere becomes a statement or declaration of interest.

Since the WHO does not seem to be committed to the multistakeholder model, it would appear to be conflict of interest.

a.


On 7 Jun 2010, at 11:56, parminder wrote:

> 
> A news like " Possible WHO-Industry Conflict of Interest on Pandemic Flu Under Investigation"
> 
> (see http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2010/06/07/possible-who-industry-conflict-on-pandemic-flu-under-investigation/ )
> 
>  looks to be an anachronism from an old bygone era for those in the brave new world of information society discourse. 
> 
> One wonders why should there be so much uproar about the simple fact of industry players with clear vested interest in policy outcomes being involved in giving policy advice.... Is that not what multistakeholderism is all about. 
> 
> "A report by the BMJ with the Bureau of Investigative Journalism found that WHO guidelines for handling a pandemic originally drawn up in 1999 were prepared in collaboration with the European Scientific Working Group (ESWI), funded by Roche and other drug manufacturers and staffed by scientists who had participated in creating marketing material for Roche and also in trials testing the efficacy of a Roche-owned influenza treatment."
> Apart from actual participation of interested actors in policy advice, why would anyone bother with anything as innocuous as who funds what.... After all, even the IGF is funded by private players. UN - GAID has actually made announcements which more or less ties advisory positions in GAID with contributing funds. There has been considerable talk of multistakeholder funding (read, private sector funding) of policy forums/ bodies, in this (civil society) list, in some recent official government statements etc... 
> 
> 
>  It is not important whether the allegations in the above WHO related news item are true or not. It is about the discourse (and normative frameworks) of public interest and public policies. See how WHO defends itself against the allegations. Its spokesperson asserted that 
> 
> "WHO has all of its expert advisers complete a declaration of interest and if necessary recuse themselves from discussions."
> 
> What a stupid idea really!! How would it work in a multistakeholder (MS) system, I wonder.  Would it not be so impolite to ask all the private sector players sitting on a policy advice body to declare their interests, and opt out if they have any.... So terribly old fashioned !! Isnt MSism actually about having interest in a policy decision; so what is all this ruckus about.
> 
> Apologies for the ironic tone, but i do think it is really quite ironic how the contemporary discourse in global health policy arena should be so much bothered with issues that in another arena - which, unfortunately, may be the pointer to the future - are considered simply meaningless, and perhaps absurd. 
> 
> Maybe, it is time, before it gets too late, to give some thought to what the new 'governance think' in IG, and perhaps all of information society arena, means to the long cherished ideals of public life - to democracy, equity, rights etc.....
> 
> Parminder 
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

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

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

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

From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net  Mon Jun  7 17:23:22 2010
From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker)
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2010 14:23:22 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] conflict of interests and multistakeholderism
In-Reply-To: <175C271D-B41E-4FC1-9C80-EFE27F0BEA67@psg.com>
Message-ID: <271085.11383.qm@web83915.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>

I think looking for "conflict" here is not that helpful. But insofar as it is I venture to say:
I write this without reference to previous work. It is meant as a more fresh view of what we non-yen & yang folks call a conflict. We should keep in mind this is a fairly modern western notion and does not fit with many views of harmonic interrelations. 
The easiest place to find some helpful distinctions between real and seeming conflicts is in the concept of waiver. Who can waive and why and when do you need it. And that is very easy.  A catholic cannot waive the trinity in order to work with a Jewish person. The Trinity remains regardless of an agreement.  It cannot be altered or the catholic is no longer catholic, end of conflict. Then there is no need for waiver.  So if you sit on two boards that have direction, policy and purpose that are opposite you simply cannot waive that concept.  The conflict is real. However, as much as we warn against it, a man may serve two masters.  If the purpose, goals and desires are similar why not double dip?
So most can see where this leads us. Open Transparent disclosure of all relevant facts involved in a potential appearance of impropriety.  While two boxers may compete and certainly conflict, they can easily agree on the queensbury rules and hence engage in “healthy” competition, while waiving the potential conflict regarding which rules favor either side.  So now a Judge(jury, BoD member, CEO) can referee the fight fairly, even though his daughter is one of the boxers – so long as he enforces the rule fairly. So in fact no conflict exists for the father. Because the mediator is not interested in the parties but the application of rules to a contest or standard. 
ITU, ICANN, EU, ASEAN, NAFTA, UN, DoC all have interests that are similar in some regards and dissimilar in some regards. For conflicts to arize between any two or three regarding the internet is really not a proper use of the term. Who gets what contract, whos’ people are in charge, who claims authorship, who owns best of breed. Not Conflicts.* 
However as our Avri points out following Parminders' logic. If interested parties are not given a seat at the table and there is failure to disclose a synergy of interests on behalf of a player -- then that just sucks! But alas we would need to change the header here from "conflict of interests" to "dirty cheating selfdealing bastards."  I suggest a review of Mexico and Vietnam for what appear to be conflicts that are not. And how even if the system is not pristine the A2K ratio is awesome. And Multi-stakeholderism is non-existent.
 
* WHO is rife with this stuff. Not conflicts -- just cheating and kickbacks and big Pharma payoffs and cost benefit analysis of life and patents blocking fair use and allocation deciept and crooked gov. misdirections and warlord hoarding. Yuk. but not conflicts of interests, just self interests.
 


--- On Mon, 6/7/10, Avri Doria <avri at psg.com> wrote:


From: Avri Doria <avri at psg.com>
Subject: Re: [governance] conflict of interests and multistakeholderism
To: "IGC" <governance at lists.cpsr.org>
Date: Monday, June 7, 2010, 5:30 PM


Hi,

I think the conflict of interest comes in when there isn't full stakeholder representation (including those individuals who define themselves as being outside all stakeholder groups).

i think that when any and all stakeholders - including the absolute individuals -  can be represented at the table then what is a conflict of interest elsewhere becomes a statement or declaration of interest.

Since the WHO does not seem to be committed to the multistakeholder model, it would appear to be conflict of interest.

a.


On 7 Jun 2010, at 11:56, parminder wrote:

> 
> A news like " Possible WHO-Industry Conflict of Interest on Pandemic Flu Under Investigation"
> 
> (see http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2010/06/07/possible-who-industry-conflict-on-pandemic-flu-under-investigation/ )
> 
>  looks to be an anachronism from an old bygone era for those in the brave new world of information society discourse. 
> 
> One wonders why should there be so much uproar about the simple fact of industry players with clear vested interest in policy outcomes being involved in giving policy advice.... Is that not what multistakeholderism is all about. 
> 
> "A report by the BMJ with the Bureau of Investigative Journalism found that WHO guidelines for handling a pandemic originally drawn up in 1999 were prepared in collaboration with the European Scientific Working Group (ESWI), funded by Roche and other drug manufacturers and staffed by scientists who had participated in creating marketing material for Roche and also in trials testing the efficacy of a Roche-owned influenza treatment."
> Apart from actual participation of interested actors in policy advice, why would anyone bother with anything as innocuous as who funds what.... After all, even the IGF is funded by private players. UN - GAID has actually made announcements which more or less ties advisory positions in GAID with contributing funds. There has been considerable talk of multistakeholder funding (read, private sector funding) of policy forums/ bodies, in this (civil society) list, in some recent official government statements etc... 
> 
> 
>  It is not important whether the allegations in the above WHO related news item are true or not. It is about the discourse (and normative frameworks) of public interest and public policies. See how WHO defends itself against the allegations. Its spokesperson asserted that 
> 
> "WHO has all of its expert advisers complete a declaration of interest and if necessary recuse themselves from discussions."
> 
> What a stupid idea really!! How would it work in a multistakeholder (MS) system, I wonder.  Would it not be so impolite to ask all the private sector players sitting on a policy advice body to declare their interests, and opt out if they have any.... So terribly old fashioned !! Isnt MSism actually about having interest in a policy decision; so what is all this ruckus about.
> 
> Apologies for the ironic tone, but i do think it is really quite ironic how the contemporary discourse in global health policy arena should be so much bothered with issues that in another arena - which, unfortunately, may be the pointer to the future - are considered simply meaningless, and perhaps absurd. 
> 
> Maybe, it is time, before it gets too late, to give some thought to what the new 'governance think' in IG, and perhaps all of information society arena, means to the long cherished ideals of public life - to democracy, equity, rights etc.....
> 
> Parminder 
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

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

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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100607/0c86014a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net  Mon Jun  7 17:41:07 2010
From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker)
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2010 14:41:07 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] [1 of 6] Has the work of the MAG been consistent
 with the mandate set out in the Tunis Agenda and subsequent decisions?
In-Reply-To: <DA7DB4D7-3747-4686-BDDD-2F211A8ACA90@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <90879.31539.qm@web83903.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>

No it is not and has not been consistent.  Somewhere the MAG got derailed from an outside to inside force to a circular just inside MAG closed loop.  The world does not work inside this MAG vaccum and yet the MAG seems to think it is reflective of the dynamic nature of global Internet usage. It does not interact well with the public forum of it's own design - the IGF.  MAG members do not put their "stuff out there" for multistakeholder comment and participation.  They act like they got on a first class life raft and there is not room for drowning participants without pedigree invitation.
 
Malcolm is a perfect example -- he posts, fails to engage and just reposts his newest decrees or whatever his "closed loop" mindset calls it. He might as well be a reporter covering the Malcolm beat for his own newspaper.  Looks like someone too smart to learn from the rabble of the masses. Can you imagine taking a class where -- you are the guest lecturer, author of the textbook and professor,, how the hell could you learn anything you did not already know? And so what can MAG possibly contribute that they have not already. There is no mechanism for uptake of new data or Ideas.

--- On Fri, 6/4/10, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:


From: Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org>
Subject: [governance] [1 of 6] Has the work of the MAG been consistent with the mandate set out in the Tunis Agenda and subsequent decisions?
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Date: Friday, June 4, 2010, 11:57 AM



The MAG has put out a request for comments (at http://intgovforum.org/cms/the-preparatory-process/510) on improvements to the MAG and other IGF preparatory processes.  The IGC coordinators are now commencing one thread per question for discussion of the issues raised.  The results will go towards the development of a statement in due course.  This message is to kick off the first of the six threads.  The next thread will begin once this one is sufficiently advanced.


Has the work of the MAG been consistent with the mandate set out in the Tunis Agenda and subsequent decisions?


Background points for the assistance of newcomers:




The Tunis Agenda simply called for the UN Secretary-General to "establish an effective and cost-efficient bureau to support the IGF, ensuring multi-stakeholder participation."
Most of the important "subsequent decisions" made about its structure and working methods were made in February-March 2006.
There were to have been "about 40" members, though this has crept up to 57 currently.
The members of the MAG are appointed by the UN Secretary-General, based on nominations from stakeholders.  No formal application criteria have ever been posted.
The balance between members from government, the private sector, general civil society and the technical community favours government and the technical community.
The Chair ex officio is the UN Secretary-General's advisor on Internet governance issues.  
The MAG meets several times per year in Geneva, in private sessions - though intergovernmental observers attend freely.  Most members attend at their own expense.
Meetings utilise the "Chatham House" rule whereby statements made in the meetings can be repeated outside, but not the identities of the speakers.
There is a closed electronic mailing list, anonymised excerpts from which are posted online periodically.
So far, the MAG's work has mainly consisted of agenda-setting for the annual IGF meeting and the selection of speakers. Decisions on these matters are made by rough consensus as declared by the Chair.
The MAG has not taken any significant roles outside of the above, such as  developing outputs for the IGF or liaising with external institutions.
Formally, the MAG's role is simply to advise the UN Secretary-General and does not exercise any authority on its own behalf.


So questions to be addressed in this thread include:




Are we happy with the above arrangements?
How could they be improved?


Let the discussion commence.









-- 

Jeremy Malcolm
Project Coordinator
Consumers International
Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East
Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
CI is 50
Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010.
Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer rights around the world. 
http://www.consumersinternational.org/50

Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary.


-----Inline Attachment Follows-----


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

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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100607/56e956e4/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From jeremy at ciroap.org  Tue Jun  8 00:13:11 2010
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2010 12:13:11 +0800
Subject: [governance] [1 of 6] Has the work of the MAG been consistent
 with the mandate set out in the Tunis Agenda and subsequent decisions?
In-Reply-To: <90879.31539.qm@web83903.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
References: <90879.31539.qm@web83903.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <6062EF95-C596-4DA1-AD32-D47012CDF3B0@ciroap.org>

You had me up until the part where you nominated me as one of the MAG insiders!  I'm not a MAG member, and doubtless never will be.  I did nominate myself once (or twice?), but the nomination disappeared into a black void without being acknowledged.  Which leads us in to question 2, which (notwithstanding the lack of response to question 1 so far), I'll post in a minute.

On 08/06/2010, at 5:41 AM, Eric Dierker wrote:

> No it is not and has not been consistent.  Somewhere the MAG got derailed from an outside to inside force to a circular just inside MAG closed loop.  The world does not work inside this MAG vaccum and yet the MAG seems to think it is reflective of the dynamic nature of global Internet usage. It does not interact well with the public forum of it's own design - the IGF.  MAG members do not put their "stuff out there" for multistakeholder comment and participation.  They act like they got on a first class life raft and there is not room for drowning participants without pedigree invitation.
>  
> Malcolm is a perfect example -- he posts, fails to engage and just reposts his newest decrees or whatever his "closed loop" mindset calls it. He might as well be a reporter covering the Malcolm beat for his own newspaper.  Looks like someone too smart to learn from the rabble of the masses. Can you imagine taking a class where -- you are the guest lecturer, author of the textbook and professor,, how the hell could you learn anything you did not already know? And so what can MAG possibly contribute that they have not already. There is no mechanism for uptake of new data or Ideas.
> 
> --- On Fri, 6/4/10, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:
> 
> From: Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org>
> Subject: [governance] [1 of 6] Has the work of the MAG been consistent with the mandate set out in the Tunis Agenda and subsequent decisions?
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Date: Friday, June 4, 2010, 11:57 AM
> 
> The MAG has put out a request for comments (at http://intgovforum.org/cms/the-preparatory-process/510) on improvements to the MAG and other IGF preparatory processes.  The IGC coordinators are now commencing one thread per question for discussion of the issues raised.  The results will go towards the development of a statement in due course.  This message is to kick off the first of the six threads.  The next thread will begin once this one is sufficiently advanced.
> 
> Has the work of the MAG been consistent with the mandate set out in the Tunis Agenda and subsequent decisions?
> 
> Background points for the assistance of newcomers:
> 
> The Tunis Agenda simply called for the UN Secretary-General to "establish an effective and cost-efficient bureau to support the IGF, ensuring multi-stakeholder participation."
> Most of the important "subsequent decisions" made about its structure and working methods were made in February-March 2006.
> There were to have been "about 40" members, though this has crept up to 57 currently.
> The members of the MAG are appointed by the UN Secretary-General, based on nominations from stakeholders.  No formal application criteria have ever been posted.
> The balance between members from government, the private sector, general civil society and the technical community favours government and the technical community.
> The Chair ex officio is the UN Secretary-General's advisor on Internet governance issues.  
> The MAG meets several times per year in Geneva, in private sessions - though intergovernmental observers attend freely.  Most members attend at their own expense.
> Meetings utilise the "Chatham House" rule whereby statements made in the meetings can be repeated outside, but not the identities of the speakers.
> There is a closed electronic mailing list, anonymised excerpts from which are posted online periodically.
> So far, the MAG's work has mainly consisted of agenda-setting for the annual IGF meeting and the selection of speakers. Decisions on these matters are made by rough consensus as declared by the Chair.
> The MAG has not taken any significant roles outside of the above, such as  developing outputs for the IGF or liaising with external institutions.
> Formally, the MAG's role is simply to advise the UN Secretary-General and does not exercise any authority on its own behalf.
> 
> So questions to be addressed in this thread include:
> 
> Are we happy with the above arrangements?
> How could they be improved?
> 
> Let the discussion commence.
> 
> -- 
> Jeremy Malcolm
> Project Coordinator
> Consumers International
> Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East
> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
> 
> CI is 50
> Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010.
> Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer rights around the world. 
> http://www.consumersinternational.org/50
> 
> Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary.
> 
> 
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-- 
Jeremy Malcolm
Project Coordinator
Consumers International
Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East
Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Tel: +60 3 7726 1599

CI is 50
Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010.
Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer rights around the world. 
http://www.consumersinternational.org/50

Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100608/3ae1e33d/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From jeremy at ciroap.org  Tue Jun  8 00:26:13 2010
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2010 12:26:13 +0800
Subject: [governance] [2 of 6] How best to nominate non governmental
 members for the MAG?
Message-ID: <FE076720-3690-4F3C-94A6-E14105183D3C@ciroap.org>

Continuing the questions from the MAG questionnaire (http://intgovforum.org/cms/the-preparatory-process/510), comes the second question:

How best to nominate non governmental members for the MAG?

Some options are:

(a) The existing "black box" approach whereby the United Nations Secretary General selects from a range of nominees put forward by various parties - selection criteria are not publicly available.

(b) The IGC (that is, we) could choose, based on certain selection criteria to ensure diversity etc, that are currently within the "black box" but would be made public.

(c) A new nominating committee, selected from a pool of civil society volunteers, could put forward candidates based on the selection criteria - similar to what we do internally in the IGC, and also used by other IG institutions such as the IETF.

(d) Another civil society umbrella group could nominate them.  This could be the WSIS Civil Society Plenary (which no longer really exists, but it may be necessary to re-form it before 2015), or an entirely new peak body.

Which of these options do you prefer?  Can you think of others?

-- 
Jeremy Malcolm
Project Coordinator
Consumers International
Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East
Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Tel: +60 3 7726 1599

CI is 50
Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010.
Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer rights around the world. 
http://www.consumersinternational.org/50

Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100608/9e5d3d54/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From katitza at eff.org  Tue Jun  8 00:31:26 2010
From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez)
Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2010 21:31:26 -0700
Subject: [governance] [2 of 6] How best to nominate non governmental
 members
In-Reply-To: <FE076720-3690-4F3C-94A6-E14105183D3C@ciroap.org>
References: <FE076720-3690-4F3C-94A6-E14105183D3C@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <4C0DC79E.6060205@eff.org>

Hey there

as far as I understand, we have not being doing so?     IGC, throught a 
nomination committee, has been selective the MAG representative so far.

I am missing something? I think, we should decide how we want to 
organize, and communicate to them our consensus. The UN Secretariat 
should not dictate how we should work.

That will be my two cents..


On 6/7/10 9:26 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> (b) The IGC (that is, we) could choose, based on certain selection 
> criteria to ensure diversity etc, that are currently within the "black 
> box" but would be made public.


-- 
Katitza Rodriguez
International Rights Director
Electronic Frontier Foundation
katitza at eff.org
katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email)

Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990

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

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

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


From jeremy at ciroap.org  Tue Jun  8 00:54:39 2010
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2010 12:54:39 +0800
Subject: [governance] [2 of 6] How best to nominate non governmental
 members
In-Reply-To: <4C0DC79E.6060205@eff.org>
References: <FE076720-3690-4F3C-94A6-E14105183D3C@ciroap.org> <4C0DC79E.6060205@eff.org>
Message-ID: <4DD62148-9FCE-4669-A2FC-758CD7BAAE23@ciroap.org>

On 08/06/2010, at 12:31 PM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote:

> as far as I understand, we have not being doing so?     IGC, throught a nomination committee, has been selective the MAG representative so far.

We have been recommending a slate of nominees, but the UNSG has chosen from amongst them, and also included nominees from other sources.  So, the proposal is a little different as it would take the final decision out of the UNSG's hands.

-- 
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 jovank at diplomacy.edu  Tue Jun  8 04:01:39 2010
From: jovank at diplomacy.edu (Jovan Kurbalija)
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 2010 10:01:39 +0200
Subject: [governance] Online.... Weddings and Funerals....
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinWS4vCvTN96IMidjPLC5R6ZHPfAUR9bQA6yqJI@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <C833C583.21BEA%jovank@diplomacy.edu>

An online innovation from Grof Dracula's region....

http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/technology/7352164/romania-the-last-journey-now
-broadcast-live/


On 6/7/10 12:06 PM, "Fouad Bajwa" <fouadbajwa at gmail.com> wrote:

> Pakistani Wedding goes Green with a Website and Facebook Preparations
> 
> We have always believed that the Internet would impact our lives a
> culture of its usage evolved integrating into the primary processes of
> social and economic aspects of our daily lives. This Internet culture
> would penetrate into the ways we express on daily basis, the content
> we use, the content we produce, the content we distribute, the content
> we present, the reuse of our content and the citizen dialogues that
> are created as a result of this, thus, building the foundation for
> positive socio-economic growth.
> 
> The above statement may come true with what a Canadian Couple that are
> tying the wedding knot next week are using the Internet for making
> most of their wedding preparations. The beautiful couple put up a
> website at http://www.kurtandnimra.com/ and have been sharing all the
> images from their engagement leading to preparations of their dresses
> as well as what kind of wedding gifts they are looking forward to from
> their friends. All the wedding reception scheduling have been done as
> Facebook event invites where their friends can share beforehand
> whether they will be able to attend or not. Why has this been the mode
> used by the couple, well it doesn't waste paper and keeps the
> environment green! Read on...
> 
> In a note by the couple on Facebook event's page, they share their
> intentions of why they used the Internet and in particular Facebook
> for their wedding invitations and the rest tells the whole story:
> 
> Kurt and Nimra's Wedding
> Event Type:       Wedding
> Start Time: Friday, June 11, 2010 at 6:30pm
> End Time:         Saturday, June 12, 2010 at 9:30pm
> Location:         Lahore, Pakistan
> 
> Description:
> Our marriage brought together two families from two opposite corners
> of the world and two completely different cultures. It forges
> life-long bonds that transcend all tangible boundaries. It it with
> overwhelming excitement that we extend this invitation to you, our
> dearest friends to join us on this very special day of celebration.
> 
> You may be wondering why you have not received an invite card, and
> although Facebook is a rather impersonal invitation, it was also a
> conscious decision on our part to save paper in our effort to host an
> event that is as aligned with environmental values as we are. Please
> visit our website to see how else we plan to make our wedding as low
> impact as possible.
> 
> See how you too can contribute by visiting
> http://www.kurtandnimra.com/. Also see the above website for how to
> send gifts or "salaami" via PayPal and our request for sustainable
> gifts (if they are non-monetary).
> 
> The dates to put in your calendar are:
> 
> Day 1: June 11th - Menhdi (come prepared to dance, play music or sing!)
> Starts at 6.pm SHARP
> Due to the recent law dictating that all wedding halls must shut off
> electricity by 9.00pm, the Mehndi will start and end on time.
> 
> Day 2: June 12th - Baraat (wedding)
> Removed for Privacy Purposes. Lahore.
> Starts at 6.30 pm SHARP
> Music and Dinner : 7.00pm to 9.00pm
> Rukhsati: 9.30pm
> 
> All those who RSVP'd will be emailed a map of the location and
> directions to the venue and details on transport options (buses leave
> from --Privacy:University-- if you don't want to make your own way
> there). I know some of you won't be able to join us in Pakistan so we
> will be hosting a Valima reception and special ceremony in Calgary,
> Canada however the date has not been confirmed but we are estimating
> late August. We will update this list and all of you when a date is
> finalized.
> 
> To RSVP for our wedding, please visit:
> http://www.kurtandnimra.com/rsvp
> If you have any questions about RSVP'ing, email rsvp [at] kurtandnimra.com
> If you have any specific questions for the wedding party, please write to:
> bride--privacy---
> groom at --privacy--


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

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 Jun  8 05:09:27 2010
From: tracyhackshaw at gmail.com (Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google)
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2010 05:09:27 -0400
Subject: [governance] [2 of 6] How best to nominate non governmental 
In-Reply-To: <FE076720-3690-4F3C-94A6-E14105183D3C@ciroap.org>
References: <FE076720-3690-4F3C-94A6-E14105183D3C@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <AANLkTil1iTPtinNKbctWTlS_sMQqjnTb27Nlp7PRkYtY@mail.gmail.com>

A slight variant of (d).

I prefer the idea of a Civil Society "umbrella" group which is
all-inclusive and well known and recoginised.

The IGC can scale to become that group or at the very least, ensure
that it is a foundation member of same.

On 6/8/10, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:
> Continuing the questions from the MAG questionnaire
> (http://intgovforum.org/cms/the-preparatory-process/510), comes the second
> question:
>
> How best to nominate non governmental members for the MAG?
>
> Some options are:
>
> (a) The existing "black box" approach whereby the United Nations Secretary
> General selects from a range of nominees put forward by various parties -
> selection criteria are not publicly available.
>
> (b) The IGC (that is, we) could choose, based on certain selection criteria
> to ensure diversity etc, that are currently within the "black box" but would
> be made public.
>
> (c) A new nominating committee, selected from a pool of civil society
> volunteers, could put forward candidates based on the selection criteria -
> similar to what we do internally in the IGC, and also used by other IG
> institutions such as the IETF.
>
> (d) Another civil society umbrella group could nominate them.  This could be
> the WSIS Civil Society Plenary (which no longer really exists, but it may be
> necessary to re-form it before 2015), or an entirely new peak body.
>
> Which of these options do you prefer?  Can you think of others?
>
> --
> 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.
>
>

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

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

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


From ceo at bnnrc.net  Tue Jun  8 00:35:14 2010
From: ceo at bnnrc.net (AHM Bazlur Rahman)
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2010 10:35:14 +0600
Subject: [governance] Asia Pacific Regional Internet Governance Forum- IGF
 in Hong Kong
Message-ID: <FBBD9D6AF3C34E7CA905093ECDCA0238@ceo>











Asia Pacific Regional Internet Governance Forum- IGF in Hong Kong
http://rigf.asia
According to Internet World Stats, with over 780 Million Internet users, Asia Pacific is already the region with the largest online population. Yet the penetration rate for Asia is only at around 20%, which signals continued rapid growth ahead.

Building on the United Nations (UN) Millennium Development Goals, and the mandate given at the Second Phase of the World Summit on the Information Society in Tunis in 2005, the IGF (Internet Governance Forum) is a United Nations activity initiated in 2006 as a global platform for multi-stakeholder policy dialogue on prevailing and emerging issues on Internet governance so as to foster the sustainability, robustness, security, stability and development of Internet. The annual Forum was previously held in Greece (2006), Brazil (2007), India (2008), and Egypt (2009).

The Internet has become an integral part of people's life. Despite the advantages, misuses and abuses lead to social problems, such as digital divide, Internet addiction, information safety, security, privacy and other evolving issues. These issues have no respect to national borders, and therefore require collaboration between countries and territories to address. The IGF approach is an open forum for knowledge sharing between stakeholders across borders, which in turn inform local policy development.

Asia Pacific Regional IGF (APrIGF) in Hong Kong

To complement and supplement the global IGF, a group of active participants, with the OGCIO (Office of the Government Chief Information Officer) as the advisor, have come together to organize the first Asia Pacific Regional IGF in Hong Kong. The event will consist of 3 parts:

  a.. Asia Pacific Regional IGF Roundtable
  (June 14-16), Cyberport (Function Rooms 1-3, Level 3, Cyberport 3)  
  b.. Hong Kong IGF Conference
  (June 17-18), Cyberport (Function Rooms 1-3, Level 3, Cyberport 3)  
  c.. Youth IGF Camp
  (June 12-14), Jockey Club Sai Kung Outdoor Training Camp 

While the global IGF is already in its fifth and final year of its initial charter, and Regional IGFs have been established in many other regions, including Africa, Europe, Latin America and the Caribbean, to date, Asia has seen no parallel forum for discussing Internet governance issues at a regional level. For the first time, the APrIGF is therefore being convened with objectives to raise awareness and encourage participation from relevant stakeholders around the region on Internet governance issues, as well as to foster multi-lateral, multi-stakeholder discussion about issues pertinent to the Internet in Asia.

The Hong Kong IGF Conference aims to introduce to the various stakeholders in Hong Kong, in particular NGOs and youth, the status of internet governance and the global IGF. The APrIGF Roundtable will bring together experts in the region and around the world from the civil society, private sector and public sector for an intensive discussion that should help shape the future of the IGF. The Youth IGF Camp is organized and led by young leaders. During the 3-day (2 nights) forum, participants will role-play to represent different stakeholders in the society and interact with international experts in the field to discuss different social topics concerning the Internet.

All 3 component events combine to become a platform for regional collaboration and, albeit organised independently of the global IGF, intends to report its discussion to the global IGF to be held in September 14-17 in Vilnius, Lithuania. This adds to the significance of the APrIGF in that the ideas, recommendations and other outputs from the event will be used as inputs for the coming global IGF meeting in September 2010. 




Bazlu
________________________
AHM. Bazlur Rahman-S21BR
Chief Executive Officer
Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio and Communication (BNNRC)
&
Head - Community Radio Academy
 
House: 13/1, Road:2, Shaymoli, Dhaka-1207 
Post Box: 5095, Dhaka 1205 Bangladesh
 
Phone: 88-02-9130750, 88-02-9138501
01711881647 Fax: 88-02-9138501-105
 
E-mail: ceo at bnnrc.net, bnnrc at bd.drik.net
www.bnnrc.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100608/a99095f1/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: IGF_Logov2.png
Type: image/png
Size: 10468 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100608/a99095f1/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From ceo at bnnrc.net  Tue Jun  8 00:42:26 2010
From: ceo at bnnrc.net (AHM Bazlur Rahman)
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2010 10:42:26 +0600
Subject: [governance] Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio and
 Communication@Asia Pacific Regional Internet Governance Forum - IGF
 (APrIGF) in Hong Kong
Message-ID: <E94D6586E17042F193343A9F9A2704B7@ceo>


Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio and Communication will join the Asia Pacific Regional Internet Governance Forum - IGF (APrIGF) in Hong Kong on June 14-16 2010, which is being graciously, hosted by the Hong Kong.

Head of the Bangladesh Delegation is H.E. Mr. Hasanul haq Inu, MP and Chairman Parliamentary Standing Committee for Ministry of Post and Telecommunication and 
Deputy Head of the delegation H.E. Dr. Akram H. Chowdhury, MP Chairperson, Centre for e-parliament Research and Member, Parliamentary Standing Committee for Ministry Food and Disaster 

Other delegation members are AHM Bazlur Rahmn, Chief Executive Officer of  Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio and Communication, Mr. Main Uddin Mahmood, Member - Bangladesh Internet Governance Forum and Mr. Mizanur Rahman, Private Secretary to Chairman Parliamentary Standing Committee for Ministry of Post and Telecommunication.

The Hong Kong IGF Conference aims to introduce to the various stakeholders in Hong Kong, in particular NGOs and youth, the status of internet governance and the global IGF. The APrIGF Roundtable will bring together experts in the region and around the world from the civil society, private sector and public sector for an intensive discussion that should help shape the future of the IGF. The Youth IGF Camp is organized and led by young leaders. 

During the 3-day forum, participants will role-play to represent different stakeholders in the society and interact with international experts in the field to discuss different social topics concerning the Internet.

All 3 component events combine to become a platform for regional collaboration and, albeit organised independently of the global IGF, intends to report its discussion to the global IGF to be held in September 14-17 in Vilnius, Lithuania. This adds to the significance of the APrIGF in that the ideas, recommendations and other outputs from the event will be used as inputs for the coming global IGF meeting in September.




Bazlu
________________________
AHM. Bazlur Rahman-S21BR
Chief Executive Officer
Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio and Communication (BNNRC)
&
Head - Community Radio Academy
 
House: 13/1, Road:2, Shaymoli, Dhaka-1207 
Post Box: 5095, Dhaka 1205 Bangladesh
 
Phone: 88-02-9130750, 88-02-9138501
01711881647 Fax: 88-02-9138501-105
 
E-mail: ceo at bnnrc.net, bnnrc at bd.drik.net
www.bnnrc.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100608/9ea2fcde/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: banner-aprigf.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 11068 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100608/9ea2fcde/attachment.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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 Jun  8 16:05:42 2010
From: correia.rui at gmail.com (Rui Correia)
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2010 21:05:42 +0100
Subject: [governance] Google, Facebook Present as Maryland Passes New
 Political Advertising Law
Message-ID: <AANLkTik9fVXpWN10kjX9dscWJwQWHTe3i5OpuBIBEXSW@mail.gmail.com>

Google, Facebook Present as Maryland Passes New Political Advertising
Law<http://newsletters.clickz.com/c.html?rtr=on&s=auxa,dx6u,52v,7241,aiv0,6lmi,3eit>
Representatives from Google, Yahoo, Facebook, and AOL descended on a
Maryland State Board of Elections meeting on rules governing social media
and online ads by political campaigns. - Jun 4, 2010


-- 
O meu número em Luanda: (+244) 936144613
My number in Luanda: (+244) 936144613
_______________________________________________

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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100608/1aecba1e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From mueller at syr.edu  Wed Jun  9 18:47:13 2010
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2010 18:47:13 -0400
Subject: [governance] [1 of 6] Has the work of the MAG been consistent
In-Reply-To: <DA7DB4D7-3747-4686-BDDD-2F211A8ACA90@ciroap.org>
References: <DA7DB4D7-3747-4686-BDDD-2F211A8ACA90@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D705AC321257@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>

Excellent summary, Jeremy
I am deeply dissatisfied with the nature and functioning of the MAG. I think it should be smaller; I think its members should be elected or selected bottom up from the stakeholder groups, not top down by the UN; I think there shouild be strict term limits; I think Intergovernmental orgs should be on a par with all other stakeholders and should not be able to roam through it at will; I think "special advisors" should be abolished; I think all of its meetings should be open to observers, either f2f or remotely. 

How's that for starters?

--MM
________________________________________
From: Jeremy Malcolm [jeremy at ciroap.org]
Sent: Friday, June 04, 2010 7:57 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: [governance] [1 of 6] Has the work of the MAG been consistent with the mandate set out in the Tunis Agenda and subsequent decisions?

The MAG has put out a request for comments (at http://intgovforum.org/cms/the-preparatory-process/510) on improvements to the MAG and other IGF preparatory processes.  The IGC coordinators are now commencing one thread per question for discussion of the issues raised.  The results will go towards the development of a statement in due course.  This message is to kick off the first of the six threads.  The next thread will begin once this one is sufficiently advanced.

Has the work of the MAG been consistent with the mandate set out in the Tunis Agenda and subsequent decisions?

Background points for the assistance of newcomers:


 *   The Tunis Agenda simply called for the UN Secretary-General to "establish an effective and cost-efficient bureau to support the IGF, ensuring multi-stakeholder participation."
 *   Most of the important "subsequent decisions" made about its structure and working methods were made in February-March 2006.
 *   There were to have been "about 40" members, though this has crept up to 57 currently.
 *   The members of the MAG are appointed by the UN Secretary-General, based on nominations from stakeholders.  No formal application criteria have ever been posted.
 *   The balance between members from government, the private sector, general civil society and the technical community favours government and the technical community.
 *   The Chair ex officio is the UN Secretary-General's advisor on Internet governance issues.
 *   The MAG meets several times per year in Geneva, in private sessions - though intergovernmental observers attend freely.  Most members attend at their own expense.
 *   Meetings utilise the "Chatham House" rule whereby statements made in the meetings can be repeated outside, but not the identities of the speakers.
 *   There is a closed electronic mailing list, anonymised excerpts from which are posted online periodically.
 *   So far, the MAG's work has mainly consisted of agenda-setting for the annual IGF meeting and the selection of speakers. Decisions on these matters are made by rough consensus as declared by the Chair.
 *   The MAG has not taken any significant roles outside of the above, such as  developing outputs for the IGF or liaising with external institutions.
 *   Formally, the MAG's role is simply to advise the UN Secretary-General and does not exercise any authority on its own behalf.

So questions to be addressed in this thread include:


 *   Are we happy with the above arrangements?
 *   How could they be improved?

Let the discussion commence.

--
Jeremy Malcolm
Project Coordinator
Consumers International
Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East
Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
CI is 50
Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010.
Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer rights around the world.
http://www.consumersinternational.org/50

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

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

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

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

From ca at cafonso.ca  Wed Jun  9 19:16:33 2010
From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso)
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2010 20:16:33 -0300
Subject: [governance] [1 of 6] Has the work of the MAG been consistent
In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D705AC321257@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
References: <DA7DB4D7-3747-4686-BDDD-2F211A8ACA90@ciroap.org> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D705AC321257@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <4C1020D1.8000203@cafonso.ca>

You mostly think what I think too (even having been a "special" --???---
advisor for a while).

--c.a.

Milton L Mueller wrote:
> Excellent summary, Jeremy
> I am deeply dissatisfied with the nature and functioning of the MAG. I think it should be smaller; I think its members should be elected or selected bottom up from the stakeholder groups, not top down by the UN; I think there shouild be strict term limits; I think Intergovernmental orgs should be on a par with all other stakeholders and should not be able to roam through it at will; I think "special advisors" should be abolished; I think all of its meetings should be open to observers, either f2f or remotely. 
> 
> How's that for starters?
> 
> --MM
> ________________________________________
> From: Jeremy Malcolm [jeremy at ciroap.org]
> Sent: Friday, June 04, 2010 7:57 AM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: [governance] [1 of 6] Has the work of the MAG been consistent with the mandate set out in the Tunis Agenda and subsequent decisions?
> 
> The MAG has put out a request for comments (at http://intgovforum.org/cms/the-preparatory-process/510) on improvements to the MAG and other IGF preparatory processes.  The IGC coordinators are now commencing one thread per question for discussion of the issues raised.  The results will go towards the development of a statement in due course.  This message is to kick off the first of the six threads.  The next thread will begin once this one is sufficiently advanced.
> 
> Has the work of the MAG been consistent with the mandate set out in the Tunis Agenda and subsequent decisions?
> 
> Background points for the assistance of newcomers:
> 
> 
>  *   The Tunis Agenda simply called for the UN Secretary-General to "establish an effective and cost-efficient bureau to support the IGF, ensuring multi-stakeholder participation."
>  *   Most of the important "subsequent decisions" made about its structure and working methods were made in February-March 2006.
>  *   There were to have been "about 40" members, though this has crept up to 57 currently.
>  *   The members of the MAG are appointed by the UN Secretary-General, based on nominations from stakeholders.  No formal application criteria have ever been posted.
>  *   The balance between members from government, the private sector, general civil society and the technical community favours government and the technical community.
>  *   The Chair ex officio is the UN Secretary-General's advisor on Internet governance issues.
>  *   The MAG meets several times per year in Geneva, in private sessions - though intergovernmental observers attend freely.  Most members attend at their own expense.
>  *   Meetings utilise the "Chatham House" rule whereby statements made in the meetings can be repeated outside, but not the identities of the speakers.
>  *   There is a closed electronic mailing list, anonymised excerpts from which are posted online periodically.
>  *   So far, the MAG's work has mainly consisted of agenda-setting for the annual IGF meeting and the selection of speakers. Decisions on these matters are made by rough consensus as declared by the Chair.
>  *   The MAG has not taken any significant roles outside of the above, such as  developing outputs for the IGF or liaising with external institutions.
>  *   Formally, the MAG's role is simply to advise the UN Secretary-General and does not exercise any authority on its own behalf.
> 
> So questions to be addressed in this thread include:
> 
> 
>  *   Are we happy with the above arrangements?
>  *   How could they be improved?
> 
> Let the discussion commence.
> 
> --
> Jeremy Malcolm
> Project Coordinator
> Consumers International
> Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East
> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
> CI is 50
> Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010.
> Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer rights around the world.
> http://www.consumersinternational.org/50
> 
> Read our email confidentiality notice<http://www.consumersinternational.org/Templates/Internal.asp?NodeID=100521&int1stParentNodeID=89765>. Don't print this email unless necessary.
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-- 

Carlos A. Afonso
CGI.br (www.cgi.br)
Nupef (www.nupef.org.br)
====================================
new/nuevo/novo e-mail: ca at cafonso.ca
====================================
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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


From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net  Thu Jun 10 08:22:57 2010
From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker)
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 05:22:57 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] [1 of 6] Has the work of the MAG been consistent
 with the mandate set out in the Tunis Agenda and subsequent decisions?
In-Reply-To: <6062EF95-C596-4DA1-AD32-D47012CDF3B0@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <210753.29545.qm@web83906.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>

Sorry not clear on what I meant as an example. 
 
I also note that I failed to make clear that I learn a lot from your work.  For me the system is helping me to understand many issues - but for itself -- it needs more input and acceptance of stakeholder concerns and ideas.  When seeking advice on an important matter, it is seldom helpful to ask it from someone you know agrees with you.

--- On Tue, 6/8/10, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:


From: Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org>
Subject: Re: [governance] [1 of 6] Has the work of the MAG been consistent with the mandate set out in the Tunis Agenda and subsequent decisions?
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Eric Dierker" <cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net>
Date: Tuesday, June 8, 2010, 4:13 AM




You had me up until the part where you nominated me as one of the MAG insiders!  I'm not a MAG member, and doubtless never will be.  I did nominate myself once (or twice?), but the nomination disappeared into a black void without being acknowledged.  Which leads us in to question 2, which (notwithstanding the lack of response to question 1 so far), I'll post in a minute.


On 08/06/2010, at 5:41 AM, Eric Dierker wrote:






No it is not and has not been consistent.  Somewhere the MAG got derailed from an outside to inside force to a circular just inside MAG closed loop.  The world does not work inside this MAG vaccum and yet the MAG seems to think it is reflective of the dynamic nature of global Internet usage. It does not interact well with the public forum of it's own design - the IGF.  MAG members do not put their "stuff out there" for multistakeholder comment and participation.  They act like they got on a first class life raft and there is not room for drowning participants without pedigree invitation.
 
Malcolm is a perfect example -- he posts, fails to engage and just reposts his newest decrees or whatever his "closed loop" mindset calls it. He might as well be a reporter covering the Malcolm beat for his own newspaper.  Looks like someone too smart to learn from the rabble of the masses. Can you imagine taking a class where -- you are the guest lecturer, author of the textbook and professor,, how the hell could you learn anything you did not already know? And so what can MAG possibly contribute that they have not already. There is no mechanism for uptake of new data or Ideas.

--- On Fri, 6/4/10, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:


From: Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org>
Subject: [governance] [1 of 6] Has the work of the MAG been consistent with the mandate set out in the Tunis Agenda and subsequent decisions?
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Date: Friday, June 4, 2010, 11:57 AM



The MAG has put out a request for comments (at http://intgovforum.org/cms/the-preparatory-process/510) on improvements to the MAG and other IGF preparatory processes.  The IGC coordinators are now commencing one thread per question for discussion of the issues raised.  The results will go towards the development of a statement in due course.  This message is to kick off the first of the six threads.  The next thread will begin once this one is sufficiently advanced.


Has the work of the MAG been consistent with the mandate set out in the Tunis Agenda and subsequent decisions?


Background points for the assistance of newcomers:




The Tunis Agenda simply called for the UN Secretary-General to "establish an effective and cost-efficient bureau to support the IGF, ensuring multi-stakeholder participation."
Most of the important "subsequent decisions" made about its structure and working methods were made in February-March 2006.
There were to have been "about 40" members, though this has crept up to 57 currently.
The members of the MAG are appointed by the UN Secretary-General, based on nominations from stakeholders.  No formal application criteria have ever been posted.
The balance between members from government, the private sector, general civil society and the technical community favours government and the technical community.
The Chair ex officio is the UN Secretary-General's advisor on Internet governance issues.  
The MAG meets several times per year in Geneva, in private sessions - though intergovernmental observers attend freely.  Most members attend at their own expense.
Meetings utilise the "Chatham House" rule whereby statements made in the meetings can be repeated outside, but not the identities of the speakers.
There is a closed electronic mailing list, anonymised excerpts from which are posted online periodically.
So far, the MAG's work has mainly consisted of agenda-setting for the annual IGF meeting and the selection of speakers. Decisions on these matters are made by rough consensus as declared by the Chair.
The MAG has not taken any significant roles outside of the above, such as  developing outputs for the IGF or liaising with external institutions.
Formally, the MAG's role is simply to advise the UN Secretary-General and does not exercise any authority on its own behalf.


So questions to be addressed in this thread include:




Are we happy with the above arrangements?
How could they be improved?


Let the discussion commence.









-- 

Jeremy Malcolm
Project Coordinator
Consumers International
Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East
Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
CI is 50
Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010.
Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer rights around the world. 
http://www.consumersinternational.org/50

Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary.


-----Inline Attachment Follows-----


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

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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
    governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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







-- 

Jeremy Malcolm
Project Coordinator
Consumers International
Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East
Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
CI is 50
Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010.
Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer rights around the world. 
http://www.consumersinternational.org/50

Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary.


-----Inline Attachment Follows-----


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

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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100610/04111cee/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net  Thu Jun 10 08:35:55 2010
From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker)
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 05:35:55 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] [2 of 6] How best to nominate non governmental
 members for the MAG?
In-Reply-To: <FE076720-3690-4F3C-94A6-E14105183D3C@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <995242.26840.qm@web83911.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>

Jeremy,
 
I like b.  We have seen throughout the last century several classic attempts to incorporate a "member of the party" electoral process. So often countries claimed elections were open and honest and in fact had huge turnouts. But you could only vote for a "party candidate". Too often US and UK elections reach the same result and there is a constant revolt against the notion.
 
Of course I hope this is consistent with my view that the (that is we*) play a more influencial role.  That open, well supervised, public forum lists be the genesis for more input. That consensus play a role but that minority views be given weight so that the majority conclusions can be more pure and less watered down.
 
So I think we should keep nominations open open open for those with a proven desire for public service (like Ginger and Jeremy).
 
 
* I appreciate very much using this concept as descriptive of the IGC. It is what is mostly desired to be achieved and I think we do a good job of it.

--- On Tue, 6/8/10, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:


From: Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org>
Subject: [governance] [2 of 6] How best to nominate non governmental members for the MAG?
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Date: Tuesday, June 8, 2010, 4:26 AM


Continuing the questions from the MAG questionnaire (http://intgovforum.org/cms/the-preparatory-process/510), comes the second question:


How best to nominate non governmental members for the MAG?


Some options are:


(a) The existing "black box" approach whereby the United Nations Secretary General selects from a range of nominees put forward by various parties - selection criteria are not publicly available.



(b) The IGC (that is, we) could choose, based on certain selection criteria to ensure diversity etc, that are currently within the "black box" but would be made public.



(c) A new nominating committee, selected from a pool of civil society volunteers, could put forward candidates based on the selection criteria - similar to what we do internally in the IGC, and also used by other IG institutions such as the IETF.


(d) Another civil society umbrella group could nominate them.  This could be the WSIS Civil Society Plenary (which no longer really exists, but it may be necessary to re-form it before 2015), or an entirely new peak body.


Which of these options do you prefer?  Can you think of others?







-- 

Jeremy Malcolm
Project Coordinator
Consumers International
Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East
Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
CI is 50
Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010.
Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer rights around the world. 
http://www.consumersinternational.org/50

Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary.


-----Inline Attachment Follows-----


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

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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100610/1dfaf04c/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From jeanette at wzb.eu  Thu Jun 10 08:42:02 2010
From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 13:42:02 +0100
Subject: [governance] [2 of 6] How best to nominate non governmental
 members
In-Reply-To: <995242.26840.qm@web83911.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
References: <995242.26840.qm@web83911.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <4C10DD9A.2020809@wzb.eu>

Hi, b does not offer a workable solution because the caucus is not the 
global representative of civil society in the field of Internet 
governance. After years and years of this debate it would be really good 
if we could come to terms with the fact that people choose different 
avenues for applying for a seat on the MAG. If we want to suggest new 
ways of selecting members, we need to take into consideration that the 
IGC is not and will not be the center of the civil society world.

jeanette

Eric Dierker wrote:
> Jeremy,
>  
> I like b.  We have seen throughout the last century several classic 
> attempts to incorporate a "member of the party" electoral process. So 
> often countries claimed elections were open and honest and in fact had 
> huge turnouts. But you could only vote for a "party candidate". Too 
> often US and UK elections reach the same result and there is a constant 
> revolt against the notion.
>  
> Of course I hope this is consistent with my view that the (that is we*) 
> play a more influencial role.  That open, well supervised, public forum 
> lists be the genesis for more input. That consensus play a role but that 
> minority views be given weight so that the majority conclusions can be 
> more pure and less watered down.
>  
> So I think we should keep nominations open open open for those with a 
> proven desire for public service (like Ginger and Jeremy).
>  
>  
> * I appreciate very much using this concept as descriptive of the IGC. 
> It is what is mostly desired to be achieved and I think */we/* do a good 
> job of it.
> 
> --- On *Tue, 6/8/10, Jeremy Malcolm /<jeremy at ciroap.org>/* wrote:
> 
> 
>     From: Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org>
>     Subject: [governance] [2 of 6] How best to nominate non governmental
>     members for the MAG?
>     To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>     Date: Tuesday, June 8, 2010, 4:26 AM
> 
>     Continuing the questions from the MAG questionnaire
>     (http://intgovforum.org/cms/the-preparatory-process/510), comes the
>     second question:
> 
>     *How best to nominate non governmental members for the MAG?*
> 
>     Some options are:
> 
>     (a) The existing "black box" approach whereby the United Nations
>     Secretary General selects from a range of nominees put forward by
>     various parties - selection criteria are not publicly available.
> 
>     (b) The IGC (that is, we) could choose, based on certain selection
>     criteria to ensure diversity etc, that are currently within the
>     "black box" but would be made public.
> 
>     (c) A new nominating committee, selected from a pool of civil
>     society volunteers, could put forward candidates based on the
>     selection criteria - similar to what we do internally in the IGC,
>     and also used by other IG institutions such as the IETF.
> 
>     (d) Another civil society umbrella group could nominate them.  This
>     could be the WSIS Civil Society Plenary (which no longer really
>     exists, but it may be necessary to re-form it before 2015), or an
>     entirely new peak body.
> 
>     Which of these options do you prefer?  Can you think of others?
>     -- 
> 
>     *Jeremy Malcolm
>     Project Coordinator*
>     Consumers International
>     Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East
>     Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala
>     Lumpur, Malaysia
>     Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
> 
>     *CI is 50*
>     Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer
>     movement in 2010.
>     Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect
>     consumer rights around the world. 
>     _http://www.consumersinternational.org/50_
> 
>     Read our email confidentiality notice
>     <http://www.consumersinternational.org/Templates/Internal.asp?NodeID=100521&int1stParentNodeID=89765>.
>     Don't print this email unless necessary.
> 
> 
>     -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
> 
>     ____________________________________________________________
>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>          governance at lists.cpsr.org
>     <http://us.mc839.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>     To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>          governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>     <http://us.mc839.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org>
> 
>     For all list information and functions, see:
>          http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> 
>     Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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


From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net  Thu Jun 10 08:58:38 2010
From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker)
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 05:58:38 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] Google, Facebook Present as Maryland Passes New
 Political Advertising Law
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTik9fVXpWN10kjX9dscWJwQWHTe3i5OpuBIBEXSW@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <704879.43813.qm@web83911.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>

Rui,
 
I ran a series of lecture/speeches in a country that was trying to embrace the net and capitalism.  They were coming out of a tightly centrally controlled socialist based economy and social order. (needless to say I am a very out of control capitalist with no order ;-)
This whole country had one - yes one, marketing company, of course owned by the state.
 
The thrust of my urging was: Marketing is education and education is marketing. Cynically innaccurate and polyanna in close analysis but it was to make a point. Education is highly valued, but in honesty, often just a mask for propaganda. Marketing is unmasked. However for those who chose to think even falsehoods in advertisement can teach us a great deal about the subject.
 
Existing government entities should stay the hell out of advertisements, propaganda, marketing and education regarding candidates for public office. The "conflict" between open and free expression and job security is just too difficult to waive or objectify.  When web based access to both input and reception is regulated we run too great a risk of denial of knowledge and disclosure of improprieties.

--- On Tue, 6/8/10, Rui Correia <correia.rui at gmail.com> wrote:


From: Rui Correia <correia.rui at gmail.com>
Subject: [governance] Google, Facebook Present as Maryland Passes New Political Advertising Law
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Date: Tuesday, June 8, 2010, 8:05 PM



Google, Facebook Present as Maryland Passes New Political Advertising Law
Representatives from Google, Yahoo, Facebook, and AOL descended on a Maryland State Board of Elections meeting on rules governing social media and online ads by political campaigns. - Jun 4, 2010

-- 
O meu número em Luanda: (+244) 936144613
My number in Luanda: (+244) 936144613
_______________________________________________

Rui Correia
Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant
Angola Liaison Consultant
2 Cutten St
Horison 
Roodepoort-Johannesburg, 
South Africa
Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336
Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838
_______________
áâãçéêíóôõúç


-----Inline Attachment Follows-----


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

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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100610/f738b60e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From katitza at eff.org  Thu Jun 10 13:54:24 2010
From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez)
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 10:54:24 -0700
Subject: [governance] [2 of 6] How best to nominate non governmental
 members
In-Reply-To: <4C10DD9A.2020809@wzb.eu>
References: <995242.26840.qm@web83911.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> <4C10DD9A.2020809@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <4C1126D0.9080206@eff.org>

Hey there,

I would like to make an honest and informal assessment which I have been 
observing as general points in this overall discussion:

1.  I think there is a lack of disparity in "knowledge" and 
"advocacy/lobbying skills" between the business sector/technical 
community and civil society within the MAG. This makes, in my personal 
opinion, civil society representation weak within the MAG  (and it looks 
like we have less people that other constituencies).

2. While I do agree that anyone can represent the overall civil society, 
there are ways where we can organize ourselves.  Those civil society 
members who are interested to participate in the meeting and are not IGC 
members can contact the Secretariat, and then the Secretariat can 
forward them to us. If they want to be count in the election, those 
persons can submit their nomination through this umbrella organization.  
Therefore, we can truly assess not only the diversity, gender balance 
but also take into account if we have the right composition in terms of 
knowledge to take care of all this issues. FYI: IGC had previously 
choose IGC reps that are members and non members as long as they are 
civil society so it has had an inclusive views in the way the selected 
their representative.

3. Be in the MAG can take you lot of hours of works if you want to 
meaningful contribution but also you can do a meaningful contribution as 
a participant if you are able to attend the open consultations. More of 
the work is done there (and then by email following up those discussions 
and within those who were present in the meeting). If you are not aware 
of the dynamics (that usually changes), you can be lost in the process.

If you truly want to take care of the issues (freedom of expression, 
privacy, due process, etc etc etc), then you need to be very active 
because the process is made in the moment and if you get lost.. .then it 
is much difficult to influence the outcome.

Finally, I think the Secretariat have try to make a fair assessment of 
the selection of those representative who were not selected by IGC in 
order to have a broader civil society representation.





On 6/10/10 5:42 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
> Hi, b does not offer a workable solution because the caucus is not the 
> global representative of civil society in the field of Internet 
> governance. After years and years of this debate it would be really 
> good if we could come to terms with the fact that people choose 
> different avenues for applying for a seat on the MAG. If we want to 
> suggest new ways of selecting members, we need to take into 
> consideration that the IGC is not and will not be the center of the 
> civil society world.
>
> jeanette
>
> Eric Dierker wrote:
>> Jeremy,
>>
>> I like b.  We have seen throughout the last century several classic 
>> attempts to incorporate a "member of the party" electoral process. So 
>> often countries claimed elections were open and honest and in fact 
>> had huge turnouts. But you could only vote for a "party candidate". 
>> Too often US and UK elections reach the same result and there is a 
>> constant revolt against the notion.
>>
>> Of course I hope this is consistent with my view that the (that is 
>> we*) play a more influencial role.  That open, well supervised, 
>> public forum lists be the genesis for more input. That consensus play 
>> a role but that minority views be given weight so that the majority 
>> conclusions can be more pure and less watered down.
>>
>> So I think we should keep nominations open open open for those with a 
>> proven desire for public service (like Ginger and Jeremy).
>>
>>
>> * I appreciate very much using this concept as descriptive of the 
>> IGC. It is what is mostly desired to be achieved and I think */we/* 
>> do a good job of it.
>>
>> --- On *Tue, 6/8/10, Jeremy Malcolm /<jeremy at ciroap.org>/* wrote:
>>
>>
>>     From: Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org>
>>     Subject: [governance] [2 of 6] How best to nominate non governmental
>>     members for the MAG?
>>     To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>     Date: Tuesday, June 8, 2010, 4:26 AM
>>
>>     Continuing the questions from the MAG questionnaire
>>     (http://intgovforum.org/cms/the-preparatory-process/510), comes the
>>     second question:
>>
>>     *How best to nominate non governmental members for the MAG?*
>>
>>     Some options are:
>>
>>     (a) The existing "black box" approach whereby the United Nations
>>     Secretary General selects from a range of nominees put forward by
>>     various parties - selection criteria are not publicly available.
>>
>>     (b) The IGC (that is, we) could choose, based on certain selection
>>     criteria to ensure diversity etc, that are currently within the
>>     "black box" but would be made public.
>>
>>     (c) A new nominating committee, selected from a pool of civil
>>     society volunteers, could put forward candidates based on the
>>     selection criteria - similar to what we do internally in the IGC,
>>     and also used by other IG institutions such as the IETF.
>>
>>     (d) Another civil society umbrella group could nominate them.  This
>>     could be the WSIS Civil Society Plenary (which no longer really
>>     exists, but it may be necessary to re-form it before 2015), or an
>>     entirely new peak body.
>>
>>     Which of these options do you prefer?  Can you think of others?
>>     --
>>     *Jeremy Malcolm
>>     Project Coordinator*
>>     Consumers International
>>     Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East
>>     Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala
>>     Lumpur, Malaysia
>>     Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
>>
>>     *CI is 50*
>>     Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer
>>     movement in 2010.
>>     Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect
>>     consumer rights around the world.     
>> _http://www.consumersinternational.org/50_
>>
>>     Read our email confidentiality notice
>> <http://www.consumersinternational.org/Templates/Internal.asp?NodeID=100521&int1stParentNodeID=89765>. 
>>
>>     Don't print this email unless necessary.
>>
>>
>>     -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>>
>>     ____________________________________________________________
>>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>          governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> <http://us.mc839.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>>     To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>          governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>> <http://us.mc839.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org> 
>>
>>
>>     For all list information and functions, see:
>>          http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>
>>     Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


-- 
Katitza Rodriguez
International Rights Director
Electronic Frontier Foundation
katitza at eff.org
katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email)

Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990

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

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

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


From katitza at eff.org  Thu Jun 10 15:22:45 2010
From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez)
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 12:22:45 -0700
Subject: [governance] [2 of 6] How best to nominate non governmental
 members
In-Reply-To: <4C1126D0.9080206@eff.org>
References: <995242.26840.qm@web83911.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> <4C10DD9A.2020809@wzb.eu> <4C1126D0.9080206@eff.org>
Message-ID: <4C113B85.2040503@eff.org>

A few more points:

Civil Society has little resources individuals and NGOs (even those NGOs 
who has staff) while the other stakeholders has staff with funding to do 
their job. Therefore, we need to coordinate more to distribute tasks and 
be able to be as effective as the others with the little resources we have.

Communication: I would like to see a more active roles of the 
facilitators within the MAG (this can help give directions of the list) 
of how to influence and how to participate within this IGF process.

I am afraid that we are creating spaces where civil society might not be 
able to be there (due to an honest lack of capacity, etc), and we are 
creating some national IGF without the full compositions (or civil 
society participation) that is needed.





On 6/10/10 10:54 AM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote:
> Hey there,
>
> I would like to make an honest and informal assessment which I have 
> been observing as general points in this overall discussion:
>
> 1.  I think there is a lack of disparity in "knowledge" and 
> "advocacy/lobbying skills" between the business sector/technical 
> community and civil society within the MAG. This makes, in my personal 
> opinion, civil society representation weak within the MAG  (and it 
> looks like we have less people that other constituencies).
>
> 2. While I do agree that anyone can represent the overall civil 
> society, there are ways where we can organize ourselves.  Those civil 
> society members who are interested to participate in the meeting and 
> are not IGC members can contact the Secretariat, and then the 
> Secretariat can forward them to us. If they want to be count in the 
> election, those persons can submit their nomination through this 
> umbrella organization.  Therefore, we can truly assess not only the 
> diversity, gender balance but also take into account if we have the 
> right composition in terms of knowledge to take care of all this 
> issues. FYI: IGC had previously choose IGC reps that are members and 
> non members as long as they are civil society so it has had an 
> inclusive views in the way the selected their representative.
>
> 3. Be in the MAG can take you lot of hours of works if you want to 
> meaningful contribution but also you can do a meaningful contribution 
> as a participant if you are able to attend the open consultations. 
> More of the work is done there (and then by email following up those 
> discussions and within those who were present in the meeting). If you 
> are not aware of the dynamics (that usually changes), you can be lost 
> in the process.
>
> If you truly want to take care of the issues (freedom of expression, 
> privacy, due process, etc etc etc), then you need to be very active 
> because the process is made in the moment and if you get lost.. .then 
> it is much difficult to influence the outcome.
>
> Finally, I think the Secretariat have try to make a fair assessment of 
> the selection of those representative who were not selected by IGC in 
> order to have a broader civil society representation.
>
>
>
>
>
> On 6/10/10 5:42 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
>> Hi, b does not offer a workable solution because the caucus is not 
>> the global representative of civil society in the field of Internet 
>> governance. After years and years of this debate it would be really 
>> good if we could come to terms with the fact that people choose 
>> different avenues for applying for a seat on the MAG. If we want to 
>> suggest new ways of selecting members, we need to take into 
>> consideration that the IGC is not and will not be the center of the 
>> civil society world.
>>
>> jeanette
>>
>> Eric Dierker wrote:
>>> Jeremy,
>>>
>>> I like b.  We have seen throughout the last century several classic 
>>> attempts to incorporate a "member of the party" electoral process. 
>>> So often countries claimed elections were open and honest and in 
>>> fact had huge turnouts. But you could only vote for a "party 
>>> candidate". Too often US and UK elections reach the same result and 
>>> there is a constant revolt against the notion.
>>>
>>> Of course I hope this is consistent with my view that the (that is 
>>> we*) play a more influencial role.  That open, well supervised, 
>>> public forum lists be the genesis for more input. That consensus 
>>> play a role but that minority views be given weight so that the 
>>> majority conclusions can be more pure and less watered down.
>>>
>>> So I think we should keep nominations open open open for those with 
>>> a proven desire for public service (like Ginger and Jeremy).
>>>
>>>
>>> * I appreciate very much using this concept as descriptive of the 
>>> IGC. It is what is mostly desired to be achieved and I think */we/* 
>>> do a good job of it.
>>>
>>> --- On *Tue, 6/8/10, Jeremy Malcolm /<jeremy at ciroap.org>/* wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>     From: Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org>
>>>     Subject: [governance] [2 of 6] How best to nominate non 
>>> governmental
>>>     members for the MAG?
>>>     To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>     Date: Tuesday, June 8, 2010, 4:26 AM
>>>
>>>     Continuing the questions from the MAG questionnaire
>>>     (http://intgovforum.org/cms/the-preparatory-process/510), comes the
>>>     second question:
>>>
>>>     *How best to nominate non governmental members for the MAG?*
>>>
>>>     Some options are:
>>>
>>>     (a) The existing "black box" approach whereby the United Nations
>>>     Secretary General selects from a range of nominees put forward by
>>>     various parties - selection criteria are not publicly available.
>>>
>>>     (b) The IGC (that is, we) could choose, based on certain selection
>>>     criteria to ensure diversity etc, that are currently within the
>>>     "black box" but would be made public.
>>>
>>>     (c) A new nominating committee, selected from a pool of civil
>>>     society volunteers, could put forward candidates based on the
>>>     selection criteria - similar to what we do internally in the IGC,
>>>     and also used by other IG institutions such as the IETF.
>>>
>>>     (d) Another civil society umbrella group could nominate them.  This
>>>     could be the WSIS Civil Society Plenary (which no longer really
>>>     exists, but it may be necessary to re-form it before 2015), or an
>>>     entirely new peak body.
>>>
>>>     Which of these options do you prefer?  Can you think of others?
>>>     --
>>>     *Jeremy Malcolm
>>>     Project Coordinator*
>>>     Consumers International
>>>     Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East
>>>     Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala
>>>     Lumpur, Malaysia
>>>     Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
>>>
>>>     *CI is 50*
>>>     Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer
>>>     movement in 2010.
>>>     Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect
>>>     consumer rights around the world.     
>>> _http://www.consumersinternational.org/50_
>>>
>>>     Read our email confidentiality notice
>>> <http://www.consumersinternational.org/Templates/Internal.asp?NodeID=100521&int1stParentNodeID=89765>. 
>>>
>>>     Don't print this email unless necessary.
>>>
>>>
>>>     -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>>>
>>>     ____________________________________________________________
>>>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>          governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>> <http://us.mc839.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=governance at lists.cpsr.org> 
>>>
>>>     To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>>          governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>> <http://us.mc839.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org> 
>>>
>>>
>>>     For all list information and functions, see:
>>>          http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>>
>>>     Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>


-- 
Katitza Rodriguez
International Rights Director
Electronic Frontier Foundation
katitza at eff.org
katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email)

Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990

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

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 Jun 11 07:39:56 2010
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 19:39:56 +0800
Subject: [governance] [3 of 6] How best to nominate the MAG Chair?
Message-ID: <070321FE-0D02-40E0-A09E-DD01BDD0FD9F@ciroap.org>

There have been a few really good comments coming through on questions 1 and 2 (thank you!), but please keep them flowing.  Question 3 is closely related:

How best to nominate the MAG Chair?

Here are a few examples of options we might recommend:

1. A single UN-based Chair is appointed by the UN Secretary-General (as at present).

2. The UNSG appoints one Chair, and a co-chair is appointed by the host country (as was tried for the Brazil IGF meeting).

3. The MAG appoints its own chair (by a vote or by consensus).

4. The MAG appoints two co-chairs for alternating two-year terms (much like we do in the IGC).

In the case of options 3 and 4, we might also require that the chair/s, if not independent (ie. UN-based), would be from a different stakeholder group at each rotation.

Are any of the above to be preferred, or can any be swiftly rejected?  Are there any other options you can think of?

-- 
Jeremy Malcolm
Project Coordinator
Consumers International
Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East
Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Tel: +60 3 7726 1599

CI is 50
Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010.
Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer rights around the world. 
http://www.consumersinternational.org/50

Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100611/1c756c83/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net  Fri Jun 11 09:26:48 2010
From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker)
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 06:26:48 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] [3 of 6] How best to nominate the MAG Chair?
In-Reply-To: <070321FE-0D02-40E0-A09E-DD01BDD0FD9F@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <967466.16325.qm@web83914.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>

1&2 give us continuity and asure the best route for not rocking the boat. They are the best choices for getting along.
 
3&4 will give the MAG more internal control and will help make the MAG look more and more like a club of appointees designed to rubber stamp what external pressures dictate.
 
It would seem that if we stick with a cozy solution to [2 of 6] we should be consistent with this issue and let the honorees pick their own cheerleader.  The definition of the role of the Chair needs clarification. Some chairs only deal with internal issues. Some chairs are required to be "Secretary of State". Usually it is ill defined. Co-chairs is good so we can delineate like many countries have a Prime Minister and a President.
 
But certainly it is ill conceived to elect or appoint one person to build consensus and maintain order within and then to advocate and/or be an outside diplomat. When we think of women who could do that we are talking about Greats not a normal scenario.
 
So no matter if inside or outside chooses the caretaker/warrior there must be at least two.
I would suggest #4 for this reason-- #2 just smacks of titles and drinking wine with pinky protruding and mockery, which will do more harm than good.

--- On Fri, 6/11/10, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:


From: Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org>
Subject: [governance] [3 of 6] How best to nominate the MAG Chair?
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Date: Friday, June 11, 2010, 11:39 AM


There have been a few really good comments coming through on questions 1 and 2 (thank you!), but please keep them flowing.  Question 3 is closely related:


How best to nominate the MAG Chair?

Here are a few examples of options we might recommend:


1. A single UN-based Chair is appointed by the UN Secretary-General (as at present).


2. The UNSG appoints one Chair, and a co-chair is appointed by the host country (as was tried for the Brazil IGF meeting).


3. The MAG appoints its own chair (by a vote or by consensus).


4. The MAG appoints two co-chairs for alternating two-year terms (much like we do in the IGC).


In the case of options 3 and 4, we might also require that the chair/s, if not independent (ie. UN-based), would be from a different stakeholder group at each rotation.


Are any of the above to be preferred, or can any be swiftly rejected?  Are there any other options you can think of?








-- 

Jeremy Malcolm
Project Coordinator
Consumers International
Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East
Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
CI is 50
Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010.
Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer rights around the world. 
http://www.consumersinternational.org/50

Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary.


-----Inline Attachment Follows-----


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

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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100611/b35632e7/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From jeanette at wzb.eu  Fri Jun 11 09:56:18 2010
From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 14:56:18 +0100
Subject: [governance] [2 of 6] How best to nominate non governmental
 members
In-Reply-To: <4C1126D0.9080206@eff.org>
References: <995242.26840.qm@web83911.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> <4C10DD9A.2020809@wzb.eu> <4C1126D0.9080206@eff.org>
Message-ID: <4C124082.90204@wzb.eu>

Hi Katitza,

I agree with you that civil society organization in the MAG is rather 
weak compared to the private sector and technical community representation.

Partly this has to do with the fact that we are volunteers whereas the 
private sector is represented by professionals whose job it is to 
advocate private sector positions. However, what also should be 
mentioned is that not all of us contribute as much as we should. One 
person doesn't even bother to come to the meeting or participate remotely.

Another reason is that we are much more heterogeneous in our positions 
than the private sector and the technical community who most of the time 
agree with each other and confirm what other members have said before. 
The civil society people on the MAG are probably too diverse to offer 
each other such a degree of support.

At the last MAG meeting I suggested a nomcom approach for the selection 
of new MAG members. That way, at least members from the private sector 
and civil society could be selected in a coordinated way. This proposal 
found some support in the MAG.

I am not sure the IGC has enough credibility to function as the 
principle selection body for civil society candidates for the MAG.

jeanette



Katitza Rodriguez wrote:
> Hey there,
> 
> I would like to make an honest and informal assessment which I have been 
> observing as general points in this overall discussion:
> 
> 1.  I think there is a lack of disparity in "knowledge" and 
> "advocacy/lobbying skills" between the business sector/technical 
> community and civil society within the MAG. This makes, in my personal 
> opinion, civil society representation weak within the MAG  (and it looks 
> like we have less people that other constituencies).
> 
> 2. While I do agree that anyone can represent the overall civil society, 
> there are ways where we can organize ourselves.  Those civil society 
> members who are interested to participate in the meeting and are not IGC 
> members can contact the Secretariat, and then the Secretariat can 
> forward them to us. If they want to be count in the election, those 
> persons can submit their nomination through this umbrella organization.  
> Therefore, we can truly assess not only the diversity, gender balance 
> but also take into account if we have the right composition in terms of 
> knowledge to take care of all this issues. FYI: IGC had previously 
> choose IGC reps that are members and non members as long as they are 
> civil society so it has had an inclusive views in the way the selected 
> their representative.
> 
> 3. Be in the MAG can take you lot of hours of works if you want to 
> meaningful contribution but also you can do a meaningful contribution as 
> a participant if you are able to attend the open consultations. More of 
> the work is done there (and then by email following up those discussions 
> and within those who were present in the meeting). If you are not aware 
> of the dynamics (that usually changes), you can be lost in the process.
> 
> If you truly want to take care of the issues (freedom of expression, 
> privacy, due process, etc etc etc), then you need to be very active 
> because the process is made in the moment and if you get lost.. .then it 
> is much difficult to influence the outcome.
> 
> Finally, I think the Secretariat have try to make a fair assessment of 
> the selection of those representative who were not selected by IGC in 
> order to have a broader civil society representation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 6/10/10 5:42 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
>> Hi, b does not offer a workable solution because the caucus is not the 
>> global representative of civil society in the field of Internet 
>> governance. After years and years of this debate it would be really 
>> good if we could come to terms with the fact that people choose 
>> different avenues for applying for a seat on the MAG. If we want to 
>> suggest new ways of selecting members, we need to take into 
>> consideration that the IGC is not and will not be the center of the 
>> civil society world.
>>
>> jeanette
>>
>> Eric Dierker wrote:
>>> Jeremy,
>>>
>>> I like b.  We have seen throughout the last century several classic 
>>> attempts to incorporate a "member of the party" electoral process. So 
>>> often countries claimed elections were open and honest and in fact 
>>> had huge turnouts. But you could only vote for a "party candidate". 
>>> Too often US and UK elections reach the same result and there is a 
>>> constant revolt against the notion.
>>>
>>> Of course I hope this is consistent with my view that the (that is 
>>> we*) play a more influencial role.  That open, well supervised, 
>>> public forum lists be the genesis for more input. That consensus play 
>>> a role but that minority views be given weight so that the majority 
>>> conclusions can be more pure and less watered down.
>>>
>>> So I think we should keep nominations open open open for those with a 
>>> proven desire for public service (like Ginger and Jeremy).
>>>
>>>
>>> * I appreciate very much using this concept as descriptive of the 
>>> IGC. It is what is mostly desired to be achieved and I think */we/* 
>>> do a good job of it.
>>>
>>> --- On *Tue, 6/8/10, Jeremy Malcolm /<jeremy at ciroap.org>/* wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>     From: Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org>
>>>     Subject: [governance] [2 of 6] How best to nominate non governmental
>>>     members for the MAG?
>>>     To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>     Date: Tuesday, June 8, 2010, 4:26 AM
>>>
>>>     Continuing the questions from the MAG questionnaire
>>>     (http://intgovforum.org/cms/the-preparatory-process/510), comes the
>>>     second question:
>>>
>>>     *How best to nominate non governmental members for the MAG?*
>>>
>>>     Some options are:
>>>
>>>     (a) The existing "black box" approach whereby the United Nations
>>>     Secretary General selects from a range of nominees put forward by
>>>     various parties - selection criteria are not publicly available.
>>>
>>>     (b) The IGC (that is, we) could choose, based on certain selection
>>>     criteria to ensure diversity etc, that are currently within the
>>>     "black box" but would be made public.
>>>
>>>     (c) A new nominating committee, selected from a pool of civil
>>>     society volunteers, could put forward candidates based on the
>>>     selection criteria - similar to what we do internally in the IGC,
>>>     and also used by other IG institutions such as the IETF.
>>>
>>>     (d) Another civil society umbrella group could nominate them.  This
>>>     could be the WSIS Civil Society Plenary (which no longer really
>>>     exists, but it may be necessary to re-form it before 2015), or an
>>>     entirely new peak body.
>>>
>>>     Which of these options do you prefer?  Can you think of others?
>>>     --
>>>     *Jeremy Malcolm
>>>     Project Coordinator*
>>>     Consumers International
>>>     Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East
>>>     Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala
>>>     Lumpur, Malaysia
>>>     Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
>>>
>>>     *CI is 50*
>>>     Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer
>>>     movement in 2010.
>>>     Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect
>>>     consumer rights around the world.     
>>> _http://www.consumersinternational.org/50_
>>>
>>>     Read our email confidentiality notice
>>> <http://www.consumersinternational.org/Templates/Internal.asp?NodeID=100521&int1stParentNodeID=89765>. 
>>>
>>>     Don't print this email unless necessary.
>>>
>>>
>>>     -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>>>
>>>     ____________________________________________________________
>>>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>          governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>> <http://us.mc839.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>>>     To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>>          governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>> <http://us.mc839.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org> 
>>>
>>>
>>>     For all list information and functions, see:
>>>          http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>>
>>>     Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
> 
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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


From ruth at lacnic.net  Fri Jun 11 14:51:01 2010
From: ruth at lacnic.net (Ruth Puente)
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 15:51:01 -0300
Subject: [governance] Pre IGF Quito -registration opens/Fellowship
 Program// Pre IGF Quito-registro abierto/Programa de Becas
Message-ID: <4C128595.2080205@lacnic.net>


*(Español abajo)


The Association for Progressive Communications (APC), the NUPEF
Institute, and the Regional Internet Address Registry for Latin America
and the Caribbean (LACNIC) announce the opening of registration to
attend the Third Regional Preparatory Meeting for the Internet
Governance Forum (IGF) which will take place on 3-5 August 2010 in the
city of Quito, Ecuador.

No registration fees apply, but in order to attend the meeting
pre-registration is required. To register please go to:
http://lacnic.net/en/eventos/igfprep2010/form-reg.html

The organizer entities along with IMAGINAR (Research Center for the
Information Society in Quito, Ecuador), CGI.br (Comitê Gestor da
Internet no Brasil) and NIC.br (Núcleo de Informação e Coordenação do
Ponto BR), are offering financial grants to members of the Internet
community of Latin America and the Caribbean interested in attending the
meeting.

For more information, and to submit an application for a grant, please
go to:
http://www.lacnic.net/en/eventos/igfprep2010/form-becas.html

Detailed information about the agenda, accommodation, and general
information is available from the meeting website at:
http://lacnic.net/en/eventos/fgi3/en/index.html

APC – NUPEF - LACNIC

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

La Asociación para el Progreso de las Comunicaciones (APC), el Instituto
NUPEF y el Registro de Direcciones de Internet para América Latina y el
Caribe (LACNIC), anuncian la apertura de inscripciones para participar
de la III Reunión Regional Preparatoria para el Foro de Gobernanza de
Internet (FGI) a realizarse los días 3, 4 y 5 de agosto de 2010 en la
ciudad de Quito, Ecuador.

La inscripción es gratuita, pero es necesario registrarse previamente
para poder asistir al evento. El registro online está abierto en:
http://lacnic.net/sp/eventos/igfprep2010/form-reg.html

Las entidades organizadoras, con el apoyo de IMAGINAR (Centro de
Investigación para la Sociedad de la Información en Quito-Ecuador), el
CGI.br (Comitê Gestor da Internet no Brasil) y el NIC.br (Núcleo de
Informação e Coordenação do Ponto BR), ofrecen becas de asistencia
financiera dirigidas a miembros de la comunidad Internet de
Latinoamérica y Caribe que estén interesados en asistir a la reunión.

Para más información, si está interesado en solicitar una beca, favor
completar el formulario de solicitud en:
http://www.lacnic.net/sp/eventos/igfprep2010/form-becas.html

Información detallada sobre el programa, hospedaje, e información de
interés general está accesible en el sitio web del evento:
http://lacnic.net/sp/eventos/fgi3/sp/index.html

APC – NUPEF – LACNIC
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------








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

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

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


From mueller at syr.edu  Fri Jun 11 15:04:40 2010
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 15:04:40 -0400
Subject: [governance] [2 of 6] How best to nominate non governmental
In-Reply-To: <4C10DD9A.2020809@wzb.eu>
References: <995242.26840.qm@web83911.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
 <4C10DD9A.2020809@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D705AC3E73DE@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu]
> Hi, b does not offer a workable solution because the caucus is not the
> global representative of civil society in the field of Internet
> governance. After years and years of this debate it would be really
> good if we could come to terms with the fact that people choose different
> avenues for applying for a seat on the MAG. If we want to suggest new
> ways of selecting members, we need to take into consideration that the
> IGC is not and will not be the center of the civil society world.

I don't agree. IGC is the closest thing there is to a global nexus for civil society discussion of IG. If the Secretariat or UN were to ratify it as the basis for selection, then many others would join it. Whatever the flaws and limitations of IGC, it is much more transparent and open a space for CS than people sidling up to their governments or businesses behind the scenes and asking them to be appointed to "represent" CS. 

The truth of my assertion can stand up to a very simple test: name ONE other organization or process that is superior to IGC in any important respect: embedded knowledge of IGF and its processes; more active participation by CS people involved in IG; linkages to WSIS and its resolutions and processes. Name one. 

A nominating committee? Don't make me laugh. Appointed by whom? Using what process? 
Nominating committees are just ways for insider groups to perpetuate themselves. We all know this from the ICANN process. 

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

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

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

From jefsey at jefsey.com  Fri Jun 11 17:38:25 2010
From: jefsey at jefsey.com (jefsey)
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 23:38:25 +0200
Subject: [governance] [3 of 6] How best to nominate the MAG Chair?
In-Reply-To: <070321FE-0D02-40E0-A09E-DD01BDD0FD9F@ciroap.org>
References: <070321FE-0D02-40E0-A09E-DD01BDD0FD9F@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20100611231932.065238e8@jefsey.com>

At 13:39 11/06/2010, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>There have been a few really good comments coming through on 
>questions 1 and 2 (thank you!), but please keep them 
>flowing.  Question 3 is closely related:
>
>How best to nominate the MAG Chair?
>
>Here are a few examples of options we might recommend:
>
>1. A single UN-based Chair is appointed by the UN Secretary-General 
>(as at present).
>
>2. The UNSG appoints one Chair, and a co-chair is appointed by the 
>host country (as was tried for the Brazil IGF meeting).
>
>3. The MAG appoints its own chair (by a vote or by consensus).
>
>4. The MAG appoints two co-chairs for alternating two-year terms 
>(much like we do in the IGC).
>
>In the case of options 3 and 4, we might also require that the 
>chair/s, if not independent (ie. UN-based), would be from a 
>different stakeholder group at each rotation.
>
>Are any of the above to be preferred, or can any be swiftly 
>rejected?  Are there any other options you can think of?

If you are serious about the question of nominating someone to 
represent three billions of people make a monthly rotational 
chairmanship attributed by drawing lots. This way he will not 
represent the people themselves (how do you want to do that?), but 
the position will structurally exemplify their diversity and the 
individual autonomy of the constituant.

Democracy is over. We are now entered in Polycracy where 
representation is not by selection or election (vote of one 
priviligied person, or by every person), but exemplification. The 
less previsible one for the less previsible time is the best way to 
be sure that no personal agenda will be supported, and that the 
consensuses being reached by this Chairmanship will be external as 
well as internal, i.e. stronger and better. Also, you cannot bribe the dices.

JFC
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100611/5bb45273/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Sat Jun 12 00:37:27 2010
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2010 14:37:27 +1000
Subject: [governance] [2 of 6] How best to nominate non governmental
In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D705AC3E73DE@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <C8394C27.E937%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>

I agree with Milton here. IGC represents civil society in this forum far
more so than any other party, has global spread and interests, and
accommodates the divergence of global opinions that civil society has on
these issues. If there is the concept of one body to represent civil
society, IGC is the forerunner and I wouldn't know who would come second.

And somewhat cheekily, let me say that IGC is more representative of civil
society than, say, ICC is of the overall global business community, ISOC of
the technical community, and most governments are of their citizens. All of
these bodies have substantial weaknesses when it comes to consultation and
most go nowhere near as far as IGC does in seeking to hear and accommodate
divergent opinions.

However if IGF continues another five years, it is worth raising the
questions of a small secretariat for IGC and also formal UN accreditation.
They might be worth looking at!

Ian Peter


> From: Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu>
> Reply-To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu>
> Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 15:04:40 -0400
> To: "governance at lists.cpsr.org" <governance at lists.cpsr.org>
> Subject: RE: [governance] [2 of 6] How best to nominate non governmental
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu]
>> Hi, b does not offer a workable solution because the caucus is not the
>> global representative of civil society in the field of Internet
>> governance. After years and years of this debate it would be really
>> good if we could come to terms with the fact that people choose different
>> avenues for applying for a seat on the MAG. If we want to suggest new
>> ways of selecting members, we need to take into consideration that the
>> IGC is not and will not be the center of the civil society world.
> 
> I don't agree. IGC is the closest thing there is to a global nexus for civil
> society discussion of IG. If the Secretariat or UN were to ratify it as the
> basis for selection, then many others would join it. Whatever the flaws and
> limitations of IGC, it is much more transparent and open a space for CS than
> people sidling up to their governments or businesses behind the scenes and
> asking them to be appointed to "represent" CS.
> 
> The truth of my assertion can stand up to a very simple test: name ONE other
> organization or process that is superior to IGC in any important respect:
> embedded knowledge of IGF and its processes; more active participation by CS
> people involved in IG; linkages to WSIS and its resolutions and processes.
> Name one. 
> 
> A nominating committee? Don't make me laugh. Appointed by whom? Using what
> process? 
> Nominating committees are just ways for insider groups to perpetuate
> themselves. We all know this from the ICANN process.
> 
> --MM
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


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

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

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


From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net  Sat Jun 12 11:32:59 2010
From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker)
Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2010 08:32:59 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] [2 of 6] How best to nominate non governmental
 (UN-ICANN)
In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D705AC3E73DE@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <53782.42556.qm@web83903.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>

At first blush Milton's argument may seem like an "if you build it they will come" form of logic.  On full reading it is clearly not. Milton makes a clear case that indeed, as we write, there is no more fitting center for IG. I go further and leave out the caveat "for civil society", as in my belief that is apriori.* Jeanette had me going until off list she offered no more sound rationale than that espoused here. Rather bluntly, Milton's last paragraph covers the reason - protectionism.
 
There was debate about putting the ICANN ballywick under the auspices of the UN.  As an authoritarian type mandate it was nixed. Certainly the success of ICANN independent was not reason for the denial of concept.  The rationale most agreed to was UN failure. But no one ever suggested that UN input was a bad idea and/or not beneficial. However the UN had no mechanism with credibility with which to accomplish positive guidance and influencial input. Milton's position seems to suggest that it now does and maybe should be revisited.  So I suggest we not only look to the IGC for input into the UN, but at a good opportunity for UN input into the IG.
 
 
*No one ever suggests uncivil society help with IG ;-)  ergo rogare mia sum

--- On Fri, 6/11/10, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu]
> Hi, b does not offer a workable solution because the caucus is not the
> global representative of civil society in the field of Internet
> governance. After years and years of this debate it would be really
> good if we could come to terms with the fact that people choose different
> avenues for applying for a seat on the MAG. If we want to suggest new
> ways of selecting members, we need to take into consideration that the
> IGC is not and will not be the center of the civil society world.

I don't agree. IGC is the closest thing there is to a global nexus for civil society discussion of IG. If the Secretariat or UN were to ratify it as the basis for selection, then many others would join it. Whatever the flaws and limitations of IGC, it is much more transparent and open a space for CS than people sidling up to their governments or businesses behind the scenes and asking them to be appointed to "represent" CS. 

The truth of my assertion can stand up to a very simple test: name ONE other organization or process that is superior to IGC in any important respect: embedded knowledge of IGF and its processes; more active participation by CS people involved in IG; linkages to WSIS and its resolutions and processes. Name one. 

A nominating committee? Don't make me laugh. Appointed by whom? Using what process? 
Nominating committees are just ways for insider groups to perpetuate themselves. We all know this from the ICANN process. 

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

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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100612/dcca0a71/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From jeanette at wzb.eu  Sun Jun 13 03:41:59 2010
From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2010 08:41:59 +0100
Subject: [governance] [2 of 6] How best to nominate non governmental
 (UN-ICANN)
In-Reply-To: <53782.42556.qm@web83903.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
References: <53782.42556.qm@web83903.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <4C148BC7.70807@wzb.eu>


Hi,

Eric Dierker wrote:
> At first blush Milton's argument may seem like an "if you build it they 
> will come" form of logic.  On full reading it is clearly not. Milton 
> makes a clear case that indeed, as we write, there is no more fitting 
> center for IG.


The fact that there is no more fitting center doesn't necessarily make 
the IGC a fitting body for selecting members for the MAG.

  I go further and leave out the caveat "for civil
> society", as in my belief that is apriori.* Jeanette had me going until 
> off list she offered no more sound rationale than that espoused here. 
> Rather bluntly, Milton's last paragraph covers the reason - protectionism.

Could you perhaps just accept that I don't share your opinion and stop 
speculating about my motives?

jeanette

>  
> There was debate about putting the ICANN ballywick under the auspices of 
> the UN.  As an authoritarian type mandate it was nixed. Certainly the 
> success of ICANN independent was not reason for the denial of concept.  
> The rationale most agreed to was UN failure. But no one ever suggested 
> that UN input was a bad idea and/or not beneficial. However the UN had 
> no mechanism with credibility with which to accomplish positive guidance 
> and influencial input. Milton's position seems to suggest that it now 
> does and maybe should be revisited.  So I suggest we not only look to 
> the IGC for input into the UN, but at a good opportunity for UN input 
> into the IG.
>  
>  
> *No one ever suggests _un_civil society help with IG ;-)  ergo rogare 
> mia sum
> 
> --- On *Fri, 6/11/10, Milton L Mueller /<mueller at syr.edu>/* wrote:
> 
>      > -----Original Message-----
>      > From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu
>     <http://us.mc839.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=jeanette at wzb.eu>]
>      > Hi, b does not offer a workable solution because the caucus is
>     not the
>      > global representative of civil society in the field of Internet
>      > governance. After years and years of this debate it would be really
>      > good if we could come to terms with the fact that people choose
>     different
>      > avenues for applying for a seat on the MAG. If we want to suggest new
>      > ways of selecting members, we need to take into consideration
>     that the
>      > IGC is not and will not be the center of the civil society world.
> 
>     I don't agree. IGC is the closest thing there is to a global nexus
>     for civil society discussion of IG. If the Secretariat or UN were to
>     ratify it as the basis for selection, then many others would join
>     it. Whatever the flaws and limitations of IGC, it is much more
>     transparent and open a space for CS than people sidling up to their
>     governments or businesses behind the scenes and asking them to be
>     appointed to "represent" CS.
> 
>     The truth of my assertion can stand up to a very simple test: name
>     ONE other organization or process that is superior to IGC in any
>     important respect: embedded knowledge of IGF and its processes; more
>     active participation by CS people involved in IG; linkages to WSIS
>     and its resolutions and processes. Name one.
> 
>     A nominating committee? Don't make me laugh. Appointed by whom?
>     Using what process?
>     Nominating committees are just ways for insider groups to perpetuate
>     themselves. We all know this from the ICANN process.
> 
>     --MM
>     ____________________________________________________________
>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>          governance at lists.cpsr.org
>     <http://us.mc839.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>     To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>          governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>     <http://us.mc839.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org>
> 
>     For all list information and functions, see:
>          http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> 
>     Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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


From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net  Sun Jun 13 12:31:50 2010
From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker)
Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2010 09:31:50 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] Respectful Human Interface
In-Reply-To: <4C148BC7.70807@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <647370.16046.qm@web83904.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>

Jeanette,
I mean no consternation causing. Consider this possibility. There are about 5 billion readers to this list. There are about 10 posters on matters of general governance. While we stay personal in touch and reference to keep it human, we have a sort of duty, a duty to explore and to examine concepts. So if I take something you say and extrapolate (yes it is personal to you) I hope to do it in a way where others may begin to evaluate a given position. When I jump all over Milton - it is not about Milton -- he makes very strong points that unless questioned go unbolstered and unexplained.I do not see or take my doctoral education my years of education, travel and information technology and my freedom lightly. I take it as a burden as should you. We who have the tools and the luxury of time to work on these matters without compensation, should be ever grateful, and should not shirk our responsibility to carry some criticism so that others may benefit.The
 ultimate required respect is to those who cannot speak, to speak our best for them. Not to whither and dither and worry if we are right or respected.
"I am more often wrong than right, so all I can do to do right, is to keep doing" 
Eric

--- On Sun, 6/13/10, Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu> wrote:

From: Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu>
Subject: Re: [governance] [2 of 6] How best to nominate non governmental (UN-ICANN)
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Eric Dierker" <cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net>
Date: Sunday, June 13, 2010, 7:41 AM


Hi,

Eric Dierker wrote:
> At first blush Milton's argument may seem like an "if you build it they will come" form of logic.  On full reading it is clearly not. Milton makes a clear case that indeed, as we write, there is no more fitting center for IG.


The fact that there is no more fitting center doesn't necessarily make the IGC a fitting body for selecting members for the MAG.

 I go further and leave out the caveat "for civil
> society", as in my belief that is apriori.* Jeanette had me going until off list she offered no more sound rationale than that espoused here. Rather bluntly, Milton's last paragraph covers the reason - protectionism.

Could you perhaps just accept that I don't share your opinion and stop speculating about my motives?

jeanette

>  There was debate about putting the ICANN ballywick under the auspices of the UN.  As an authoritarian type mandate it was nixed. Certainly the success of ICANN independent was not reason for the denial of concept.  The rationale most agreed to was UN failure. But no one ever suggested that UN input was a bad idea and/or not beneficial. However the UN had no mechanism with credibility with which to accomplish positive guidance and influencial input. Milton's position seems to suggest that it now does and maybe should be revisited.  So I suggest we not only look to the IGC for input into the UN, but at a good opportunity for UN input into the IG.
>   *No one ever suggests _un_civil society help with IG ;-)  ergo rogare mia sum
> 
> --- On *Fri, 6/11/10, Milton L Mueller /<mueller at syr.edu>/* wrote:
> 
>      > -----Original Message-----
>      > From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu
>     <http://us.mc839.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=jeanette at wzb.eu>]
>      > Hi, b does not offer a workable solution because the caucus is
>     not the
>      > global representative of civil society in the field of Internet
>      > governance. After years and years of this debate it would be really
>      > good if we could come to terms with the fact that people choose
>     different
>      > avenues for applying for a seat on the MAG. If we want to suggest new
>      > ways of selecting members, we need to take into consideration
>     that the
>      > IGC is not and will not be the center of the civil society world.
> 
>     I don't agree. IGC is the closest thing there is to a global nexus
>     for civil society discussion of IG. If the Secretariat or UN were to
>     ratify it as the basis for selection, then many others would join
>     it. Whatever the flaws and limitations of IGC, it is much more
>     transparent and open a space for CS than people sidling up to their
>     governments or businesses behind the scenes and asking them to be
>     appointed to "represent" CS.
> 
>     The truth of my assertion can stand up to a very simple test: name
>     ONE other organization or process that is superior to IGC in any
>     important respect: embedded knowledge of IGF and its processes; more
>     active participation by CS people involved in IG; linkages to WSIS
>     and its resolutions and processes. Name one.
> 
>     A nominating committee? Don't make me laugh. Appointed by whom?
>     Using what process?
>     Nominating committees are just ways for insider groups to perpetuate
>     themselves. We all know this from the ICANN process.
> 
>     --MM
>     ____________________________________________________________
>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>          governance at lists.cpsr.org
>     <http://us.mc839.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>     To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>          governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>     <http://us.mc839.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org>
> 
>     For all list information and functions, see:
>          http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> 
>     Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100613/865e5f70/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net  Sun Jun 13 13:23:27 2010
From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker)
Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2010 10:23:27 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] [3 of 6] How best to nominate the MAG Chair?
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20100611231932.065238e8@jefsey.com>
Message-ID: <969313.75636.qm@web83903.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>

This notion that we are no longer looking for enablement and empowerment through common vote and democratically inclined notions is very practical.  It does take away the everpresent problem of mandates and agendas. But.....
It handles in a very engineering way the diminution of people. It assumes that all are capable of leading as well as the next. If chairing is only a +_- equation without personality requirements then why have one, just design a program. If it makes no difference who - then who cares? For inside to inside this may be a dilema without consequence.  As for a representative Chair -- whoa Nelly!  People - especially people who have for whatever reason risen to a point that others care about their decisions - require, expect and in fact deserve a modicum of social grace with those they interact with. So assume the MAG has a Brazilian who is there just because he is technically brilliant and does awesome analysis. But the guy got booted out of Nerd Club because he was too Nerdy for them.  Do we want that guy advocating our position on how technology can help stem AIDS and advance Womens' issues in the Sudan??? Or pounding his shoe on the table regarding
 censorship and denial of A2K??
I think the notion of a Chair deserves some respect. I think "by lot" diminishes that respect and the MAG as a whole.  But admittedly my concept requires the wasted time of human frailty.

--- On Fri, 6/11/10, jefsey <jefsey at jefsey.com> wrote:

From: jefsey <jefsey at jefsey.com>
Subject: Re: [governance] [3 of 6] How best to nominate the MAG Chair?
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Jeremy Malcolm" <jeremy at ciroap.org>, governance at lists.cpsr.org
Date: Friday, June 11, 2010, 9:38 PM


 
At 13:39 11/06/2010, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:

There have been a few really
good comments coming through on questions 1 and 2 (thank you!), but
please keep them flowing.  Question 3 is closely related:


How best to nominate the MAG Chair?


Here are a few examples of options we might recommend:


1. A single UN-based Chair is appointed by the UN Secretary-General (as
at present).


2. The UNSG appoints one Chair, and a co-chair is appointed by the host
country (as was tried for the Brazil IGF meeting).


3. The MAG appoints its own chair (by a vote or by consensus).


4. The MAG appoints two co-chairs for alternating two-year terms (much
like we do in the IGC).


In the case of options 3 and 4, we might also require that the chair/s,
if not independent (ie. UN-based), would be from a different stakeholder
group at each rotation.


Are any of the above to be preferred, or can any be swiftly
rejected?  Are there any other options you can think
of?

If you are serious about the question of nominating someone to represent
three billions of people make a monthly rotational chairmanship
attributed by drawing lots. This way he will not represent the people
themselves (how do you want to do that?), but the position will
structurally exemplify their diversity and the individual autonomy of the
constituant.


Democracy is over. We are now entered in Polycracy where representation
is not by selection or election (vote of one priviligied person, or by
every person), but exemplification. The less previsible one for the less
previsible time is the best way to be sure that no personal agenda will
be supported, and that the consensuses being reached by this Chairmanship
will be external as well as internal, i.e. stronger and better. Also, you
cannot bribe the dices.


JFC

 


-----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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100613/687566b8/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From jefsey at jefsey.com  Sun Jun 13 15:42:54 2010
From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin)
Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2010 21:42:54 +0200
Subject: [governance] [3 of 6] How best to nominate the MAG Chair?
In-Reply-To: <969313.75636.qm@web83903.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
References: <7.0.1.0.2.20100611231932.065238e8@jefsey.com>
 <969313.75636.qm@web83903.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20100613213614.060db0c8@jefsey.com>

At 19:23 13/06/2010, Eric Dierker wrote:
>This notion that we are no longer looking for enablement and 
>empowerment through common vote and democratically inclined notions 
>is very practical.  It does take away the everpresent problem of 
>mandates and agendas. But.....
>
>It handles in a very engineering way the diminution of people. It 
>assumes that all are capable of leading as well as the next. If 
>chairing is only a +_- equation without personality requirements 
>then why have one, just design a program. If it makes no difference 
>who - then who cares?

I am afraid you are missing the fact that this is among MAG reps.

>Do we want that guy advocating our position on how technology can 
>help stem AIDS and advance Womens' issues in the Sudan??? Or 
>pounding his shoe on the table regarding censorship and denial of A2K??

I do not mind at all. Because I am not legitimate judging who would 
actually do better. What counts is not who is "better", but if we 
have a position. That anyone from our community consensually agrees 
with. A Chair does not advocate and does not pursue  a personal 
agenda. He represents a consensus. Thay guy will be far more credible 
and legitimage that one brillant specialist pushing what everyone 
knows to be his pet idea.

>I think the notion of a Chair deserves some respect. I think "by 
>lot" diminishes that respect and the MAG as a whole.  But admittedly 
>my concept requires the wasted time of human frailty.

A Chair must be surrounded with decorum, listen, report to his 
constituency, get a consensus and present them assisted by advisors.
jfc



>--- On Fri, 6/11/10, jefsey <jefsey at jefsey.com> wrote:
>
>From: jefsey <jefsey at jefsey.com>
>Subject: Re: [governance] [3 of 6] How best to nominate the MAG Chair?
>To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Jeremy Malcolm" <jeremy at ciroap.org>, 
>governance at lists.cpsr.org
>Date: Friday, June 11, 2010, 9:38 PM
>
>At 13:39 11/06/2010, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>>There have been a few really good comments coming through on 
>>questions 1 and 2 (thank you!), but please keep them 
>>flowing.  Question 3 is closely related:
>>
>>How best to nominate the MAG Chair?
>>
>>Here are a few examples of options we might recommend:
>>
>>1. A single UN-based Chair is appointed by the UN Secretary-General 
>>(as at present).
>>
>>2. The UNSG appoints one Chair, and a co-chair is appointed by the 
>>host country (as was tried for the Brazil IGF meeting).
>>
>>3. The MAG appoints its own chair (by a vote or by consensus).
>>
>>4. The MAG appoints two co-chairs for alternating two-year terms 
>>(much like we do in the IGC).
>>
>>In the case of options 3 and 4, we might also require that the 
>>chair/s, if not independent (ie. UN-based), would be from a 
>>different stakeholder group at each rotation.
>>
>>Are any of the above to be preferred, or can any be swiftly 
>>rejected?  Are there any other options you can think of?
>
>If you are serious about the question of nominating someone to 
>represent three billions of people make a monthly rotational 
>chairmanship attributed by drawing lots. This way he will not 
>represent the people themselves (how do you want to do that?), but 
>the position will structurally exemplify their diversity and the 
>individual autonomy of the constituant.
>
>Democracy is over. We are now entered in Polycracy where 
>representation is not by selection or election (vote of one 
>priviligied person, or by every person), but exemplification. The 
>less previsible one for the less previsible time is the best way to 
>be sure that no personal agenda will be supported, and that the 
>consensuses being reached by this Chairmanship will be external as 
>well as internal, i.e. stronger and better. Also, you cannot bribe the dices.
>
>JFC
>
>-----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>http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>Translate this email: 
><http://translate.google.com/translate_t>http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100613/9c15bdf2/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net  Sun Jun 13 19:12:45 2010
From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker)
Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2010 16:12:45 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] [3 of 6] How best to nominate the MAG Chair?
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20100613213614.060db0c8@jefsey.com>
Message-ID: <380392.38295.qm@web83906.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>

(mine in italics)--- On Sun, 6/13/10, JFC Morfin <jefsey at jefsey.com> wrote:

I am afraid you are missing the fact that this is among MAG reps. Not at all. MAG Members are not in any way chosen for their ability to be chairs.
Because I am not legitimate judging who would
actually do better. What counts is not who is "better", but if
we have a position. That anyone from our community consensually agrees
with. A Chair does not advocate and does not pursue  a personal
agenda. He represents a consensus. Thay guy will be far more credible and
legitimage that one brillant specialist pushing what everyone knows to be
his pet idea.
If one accepts the idea that all people can intuitively lead then you are right. Why do technical engineering folks think that because they are good at that --- what other people train and educate for,, engineers can just naturally do well?? It is a confounding and arrogant attitude that hurts Internet Governance. The total lack of respect for other disciplines. 2 points where this is clear above -- If the Chair does not adopt the consensus as his personal agenda then he cannot do his job. And - doing the job "better" is treated here like all idiots can lead - it is just social and therefor anyone can do it. These positions evidence disdain for governance not support of. It is ok to hate politicians, it is ok to think that all in "government" are corrupt and useless as tits on a bull -- but it is not ok to work on governance with that approach.
I think the notion of a Chair
deserves some respect. I think "by lot" diminishes that respect
and the MAG as a whole.  But admittedly my concept requires the
wasted time of human frailty.

A Chair must be surrounded with decorum, listen, report to his
constituency, get a consensus and present them assisted by advisors.

jfc
I first met Jefsey at a GAC meeting in Melbourne @2001 -- I have utmost respect for him and note he is of talent in many disciplines -- I simply mean to parse the issue fairly and not allow short shrift to this important process, some things should not be taken for granted.





 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100613/8cde3282/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From jefsey at jefsey.com  Mon Jun 14 20:56:14 2010
From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin)
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 02:56:14 +0200
Subject: [governance] [3 of 6] How best to nominate the MAG Chair?
In-Reply-To: <380392.38295.qm@web83906.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
References: <7.0.1.0.2.20100613213614.060db0c8@jefsey.com>
 <380392.38295.qm@web83906.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20100614085558.060db358@jefsey.com>

At 01:12 14/06/2010, Eric Dierker wrote:
>(mine in italics)
>--- On Sun, 6/13/10, JFC Morfin <jefsey at jefsey.com> wrote:
>
>I am afraid you are missing the fact that this is among MAG reps.
>
>Not at all. MAG Members are not in any way chosen for their ability 
>to be chairs.

They are chosen for grosso modo understanding what is discussed. This 
is enough.

>>Because I am not legitimate judging who would actually do better. 
>>What counts is not who is "better", but if we have a position. That 
>>anyone from our community consensually agrees with. A Chair does 
>>not advocate and does not pursue  a personal agenda. He represents 
>>a consensus. Thay guy will be far more credible and legitimage that 
>>one brillant specialist pushing what everyone knows to be his pet idea.
>
>If one accepts the idea that all people can intuitively lead then 
>you are right.

The mistake you do is to mix chairmanship and leadership. One is a 
function, the other is a talent. This mix-up is very American 
"Republican". The British Queen chairs, but do not leads. Everybody 
is familiar that all the eldest babies born in the Windsor familly 
will do a reasonable king/queen. No one expect it to be a 
leader.  Same for most of the Govs round the world. Look at the 
German President.

>Why do technical engineering folks think that because they are good 
>at that --- what other people train and educate for,, engineers can 
>just naturally do well?? It is a confounding and arrogant attitude 
>that hurts Internet Governance. The total lack of respect for other 
>disciplines.

I miss you point here.

>  2 points where this is clear above
>-- If the Chair does not adopt the consensus as his personal agenda 
>then he cannot do his job.

No. If the chair does not respect the rough consensus. The internet 
would not exist otherwise. (cf. the way IETF works).

>And - doing the job "better" is treated here like all idiots can lead -

You confuse to lead and to chair.

>it is just social and therefor anyone can do it. These positions 
>evidence disdain for governance not support of. It is ok to hate 
>politicians, it is ok to think that all in "government" are corrupt 
>and useless as tits on a bull -- but it is not ok to work on 
>governance with that approach.

I am afraid you have several "a priori" here. If you want to discuss 
governance, you have to approach it in a neutral manner. And start 
from the basic question: what is governance about? to permit billions 
of people to autonomously freely best use the Internet along with 
their personal agenda. And then proceed. This will make you address 
the Chair and the MAG (if such a thing should exist) in due time, in 
a coherent perspective with your own thoughts and the Internet 
culture (which by the way is deeply and fastly changing with the 
young and progressive integration [this is no more "consideration"] 
of multiplication in addition to growth in its development scheme 
(IDNA2008, IAB Draft on IDNs, my appeal) to match diversity. Let 
understand that what ICANN is about (cf. State Department) is class 
IN domain names. Users, i.e. including what is currently tagged as 
"civil society" have 65,000 others. This is in the code, i.e. in the 
Constitution. Today, the ISOCANN culture uses only two presentations 
(default and extended names (xn)); there are billions of them for us to use.

In such a context, leaders with personal agenda are certainly not 
people we need as chairs. Governance is about "net keeping". Net 
keepers must not feel otherwise than the servants of the "net 
users/owners": i.e. all of us. Their charisma is to be one of us in 
order to best illustrate us. One does not decide anything by vote 
after convincing Reps. One try to write a consensus from what 
billions of people consent.

jfc
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100615/517cfcd7/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From correia.rui at gmail.com  Tue Jun 15 12:18:39 2010
From: correia.rui at gmail.com (Rui Correia)
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 17:18:39 +0100
Subject: [governance] Knight Commission on public polocy: "Net neutrality
 is a good place start, and so is open data"
Message-ID: <AANLkTikwnIhJQ8tqNEPREavgZ7sXatzfrbgWMILhlkOE@mail.gmail.com>

"Public policy has a role to play in fostering an entrepreneurial,
innovative, reinvented journalistic sphere that, in the language of the
recent Knight Commission Report, sustains democracy in a digital age. Net
neutrality is a good place start, and so is open data, but government might
have additional roles to play in stabilizing precarious local news
ecosystems -- as long as such support does not unfairly benefit monopolistic
incumbents. Is it possible for large, unwieldy government bureaucracies like
the Federal Trade Commission to strike this balance? Questions like this are
really questions about whether it is possible to envision a meaningful
public life that lies beyond both the market and our supposedly "unfettered"
digital space (which is actually far from unfettered). In asking these
questions, we're really inquiring about the viability of democracy itself."

http://benton.org/node/36858?utm_campaign=Benton%27s+Headlines&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_content=2010/06/15/nid-36885&

-- 
O meu número em Luanda: (+244) 936144613
My number in Luanda: (+244) 936144613
_______________________________________________

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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100615/57b4392c/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net  Tue Jun 15 14:54:44 2010
From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker)
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 11:54:44 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] [3 of 6] How best to nominate the MAG Chair?
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20100614085558.060db358@jefsey.com>
Message-ID: <647984.19415.qm@web83914.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>

Wow Jefsey this is really good stuff.  No sarcasm no wink --- just plain admirable writing and thinking. It is deep and fundamental.  I hope others will read and think as you are making me.
 
Thankyou
Eric

--- On Tue, 6/15/10, JFC Morfin <jefsey at jefsey.com> wrote:


From: JFC Morfin <jefsey at jefsey.com>
Subject: Re: [governance] [3 of 6] How best to nominate the MAG Chair?
To: "Eric Dierker" <cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net>, governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Jeremy Malcolm" <jeremy at ciroap.org>
Date: Tuesday, June 15, 2010, 12:56 AM


At 01:12 14/06/2010, Eric Dierker wrote:

(mine in italics)
--- On Sun, 6/13/10, JFC Morfin <jefsey at jefsey.com> wrote:



I am afraid you are missing the fact that this is among MAG reps. 


Not at all. MAG Members are not in any way chosen for their ability to be chairs.

They are chosen for grosso modo understanding what is discussed. This is enough.





Because I am not legitimate judging who would actually do better. What counts is not who is "better", but if we have a position. That anyone from our community consensually agrees with. A Chair does not advocate and does not pursue  a personal agenda. He represents a consensus. Thay guy will be far more credible and legitimage that one brillant specialist pushing what everyone knows to be his pet idea.

If one accepts the idea that all people can intuitively lead then you are right. 

The mistake you do is to mix chairmanship and leadership. One is a function, the other is a talent. This mix-up is very American "Republican". The British Queen chairs, but do not leads. Everybody is familiar that all the eldest babies born in the Windsor familly will do a reasonable king/queen. No one expect it to be a leader.  Same for most of the Govs round the world. Look at the German President.




Why do technical engineering folks think that because they are good at that --- what other people train and educate for,, engineers can just naturally do well?? It is a confounding and arrogant attitude that hurts Internet Governance. The total lack of respect for other disciplines.

I miss you point here.




 2 points where this is clear above 

-- If the Chair does not adopt the consensus as his personal agenda then he cannot do his job. 

No. If the chair does not respect the rough consensus. The internet would not exist otherwise. (cf. the way IETF works).




And - doing the job "better" is treated here like all idiots can lead - 

You confuse to lead and to chair.




it is just social and therefor anyone can do it. These positions evidence disdain for governance not support of. It is ok to hate politicians, it is ok to think that all in "government" are corrupt and useless as tits on a bull -- but it is not ok to work on governance with that approach.

I am afraid you have several "a priori" here. If you want to discuss governance, you have to approach it in a neutral manner. And start from the basic question: what is governance about? to permit billions of people to autonomously freely best use the Internet along with their personal agenda. And then proceed. This will make you address the Chair and the MAG (if such a thing should exist) in due time, in a coherent perspective with your own thoughts and the Internet culture (which by the way is deeply and fastly changing with the young and progressive integration [this is no more "consideration"] of multiplication in addition to growth in its development scheme (IDNA2008, IAB Draft on IDNs, my appeal) to match diversity. Let understand that what ICANN is about (cf. State Department) is class IN domain names. Users, i.e. including what is currently tagged as "civil society" have 65,000 others. This is in the code, i.e. in the Constitution. Today, the
 ISOCANN culture uses only two presentations (default and extended names (xn)); there are billions of them for us to use.

In such a context, leaders with personal agenda are certainly not people we need as chairs. Governance is about "net keeping". Net keepers must not feel otherwise than the servants of the "net users/owners": i.e. all of us. Their charisma is to be one of us in order to best illustrate us. One does not decide anything by vote after convincing Reps. One try to write a consensus from what billions of people consent.

jfc
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100615/6cc4db33/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From parminder at itforchange.net  Thu Jun 17 07:07:41 2010
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 16:37:41 +0530
Subject: [governance] Knight Commission on public polocy: "Net neutrality
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikwnIhJQ8tqNEPREavgZ7sXatzfrbgWMILhlkOE@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTikwnIhJQ8tqNEPREavgZ7sXatzfrbgWMILhlkOE@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4C1A01FD.9020305@itforchange.net>

Thanks for this Rui. The following quote is rather pithy and instructive

"envision(ing) a meaningful public life that lies beyond both the market 
and our supposedly "unfettered" digital space (which is actually far 
from unfettered).In asking these questions, we're really inquiring about 
the viability of democracy itself.""

Internet's relationship with and impact on public life, public sphere 
and democracy is the key issue that should drive the Internet Governance 
(IG) agenda, overcoming our fixation on Internet vis a vis the market 
paradigm. At the very least, this issue should drive civil society 
agenda in IG. However, a progressive civil society in the global IG 
space that could articulate and advocate such an agenda is almost 
entirely absent. There is, in my view, a more or less exclusive focus on 
personal freedoms, chiefly FoE and privacy - no doubt, basic rights - at 
the expense of such collective priorities and agenda.

Parminder

Rui Correia wrote:
> "Public policy has a role to play in fostering an entrepreneurial, 
> innovative, reinvented journalistic sphere that, in the language of 
> the recent Knight Commission Report, sustains democracy in a digital 
> age. Net neutrality is a good place start, and so is open data, but 
> government might have additional roles to play in stabilizing 
> precarious local news ecosystems -- as long as such support does not 
> unfairly benefit monopolistic incumbents. Is it possible for large, 
> unwieldy government bureaucracies like the Federal Trade Commission to 
> strike this balance? Questions like this are really questions about 
> whether it is possible to envision a meaningful public life that lies 
> beyond both the market and our supposedly "unfettered" digital space 
> (which is actually far from unfettered). In asking these questions, 
> we're really inquiring about the viability of democracy itself."
>
> http://benton.org/node/36858?utm_campaign=Benton%27s+Headlines&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_content=2010/06/15/nid-36885& 
> <http://benton.org/node/36858?utm_campaign=Benton%27s+Headlines&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_content=2010/06/15/nid-36885&>
>
> -- 
> O meu número em Luanda: (+244) 936144613
> My number in Luanda: (+244) 936144613
> _______________________________________________
>
> 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100617/fc2d717e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From jeremy at ciroap.org  Thu Jun 17 10:57:34 2010
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 10:57:34 -0400
Subject: [governance] [4 of 6] How best to organize open consultations?
Message-ID: <791FD141-1AB5-4781-ADB4-DE9BF7FF8BBF@ciroap.org>

Moving on to the next question in the MAG questionnaire on reforms to the IGF (and thanks for the valuable contributions so far), we come to the question:

How best to organize open consultations?

The IGF"s open consultation meetings continue a tradition dating back from the Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG).  Held in Geneva, their purpose is to provide an open forum for discussion of themes and processes for the annual meeting.  The ideas put forward during the open consultation meeting (and in written contributions made beforehand) are taken as input into the MAG meeting that follows, where decisions on them (or recommendations for decisions) are made.

Issues that we might address in our comments on this question could include:

Should the consultation meetings continue to be held in Geneva, with remote participation from elsewhere, or could they be held elsewhere, with remote participation from Geneva?
Should the meeting be made more deliberative than its present moderated roundtable format?  There are many specific options, but for example, the meeting could split into table groups to discuss and synthesize specific proposals, and a whiteboard (real or virtual) could be used to visually represent and group proposals.
Should a more focussed use of online processes be used in planning for the IGF?  Quite apart from remote participation, should there be better use of a central mailing list and/or wiki for preparatory purposes?
What groups are currently effectively excluded from the open consultation meetings, and what can be done to include them more effectively?

Thoughts on these or any other issues relating to the organisation of the open consultation meetings are welcome.

-- 
Jeremy Malcolm
Project Coordinator
Consumers International
Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East
Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Tel: +60 3 7726 1599

CI is 50
Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010.
Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer rights around the world. 
http://www.consumersinternational.org/50

Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100617/c1f8fe7f/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From raquelgatto at uol.com.br  Thu Jun 17 11:11:08 2010
From: raquelgatto at uol.com.br (Raquel Gatto)
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 12:11:08 -0300
Subject: [governance] Call for Papers - Fifth GigaNet Annual Symposium -
 deadline 15 July 2010
In-Reply-To: <4C1A01FD.9020305@itforchange.net>
References: <AANLkTikwnIhJQ8tqNEPREavgZ7sXatzfrbgWMILhlkOE@mail.gmail.com> <4C1A01FD.9020305@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <4c1a3b0c8974e_2750e745e741e9@weasel8.tmail>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100617/6850d8d5/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From ruth at lacnic.net  Thu Jun 17 15:34:51 2010
From: ruth at lacnic.net (Ruth Puente)
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 16:34:51 -0300
Subject: [governance] Reminder: Pre IGF Quito-Fellowship
 Program//Recordatorio: Pre IGF Quito-Programa de Becas
Message-ID: <4C1A78DB.6030806@lacnic.net>


*(Español debajo)

Reminder: Tuesday June 22nd, is the deadline for submitting applications 
for the Financial Assistance Program, to attend the Third Regional 
Preparatory Meeting for the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) which will 
take place on 3-5 August 2010 in the city of Quito, Ecuador.

The Association for Progressive Communications (APC), the NUPEF 
Institute, and the Regional Internet Address Registry for Latin America 
and the Caribbean (LACNIC) along with IMAGINAR (Research Center for the 
Information Society in Quito, Ecuador), CGI.br (Comitê Gestor da 
Internet no Brasil) and NIC.br (Núcleo de Informação e Coordenação do 
Ponto BR), are offering financial grants to members of the Internet 
community of Latin America and the Caribbean interested in attending the 
Third Regional Preparatory Meeting for the Internet Governance Forum (IGF).

For more information, and to submit an application for a grant, please 
go to:
http://www.lacnic.net/en/eventos/igfprep2010/form-becas.html

Detailed information about the agenda, registration, accommodation, and 
general information is available from the meeting website at: 
http://lacnic.net/en/eventos/fgi3/en/index.html

APC – NUPEF - LACNIC

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


Recordatorio: El martes 22 de junio vence el plazo para enviar 
solicitudes de becas para asistir a la III Reunión Regional Preparatoria 
para el Foro de Gobernanza de Internet (FGI) a realizarse los días 3, 4 
y 5 de agosto de 2010 en la ciudad de Quito, Ecuador.

La Asociación para el Progreso de las Comunicaciones (APC), el Instituto 
NUPEF y el Registro de Direcciones de Internet para América Latina y el 
Caribe (LACNIC), con el apoyo de IMAGINAR (Centro de Investigación para 
la Sociedad de la Información en Quito-Ecuador), el CGI.br Comitê Gestor 
da Internet no Brasil) y el NIC.br (Núcleo deInformação e Coordenação do 
Ponto BR), ofrecen becas de asistencia financiera dirigidas a miembros 
de la comunidad Internet de Latinoamérica y Caribe que estén interesados 
en asistir a la III Reunión Regional Preparatoria para el Foro de 
Gobernanza de Internet (FGI) .

Para más información, si está interesado en solicitar una beca, favor
completar el formulario de solicitud en:
http://www.lacnic.net/sp/eventos/igfprep2010/form-becas.html

Información detallada sobre el programa, registro, hospedaje, e 
información de interés general está accesible en el sitio web del evento:
http://lacnic.net/sp/eventos/fgi3/sp/index.html

APC – NUPEF – LACNIC






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

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

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


From yehudakatz at mailinator.com  Thu Jun 17 17:01:51 2010
From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (Yehuda Katz)
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 14:01:51 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] Utterly Asinine
Message-ID: <sympa.1276808220.51401.572@lists.cpsr.org>

Study: net neutrality could lead to "devastating" job losses
By Matthew Lasar
ARS Technica.com | tech-policy

Art.Ref.:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/06/study-net-neutrality-could-lead-to-devastating-job-losses.ars

Print:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/06/study-net-neutrality-could-lead-to-devastating-job-losses.ars#

-

http://www.nyls.edu/centers/projects/advanced_communications_law_and_policy_institute/resource_library

Ref.Paper:
Charles Davidson and Bret Swanson, Net Neutrality, Investment & Jobs: Assessing
the Potential Impacts of the FCC's Proposed Net Neutrality Rules on the
Broadband Ecosystem, (June 2010)

(PDF)
http://www.nyls.edu/user_files/1/3/4/30/83/Davidson%20&%20Swanson%20-%20NN%20Economic%20Impact%20Paper%20-%20FINAL.pdf

---

-30-
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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


From jefsey at jefsey.com  Fri Jun 18 20:42:11 2010
From: jefsey at jefsey.com (jefsey)
Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2010 02:42:11 +0200
Subject: [governance] Utterly Asinine
In-Reply-To: <sympa.1276808220.51401.572@lists.cpsr.org>
References: <sympa.1276808220.51401.572@lists.cpsr.org>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20100619020505.053addc8@jefsey.com>

Thank you for this quote.

The whole approach is based upon a wrong understanding of what the 
Internet (and moreover, the Intersem [the internet of subjects]) 
broadband is. The matter discussed is physical broadband. The 
Internet broadbad and above is virtual. This means that physical 
broadband carries rough data. The Internet carries information, i.e. 
the difference between data I ignore and data I know. There are 
tremendous possibilities to reduce the internet content exchange 
which mostly today packetise rough data, and ignore the information 
included in its datagrams. Same for the Intersem which is only 
interested in meaning.

This is precisely why netneutrality is needed to support and protect 
true broaduse vs. broadband. Let consider a music file and a future 
technology which would resolve files into PI decimals. Either you 
send a big file needing high bandwidth,or you send the size of the 
file and the starting PI decimal after which PI decimals are 
identical to the data of the file (every possible file is contained 
in PI decimals = two long numbers sent on one side, the whole file on 
the on the other. If the big file is sent before my short indications 
and delays them, it will go faster. This is why  blocking net 
neutrality is blocking innovation. This is a new dangerous area after 
innovation for the dominant stakeholders and they respond with 
"status quo". If you want a serious analysis about  the barrier to 
R&D on the Internet, starting with RFC 3869 from the IAB (just look 
at the general remarks).

In RFC 3869, IAB states: "The principal thesis of this document is 
that if commercial funding is the main source of funding for future 
Internet research, the future of the Internet infrastructure could be 
in trouble.  In addition to issues about which projects are funded, 
the funding source can also affect the content of the research, for 
example, towards or against the development of open standards, or 
taking varying degrees of care about the effect of the developed 
protocollson the other traffic on the Internet."

jfc


At 23:01 17/06/2010, Yehuda Katz wrote:
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
>Study: net neutrality could lead to "devastating" job losses
>By Matthew Lasar
>ARS Technica.com | tech-policy
>
>Art.Ref.:
>http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/06/study-net-neutrality-could-lead-to-devastating-job-losses.ars
>
>Print:
>http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/06/study-net-neutrality-could-lead-to-devastating-job-losses.ars#
>
>-
>
>http://www.nyls.edu/centers/projects/advanced_communications_law_and_policy_institute/resource_library
>
>Ref.Paper:
>Charles Davidson and Bret Swanson, Net Neutrality, Investment & 
>Jobs: Assessing
>the Potential Impacts of the FCC's Proposed Net Neutrality Rules on the
>Broadband Ecosystem, (June 2010)
>
>(PDF)
>http://www.nyls.edu/user_files/1/3/4/30/83/Davidson%20&%20Swanson%20-%20NN%20Economic%20Impact%20Paper%20-%20FINAL.pdf
>
>---
>
>-30-
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
>For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

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

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

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


From robin at ipjustice.org  Sat Jun 19 18:21:05 2010
From: robin at ipjustice.org (Robin Gross)
Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2010 15:21:05 -0700
Subject: [governance] Call for Support of International Civil Society
 Declaration Against ACTA (Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement)
Message-ID: <0B9D6D67-537E-40D8-B365-B126664AC3E7@ipjustice.org>

Dear Friends,

As you are probably aware, the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement  
(ACTA) is a dangerous proposal to radically expand intellectual  
property rights at the global level.  The draft agreement has been  
negotiated in secret, without inclusion of developing nation  
perspectives, and without any participation from civil society or  
regard for the global public interest.  ACTA specifically targets the  
Internet and regulates the flow of information in a digital  
environment.  ACTA would create significant negative consequences for  
fundamental freedoms, access to medicines, innovation, the balance of  
public/private interests, access to knowledge and culture, to name a  
few of its problems.  ACTA represents a "wish list" from Hollywood  
and Big Pharma which will be imposed unilaterally on developing  
countries through trade pressure from the US, Europe and other  
wealthy states.

Please consider signing on to the below (draft) International Civil  
Society Declaration, which was the result of a meeting in Washington,  
DC this week of over 90 academics from 5 continents, public interest  
organizations and other legal experts concerned with the public  
interest aspects of ACTA.  The meeting of international experts was  
hosted by American University Washington College of Law Program on  
Information Justice and Intellectual Property (PIJIP).

Both organizations and individuals are welcome to sign-on to the  
statement until 23 June 9am (US East Coast time) by email to <  
acta.declaration at gmail.com >.

Further details for sign-on and proposing edits to the draft  
declaration are below.  Please take a moment and read the declaration  
and consider signing-on and adding your support to raise awareness on  
ACTA.  And also please help to spread the word and gather additional  
civil society support from your own networks and contacts by  
forwarding this email on to others or reference to the website:  
http://www.wcl.american.edu/pijip/go/blog-post/urgent-acta-communique  
for details.

The next closed-door ACTA negotiations are scheduled for 28 June - 2  
July 2010 in Lucerne, Switzerland, and the US promises a final  
agreement will be concluded shortly thereafter.  Time is of the  
essence to act on ACTA.

Thank you for any support and assistance you can provide to raise  
awareness on the public interest concerns with ACTA.  It is only  
through global grass-roots efforts and small individual actions made  
by many people that we can fight to overcome this flawed treaty.

All best,
Robin Gross

Begin forwarded message:

> From: "Sean Flynn" <sflynn at wcl.american.edu>
> Date: June 19, 2010 10:30:38 AM PDT
> To: "Robin Gross" <robin at ipjustice.org>
> Subject: acta communique
> The DRAFT statement below reflects the conclusions reached at a  
> meeting of over 90 academics, practitioners and public interest  
> organizations from five continents gathered at American University  
> Washington College of Law, June 16-18, 2010. The statement is now  
> open to endorsements.
>
> The latest version of the draft communiqué is now posted to a  
> public blog post at:
>
> http://wcl.american.edu/pijip/go/acta-communique
>
> Please share the draft with others, circulate on your blogs, etc.
>
> THIS DRAFT STATEMENT IS NOW OPEN FOR INDIVIDUAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL  
> ENDORSEMENTS AS WELL AS EDITING COMMENTS.
> •             Please send signatures to: acta.declaration at gmail.com
> •             Please send edits to: pijip at wcl.american.edu
>
> EDITING SUGGESTIONS
> WILL BE ACCEPTED UNTIL NOON MONDAY JUNE 21. THE FINAL TEXT WITH  
> EDITS INCLUDED WILL BE RELEASED BY 5PM MONDAY JUNE 21.
>
> THE FINAL STATEMENT WILL BE RELEASED TO THE PUBLIC WITH  
> ENDORSEMENTS ON WEDNESDAY JUNE 23 AT 10AM. ENDORSEMENTS WILL BE  
> ACCEPTED UNTIL JUNE 23 AT 9AM.
>
> ENDORSEMENTS:
> WE WILL ACCEPT PROVISIONAL ENDORSEMENTS NOW. ENDORSERS WILL BE  
> GIVEN THE OPTION TO OPT-OUT WHEN THE FINAL TEXT IS CIRCULATED BY  
> 5PM MONDAY JUNE 21.
>
> FOR INDIVIDUAL ENDORSEMENTS, SEND YOUR NAME, TITLE AND ORGANIZATION  
> AND PLACE (CITY, COUNTRY) OF OCCUPATION to acta.declaration at gmail.com
>
> FOR ORGANIZATIONAL ENDORSEMENTS, ENTER THE NAME OF THE ORGANIZATION  
> AND PLACE(S) (CITY(IES), COUNTRY(IES))  IN WHICH THE ORGANIZATION  
> HAS OFFICES to acta.declaration at gmail.com.
>
> INDIVIDUALS WITHIN SIGNATORY ORGANIZATIONS MAY ENDORSE AS  
> INDIVIDUALS AS WELL AS BEING PART OF THE ORGANIZATIONAL ENDORSEMENT.
>
> PLEASE CIRCULATE WIDELY.
>
>
> DRAFT Urgent Communique: Consultation of International Experts on  
> ACTA and the Public Interest
>
> Release Date: June 23, 2010
>
> American University Washington College of Law
>
> Washington, D.C.
>
> http://wcl.american.edu/pijip/go/acta-communique
> International Experts Find that Pending Anti-Counterfeiting Trade  
> Agreement Threatens Public Interests
>
> We find that the terms of the agreement threaten numerous public  
> interests, including nearly every concern specifically disclaimed  
> by the negotiators in their announcement.
>
> The proposed agreement is a deeply flawed product of a deeply  
> flawed process.
>
> What started as a proposal to coordinate customs enforcement  
> offices has morphed into a massive new international intellectual  
> property (IP) and internet regulation with grave consequences for  
> the global economy and governments' ability to promote and protect  
> public interests.
>
> Any agreement of this scope and consequence must be based on a  
> broad and consultative process and reflect a full range of public  
> interest concerns. As detailed below, this text fails to meet these  
> standards.
>
> Recognizing that the terms of the agreement are under negotiation,  
> a fair reading of the proposed text as a whole leads to our  
> conclusions that ACTA:
>
> THE INTERNET
> -Encourages internet service providers to police users of the  
> internet without adequate court oversight or due process;
>
> -Globalizes 'anti-circumvention' provisions which threaten  
> innovation, competition, open source business models,  
> interoperability, copyright exceptions, and user choice;
>
> FREE TRADE AND ACCESS TO MEDICINES
> -Disrupts the free trade in legitimate generic medicines and other  
> goods, and sacrifices the foundational principle that IP rights are  
> territorial, by requiring customs authorities to seize goods in  
> transit countries even when they do not violate any law of the  
> producing and importing countries;
>
> -Does little or nothing to address the problem of medicines with  
> insufficient or wrong ingredients as the majority of these are not  
> IP but regulatory system problems.
> -Extends the powers of custom officials to search and seize a wide  
> range of goods, including computers and other electronic devices,  
> without adequate safeguards against unwarranted confiscations and  
> privacy invasions;
>
> -Extends 'ex officio' border search and seizures from willful,  
> commercial scale trademark counterfeiting to a broad range of  
> intellectual property infringements, including “confusingly  
> similar” trademark violations, copyright infringement standards  
> that require interpretation of "fair use" or similar user rights,  
> and even to patent cases which frequently involve complex questions  
> of law and fact that are difficult to adjudicate even by specialist  
> courts after full adjudicative processes;
>
> FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS
> -Will curtail full enjoyment of fundamental rights and liberties,  
> including rights to privacy and the protection of personal data,  
> health, access to information, free expression, due process and  
> presumptions of innocence, cultural participation, and other  
> internationally protected human rights;
>
> SCOPE AND NATURE OF IP LAW
> Distorts the balance fundamental to IP law between the rights and  
> interests of proprietors and users, including by
> introducing very specific rights and remedies for rights holders  
> without correlative requirements to provide exceptions,  
> limitations, and due process safeguards for users;
> shifting enforcement from private civil mechanisms to public  
> authorities and third parties, including to customs officials,  
> criminal prosecutors and internet service providers -- in ways that  
> are likely to be more sensitive to proprietary concerns and less  
> sensitive to user concerns;
> omitting liability and disincentives for abuses of enforcement  
> processes by right holders; and
> requiring the adoption of automatic damages assessments unrelated  
> to any proven harm;
> -Alters the traditional and constitutionally mandated law making  
> processes for IP by:
> locking in and exporting controversial aspects of US and EU  
> enforcement practices whcih have already proven problematic,  
> foreclosing future legislative improvements in response to changes  
> in technology or policy;
> requiring substantive changes to intellectual property laws of a  
> large number of negotiating countries.
> INTERNATIONAL TRADE AND DEVELOPMENT
> -Will disproportionately harm development and social welfare of the  
> poor, particularly in developing countries, including through  
> raising unjustifiable trade barriers to imports and exports of  
> needed medicines and other knowledge embedded goods;
>
> -Contains provisions inconsistent with the WTO Agreement on Trade  
> Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement);
>
> -Conflicts with the World Trade Organization Doha Declaration on  
> TRIPS and Public Health and World Health Assembly Resolution 61.21  
> by limiting the ability of countries to exercise to the full  
> flexibilities in the TRIPS agreement that can promote access to  
> needed medicines;
>
> -Circumvents and undermines the commitments agreed to under the  
> World Intellectual Property Organization development agenda,  
> particularly recommendation 45 committing to “approach intellectual  
> property enforcement in the context of broader societal interests  
> and especially development-oriented concerns," and "in accordance  
> with Article 7 of the TRIPS Agreement";
>
> INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES
> -Creates a new and redundant international administration for IP  
> issues outside of WIPO or the WTO with broad powers but limited  
> transparency, threatening multilateralism in international IP norm  
> setting;
>
> -Encourages technical assistance, public awareness campaigns, and  
> partnerships with the private sector that appear designed to  
> promote only the interests of IP owners;
>
> CONCLUSIONS ABOUT THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS
> The current process for considering public input into ACTA is  
> fundamentally flawed in numerous respects. In many countries, the  
> only consultations taking place are with select members of the  
> public, off-the-record and without benefit of sharing the latest  
> version of the rapidly changing text. There is little possibility  
> that a fair and balanced agreement that protects and promotes  
> public interests can evolve from such a distorted policy making  
> process.
>
> Governments, right holders and civil society should have an open  
> and evidence-based discussion on the right strategy to confront  
> willful commercial scale trademark counterfeiting and commercial  
> scale copyright piracy. This discussion should take place in  
> multilateral and national open and on-the-record forums with access  
> to current negotiating text so that all interested stakeholders can  
> participate.
>
> ENDORSEMENTS
>
> Please send signatures (individual or Organization, City, Country)  
> to: acta.declaration at gmail.com
> Please send edits to: pijip at wcl.american.edu
>
>
> Sean Flynn
> Associate Director
> Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property
> American University Washington College of Law
> 202 274 4157
> www.pijip.org
>




IP JUSTICE
Robin Gross, Executive Director
1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin at ipjustice.org




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100619/145bb7f1/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From vanda at uol.com.br  Sun Jun 20 07:49:34 2010
From: vanda at uol.com.br (Vanda Scartezini)
Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2010 11:49:34 +0000
Subject: Res: [governance] Call for Support of International Civil
 SocietyDeclaration Against ACTA (Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement)
In-Reply-To: <0B9D6D67-537E-40D8-B365-B126664AC3E7@ipjustice.org>
References: <0B9D6D67-537E-40D8-B365-B126664AC3E7@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <338718359-1277034563-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-2036010913-@bda108.bisx.produk.on.blackberry>

For sure this act is somehow dangerous. I will circulate it around Braz and latin America. 
Thanks for that.
Best
Vanda
Vanda Scartezini from BlackBerry

-----Original Message-----
From: Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org>
Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2010 15:21:05 
To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>
Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org,Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org>
Subject: [governance] Call for Support of International Civil Society
 Declaration Against ACTA (Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement)

Dear Friends,

As you are probably aware, the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement  
(ACTA) is a dangerous proposal to radically expand intellectual  
property rights at the global level.  The draft agreement has been  
negotiated in secret, without inclusion of developing nation  
perspectives, and without any participation from civil society or  
regard for the global public interest.  ACTA specifically targets the  
Internet and regulates the flow of information in a digital  
environment.  ACTA would create significant negative consequences for  
fundamental freedoms, access to medicines, innovation, the balance of  
public/private interests, access to knowledge and culture, to name a  
few of its problems.  ACTA represents a "wish list" from Hollywood  
and Big Pharma which will be imposed unilaterally on developing  
countries through trade pressure from the US, Europe and other  
wealthy states.

Please consider signing on to the below (draft) International Civil  
Society Declaration, which was the result of a meeting in Washington,  
DC this week of over 90 academics from 5 continents, public interest  
organizations and other legal experts concerned with the public  
interest aspects of ACTA.  The meeting of international experts was  
hosted by American University Washington College of Law Program on  
Information Justice and Intellectual Property (PIJIP).

Both organizations and individuals are welcome to sign-on to the  
statement until 23 June 9am (US East Coast time) by email to <  
acta.declaration at gmail.com >.

Further details for sign-on and proposing edits to the draft  
declaration are below.  Please take a moment and read the declaration  
and consider signing-on and adding your support to raise awareness on  
ACTA.  And also please help to spread the word and gather additional  
civil society support from your own networks and contacts by  
forwarding this email on to others or reference to the website:  
http://www.wcl.american.edu/pijip/go/blog-post/urgent-acta-communique  
for details.

The next closed-door ACTA negotiations are scheduled for 28 June - 2  
July 2010 in Lucerne, Switzerland, and the US promises a final  
agreement will be concluded shortly thereafter.  Time is of the  
essence to act on ACTA.

Thank you for any support and assistance you can provide to raise  
awareness on the public interest concerns with ACTA.  It is only  
through global grass-roots efforts and small individual actions made  
by many people that we can fight to overcome this flawed treaty.

All best,
Robin Gross

Begin forwarded message:

> From: "Sean Flynn" <sflynn at wcl.american.edu>
> Date: June 19, 2010 10:30:38 AM PDT
> To: "Robin Gross" <robin at ipjustice.org>
> Subject: acta communique
> The DRAFT statement below reflects the conclusions reached at a  
> meeting of over 90 academics, practitioners and public interest  
> organizations from five continents gathered at American University  
> Washington College of Law, June 16-18, 2010. The statement is now  
> open to endorsements.
>
> The latest version of the draft communiqué is now posted to a  
> public blog post at:
>
> http://wcl.american.edu/pijip/go/acta-communique
>
> Please share the draft with others, circulate on your blogs, etc.
>
> THIS DRAFT STATEMENT IS NOW OPEN FOR INDIVIDUAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL  
> ENDORSEMENTS AS WELL AS EDITING COMMENTS.
> •             Please send signatures to: acta.declaration at gmail.com
> •             Please send edits to: pijip at wcl.american.edu
>
> EDITING SUGGESTIONS
> WILL BE ACCEPTED UNTIL NOON MONDAY JUNE 21. THE FINAL TEXT WITH  
> EDITS INCLUDED WILL BE RELEASED BY 5PM MONDAY JUNE 21.
>
> THE FINAL STATEMENT WILL BE RELEASED TO THE PUBLIC WITH  
> ENDORSEMENTS ON WEDNESDAY JUNE 23 AT 10AM. ENDORSEMENTS WILL BE  
> ACCEPTED UNTIL JUNE 23 AT 9AM.
>
> ENDORSEMENTS:
> WE WILL ACCEPT PROVISIONAL ENDORSEMENTS NOW. ENDORSERS WILL BE  
> GIVEN THE OPTION TO OPT-OUT WHEN THE FINAL TEXT IS CIRCULATED BY  
> 5PM MONDAY JUNE 21.
>
> FOR INDIVIDUAL ENDORSEMENTS, SEND YOUR NAME, TITLE AND ORGANIZATION  
> AND PLACE (CITY, COUNTRY) OF OCCUPATION to acta.declaration at gmail.com
>
> FOR ORGANIZATIONAL ENDORSEMENTS, ENTER THE NAME OF THE ORGANIZATION  
> AND PLACE(S) (CITY(IES), COUNTRY(IES))  IN WHICH THE ORGANIZATION  
> HAS OFFICES to acta.declaration at gmail.com.
>
> INDIVIDUALS WITHIN SIGNATORY ORGANIZATIONS MAY ENDORSE AS  
> INDIVIDUALS AS WELL AS BEING PART OF THE ORGANIZATIONAL ENDORSEMENT.
>
> PLEASE CIRCULATE WIDELY.
>
>
> DRAFT Urgent Communique: Consultation of International Experts on  
> ACTA and the Public Interest
>
> Release Date: June 23, 2010
>
> American University Washington College of Law
>
> Washington, D.C.
>
> http://wcl.american.edu/pijip/go/acta-communique
> International Experts Find that Pending Anti-Counterfeiting Trade  
> Agreement Threatens Public Interests
>
> We find that the terms of the agreement threaten numerous public  
> interests, including nearly every concern specifically disclaimed  
> by the negotiators in their announcement.
>
> The proposed agreement is a deeply flawed product of a deeply  
> flawed process.
>
> What started as a proposal to coordinate customs enforcement  
> offices has morphed into a massive new international intellectual  
> property (IP) and internet regulation with grave consequences for  
> the global economy and governments' ability to promote and protect  
> public interests.
>
> Any agreement of this scope and consequence must be based on a  
> broad and consultative process and reflect a full range of public  
> interest concerns. As detailed below, this text fails to meet these  
> standards.
>
> Recognizing that the terms of the agreement are under negotiation,  
> a fair reading of the proposed text as a whole leads to our  
> conclusions that ACTA:
>
> THE INTERNET
> -Encourages internet service providers to police users of the  
> internet without adequate court oversight or due process;
>
> -Globalizes 'anti-circumvention' provisions which threaten  
> innovation, competition, open source business models,  
> interoperability, copyright exceptions, and user choice;
>
> FREE TRADE AND ACCESS TO MEDICINES
> -Disrupts the free trade in legitimate generic medicines and other  
> goods, and sacrifices the foundational principle that IP rights are  
> territorial, by requiring customs authorities to seize goods in  
> transit countries even when they do not violate any law of the  
> producing and importing countries;
>
> -Does little or nothing to address the problem of medicines with  
> insufficient or wrong ingredients as the majority of these are not  
> IP but regulatory system problems.
> -Extends the powers of custom officials to search and seize a wide  
> range of goods, including computers and other electronic devices,  
> without adequate safeguards against unwarranted confiscations and  
> privacy invasions;
>
> -Extends 'ex officio' border search and seizures from willful,  
> commercial scale trademark counterfeiting to a broad range of  
> intellectual property infringements, including “confusingly  
> similar” trademark violations, copyright infringement standards  
> that require interpretation of "fair use" or similar user rights,  
> and even to patent cases which frequently involve complex questions  
> of law and fact that are difficult to adjudicate even by specialist  
> courts after full adjudicative processes;
>
> FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS
> -Will curtail full enjoyment of fundamental rights and liberties,  
> including rights to privacy and the protection of personal data,  
> health, access to information, free expression, due process and  
> presumptions of innocence, cultural participation, and other  
> internationally protected human rights;
>
> SCOPE AND NATURE OF IP LAW
> Distorts the balance fundamental to IP law between the rights and  
> interests of proprietors and users, including by
> introducing very specific rights and remedies for rights holders  
> without correlative requirements to provide exceptions,  
> limitations, and due process safeguards for users;
> shifting enforcement from private civil mechanisms to public  
> authorities and third parties, including to customs officials,  
> criminal prosecutors and internet service providers -- in ways that  
> are likely to be more sensitive to proprietary concerns and less  
> sensitive to user concerns;
> omitting liability and disincentives for abuses of enforcement  
> processes by right holders; and
> requiring the adoption of automatic damages assessments unrelated  
> to any proven harm;
> -Alters the traditional and constitutionally mandated law making  
> processes for IP by:
> locking in and exporting controversial aspects of US and EU  
> enforcement practices whcih have already proven problematic,  
> foreclosing future legislative improvements in response to changes  
> in technology or policy;
> requiring substantive changes to intellectual property laws of a  
> large number of negotiating countries.
> INTERNATIONAL TRADE AND DEVELOPMENT
> -Will disproportionately harm development and social welfare of the  
> poor, particularly in developing countries, including through  
> raising unjustifiable trade barriers to imports and exports of  
> needed medicines and other knowledge embedded goods;
>
> -Contains provisions inconsistent with the WTO Agreement on Trade  
> Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement);
>
> -Conflicts with the World Trade Organization Doha Declaration on  
> TRIPS and Public Health and World Health Assembly Resolution 61.21  
> by limiting the ability of countries to exercise to the full  
> flexibilities in the TRIPS agreement that can promote access to  
> needed medicines;
>
> -Circumvents and undermines the commitments agreed to under the  
> World Intellectual Property Organization development agenda,  
> particularly recommendation 45 committing to “approach intellectual  
> property enforcement in the context of broader societal interests  
> and especially development-oriented concerns," and "in accordance  
> with Article 7 of the TRIPS Agreement";
>
> INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES
> -Creates a new and redundant international administration for IP  
> issues outside of WIPO or the WTO with broad powers but limited  
> transparency, threatening multilateralism in international IP norm  
> setting;
>
> -Encourages technical assistance, public awareness campaigns, and  
> partnerships with the private sector that appear designed to  
> promote only the interests of IP owners;
>
> CONCLUSIONS ABOUT THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS
> The current process for considering public input into ACTA is  
> fundamentally flawed in numerous respects. In many countries, the  
> only consultations taking place are with select members of the  
> public, off-the-record and without benefit of sharing the latest  
> version of the rapidly changing text. There is little possibility  
> that a fair and balanced agreement that protects and promotes  
> public interests can evolve from such a distorted policy making  
> process.
>
> Governments, right holders and civil society should have an open  
> and evidence-based discussion on the right strategy to confront  
> willful commercial scale trademark counterfeiting and commercial  
> scale copyright piracy. This discussion should take place in  
> multilateral and national open and on-the-record forums with access  
> to current negotiating text so that all interested stakeholders can  
> participate.
>
> ENDORSEMENTS
>
> Please send signatures (individual or Organization, City, Country)  
> to: acta.declaration at gmail.com
> Please send edits to: pijip at wcl.american.edu
>
>
> Sean Flynn
> Associate Director
> Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property
> American University Washington College of Law
> 202 274 4157
> www.pijip.org
>




IP JUSTICE
Robin Gross, Executive Director
1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin at ipjustice.org





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100620/148fd2f6/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm  Sun Jun 20 09:14:53 2010
From: carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm (SAMUELS,Carlton A)
Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2010 08:14:53 -0500
Subject: [governance] Call for Support of International Civil Society
In-Reply-To: <0B9D6D67-537E-40D8-B365-B126664AC3E7@ipjustice.org>
References: <0B9D6D67-537E-40D8-B365-B126664AC3E7@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F87136B13B619@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm>

Dear Robin:
Thanks for this.   Knowing that this and related matters are concerns in these groups, I have onward circulation to the Library Association of Jamaica  (LIAJA) and the ICT4D Jamaica Group.

Carlton Samuels

From: Robin Gross [mailto:robin at ipjustice.org]
Sent: Saturday, June 19, 2010 5:21 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: [governance] Call for Support of International Civil Society Declaration Against ACTA (Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement)

Dear Friends,

As you are probably aware, the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA<http://www.wcl.american.edu/pijip/go/acta04212010>) is a dangerous proposal to radically expand intellectual property rights at the global level.  The draft agreement has been negotiated in secret, without inclusion of developing nation perspectives, and without any participation from civil society or regard for the global public interest.  ACTA specifically targets the Internet and regulates the flow of information in a digital environment.  ACTA would create significant negative consequences for fundamental freedoms, access to medicines, innovation, the balance of public/private interests, access to knowledge and culture, to name a few of its problems.  ACTA represents a "wish list" from Hollywood and Big Pharma which will be imposed unilaterally on developing countries through trade pressure from the US, Europe and other wealthy states.

Please consider signing on to the below (draft) International Civil Society Declaration<http://wcl.american.edu/pijip/go/acta-communique>, which was the result of a meeting in Washington, DC<http://www.wcl.american.edu/pijip/go/blog-post/meeting-to-bring-together-academics-and-advocates-to-discuss-public-interest-impacts-of-controversial-intellectual-property-treaty> this week of over 90 academics from 5 continents, public interest organizations and other legal experts concerned with the public interest aspects of ACTA.  The meeting of international experts was hosted by American University Washington College of Law Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property (PIJIP<http://www.wcl.american.edu/pijip/>).

Both organizations and individuals are welcome to sign-on to the statement until 23 June 9am (US East Coast time) by email to < acta.declaration at gmail.com<mailto:acta.declaration at gmail.com> >.

Further details for sign-on and proposing edits to the draft declaration are below.  Please take a moment and read the declaration and consider signing-on and adding your support to raise awareness on ACTA.  And also please help to spread the word and gather additional civil society support from your own networks and contacts by forwarding this email on to others or reference to the website: http://www.wcl.american.edu/pijip/go/blog-post/urgent-acta-communique for details.

The next closed-door ACTA negotiations are scheduled for 28 June - 2 July 2010 in Lucerne, Switzerland, and the US promises a final agreement will be concluded shortly thereafter.  Time is of the essence to act on ACTA.

Thank you for any support and assistance you can provide to raise awareness on the public interest concerns with ACTA.  It is only through global grass-roots efforts and small individual actions made by many people that we can fight to overcome this flawed treaty.

All best,
Robin Gross

Begin forwarded message:


From: "Sean Flynn" <sflynn at wcl.american.edu<mailto:sflynn at wcl.american.edu>>
Date: June 19, 2010 10:30:38 AM PDT
To: "Robin Gross" <robin at ipjustice.org<mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>>
Subject: acta communique

The DRAFT statement below reflects the conclusions reached at a meeting of over 90 academics, practitioners and public interest organizations from five continents gathered at American University Washington College of Law, June 16-18, 2010. The statement is now open to endorsements.

The latest version of the draft communiqué is now posted to a public blog post at:
http://wcl.american.edu/pijip/go/acta-communique

Please share the draft with others, circulate on your blogs, etc.

THIS DRAFT STATEMENT IS NOW OPEN FOR INDIVIDUAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL ENDORSEMENTS AS WELL AS EDITING COMMENTS.
*             Please send signatures to: acta.declaration at gmail.com<mailto:acta.declaration at gmail.com>
*             Please send edits to: pijip at wcl.american.edu<mailto:pijip at wcl.american.edu>

EDITING SUGGESTIONS
WILL BE ACCEPTED UNTIL NOON MONDAY JUNE 21. THE FINAL TEXT WITH EDITS INCLUDED WILL BE RELEASED BY 5PM MONDAY JUNE 21.

THE FINAL STATEMENT WILL BE RELEASED TO THE PUBLIC WITH ENDORSEMENTS ON WEDNESDAY JUNE 23 AT 10AM. ENDORSEMENTS WILL BE ACCEPTED UNTIL JUNE 23 AT 9AM.

ENDORSEMENTS:
WE WILL ACCEPT PROVISIONAL ENDORSEMENTS NOW. ENDORSERS WILL BE GIVEN THE OPTION TO OPT-OUT WHEN THE FINAL TEXT IS CIRCULATED BY 5PM MONDAY JUNE 21.

FOR INDIVIDUAL ENDORSEMENTS, SEND YOUR NAME, TITLE AND ORGANIZATION AND PLACE (CITY, COUNTRY) OF OCCUPATION to acta.declaration at gmail.com<mailto:acta.declaration at gmail.com>

FOR ORGANIZATIONAL ENDORSEMENTS, ENTER THE NAME OF THE ORGANIZATION AND PLACE(S) (CITY(IES), COUNTRY(IES))  IN WHICH THE ORGANIZATION HAS OFFICES to acta.declaration at gmail.com<mailto:acta.declaration at gmail.com>.

INDIVIDUALS WITHIN SIGNATORY ORGANIZATIONS MAY ENDORSE AS INDIVIDUALS AS WELL AS BEING PART OF THE ORGANIZATIONAL ENDORSEMENT.

PLEASE CIRCULATE WIDELY.


DRAFT Urgent Communique: Consultation of International Experts on ACTA and the Public Interest

Release Date: June 23, 2010

American University Washington College of Law

Washington, D.C.
http://wcl.american.edu/pijip/go/acta-communique
International Experts Find that Pending Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement Threatens Public Interests

We find that the terms of the agreement threaten numerous public interests, including nearly every concern specifically disclaimed by the negotiators in their announcement.
The proposed agreement is a deeply flawed product of a deeply flawed process.

What started as a proposal to coordinate customs enforcement offices has morphed into a massive new international intellectual property (IP) and internet regulation with grave consequences for the global economy and governments' ability to promote and protect public interests.

Any agreement of this scope and consequence must be based on a broad and consultative process and reflect a full range of public interest concerns. As detailed below, this text fails to meet these standards.

Recognizing that the terms of the agreement are under negotiation, a fair reading of the proposed text as a whole leads to our conclusions that ACTA:

THE INTERNET
-Encourages internet service providers to police users of the internet without adequate court oversight or due process;

-Globalizes 'anti-circumvention' provisions which threaten innovation, competition, open source business models, interoperability, copyright exceptions, and user choice;

FREE TRADE AND ACCESS TO MEDICINES
-Disrupts the free trade in legitimate generic medicines and other goods, and sacrifices the foundational principle that IP rights are territorial, by requiring customs authorities to seize goods in transit countries even when they do not violate any law of the producing and importing countries;

-Does little or nothing to address the problem of medicines with insufficient or wrong ingredients as the majority of these are not IP but regulatory system problems.

-Extends the powers of custom officials to search and seize a wide range of goods, including computers and other electronic devices, without adequate safeguards against unwarranted confiscations and privacy invasions;

-Extends 'ex officio' border search and seizures from willful, commercial scale trademark counterfeiting to a broad range of intellectual property infringements, including "confusingly similar" trademark violations, copyright infringement standards that require interpretation of "fair use" or similar user rights, and even to patent cases which frequently involve complex questions of law and fact that are difficult to adjudicate even by specialist courts after full adjudicative processes;
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS
-Will curtail full enjoyment of fundamental rights and liberties, including rights to privacy and the protection of personal data, health, access to information, free expression, due process and presumptions of innocence, cultural participation, and other internationally protected human rights;

SCOPE AND NATURE OF IP LAW
Distorts the balance fundamental to IP law between the rights and interests of proprietors and users, including by

 *   introducing very specific rights and remedies for rights holders without correlative requirements to provide exceptions, limitations, and due process safeguards for users;
 *   shifting enforcement from private civil mechanisms to public authorities and third parties, including to customs officials, criminal prosecutors and internet service providers -- in ways that are likely to be more sensitive to proprietary concerns and less sensitive to user concerns;
 *   omitting liability and disincentives for abuses of enforcement processes by right holders; and
 *   requiring the adoption of automatic damages assessments unrelated to any proven harm;
-Alters the traditional and constitutionally mandated law making processes for IP by:

 *   locking in and exporting controversial aspects of US and EU enforcement practices whcih have already proven problematic, foreclosing future legislative improvements in response to changes in technology or policy;
 *   requiring substantive changes to intellectual property laws of a large number of negotiating countries.
INTERNATIONAL TRADE AND DEVELOPMENT
-Will disproportionately harm development and social welfare of the poor, particularly in developing countries, including through raising unjustifiable trade barriers to imports and exports of needed medicines and other knowledge embedded goods;

-Contains provisions inconsistent with the WTO Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement);

-Conflicts with the World Trade Organization Doha Declaration on TRIPS and Public Health and World Health Assembly Resolution 61.21 by limiting the ability of countries to exercise to the full flexibilities in the TRIPS agreement that can promote access to needed medicines;

-Circumvents and undermines the commitments agreed to under the World Intellectual Property Organization development agenda, particularly recommendation 45 committing to "approach intellectual property enforcement in the context of broader societal interests and especially development-oriented concerns," and "in accordance with Article 7 of the TRIPS Agreement";

INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES
-Creates a new and redundant international administration for IP issues outside of WIPO or the WTO with broad powers but limited transparency, threatening multilateralism in international IP norm setting;

-Encourages technical assistance, public awareness campaigns, and partnerships with the private sector that appear designed to promote only the interests of IP owners;

CONCLUSIONS ABOUT THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS

The current process for considering public input into ACTA is fundamentally flawed in numerous respects. In many countries, the only consultations taking place are with select members of the public, off-the-record and without benefit of sharing the latest version of the rapidly changing text. There is little possibility that a fair and balanced agreement that protects and promotes public interests can evolve from such a distorted policy making process.

Governments, right holders and civil society should have an open and evidence-based discussion on the right strategy to confront willful commercial scale trademark counterfeiting and commercial scale copyright piracy. This discussion should take place in multilateral and national open and on-the-record forums with access to current negotiating text so that all interested stakeholders can participate.

ENDORSEMENTS

 *   Please send signatures (individual or Organization, City, Country) to: acta.declaration at gmail.com<mailto:acta.declaration at gmail.com>
 *   Please send edits to: pijip at wcl.american.edu<mailto:pijip at wcl.american.edu>


Sean Flynn
Associate Director
Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property
American University Washington College of Law
202 274 4157
www.pijip.org




IP JUSTICE
Robin Gross, Executive Director
1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin at ipjustice.org<mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100620/07ccc524/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From correia.rui at gmail.com  Sun Jun 20 16:36:16 2010
From: correia.rui at gmail.com (Rui Correia)
Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2010 21:36:16 +0100
Subject: [governance] Call for Support of International Civil 
In-Reply-To: <338718359-1277034563-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-2036010913-@bda108.bisx.produk.on.blackberry>
References: <0B9D6D67-537E-40D8-B365-B126664AC3E7@ipjustice.org>
	<338718359-1277034563-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-2036010913-@bda108.bisx.produk.on.blackberry>
Message-ID: <AANLkTilsJk9X08M3VqiP91de-oBslsXmkR93_mFnwinO@mail.gmail.com>

Hi All

Isn't is a bit odd asking for editing/ comments and asking for endorsements/
signatures at the same time? Shouldn't the comments/ editing be done first
and then ask for endorsements/ signatures?

And while I am here, why not use a proper petition site or create a petition
page on a site rather then signatures by email?

Regards,

Rui

On 20 June 2010 12:49, Vanda Scartezini <vanda at uol.com.br> wrote:

> For sure this act is somehow dangerous. I will circulate it around Braz and
> latin America.
> Thanks for that.
> Best
> Vanda
>
> Vanda Scartezini from BlackBerry
> ------------------------------
> *From: * Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org>
> *Date: *Sat, 19 Jun 2010 15:21:05 -0700
> *To: *<governance at lists.cpsr.org>
> *ReplyTo: * governance at lists.cpsr.org,Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org>
> *Subject: *[governance] Call for Support of International Civil Society
> Declaration Against ACTA (Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement)
>
> Dear Friends,
>
> As you are probably aware, the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA<http://www.wcl.american.edu/pijip/go/acta04212010>)
> is a dangerous proposal to radically expand intellectual property rights at
> the global level.  The draft agreement has been negotiated in secret,
> without inclusion of developing nation perspectives, and without any
> participation from civil society or regard for the global public interest.
>  ACTA specifically targets the Internet and regulates the flow of
> information in a digital environment.  ACTA would create significant
> negative consequences for fundamental freedoms, access to medicines,
> innovation, the balance of public/private interests, access to knowledge and
> culture, to name a few of its problems.  ACTA represents a "wish list" from
> Hollywood and Big Pharma which will be imposed unilaterally on developing
> countries through trade pressure from the US, Europe and other wealthy
> states.
>
> Please consider signing on to the below (draft) International Civil
> Society Declaration <http://wcl.american.edu/pijip/go/acta-communique>,
> which was the result of a meeting in Washington, DC<http://www.wcl.american.edu/pijip/go/blog-post/meeting-to-bring-together-academics-and-advocates-to-discuss-public-interest-impacts-of-controversial-intellectual-property-treaty> this
> week of over 90 academics from 5 continents, public interest organizations
> and other legal experts concerned with the public interest aspects of ACTA.
>  The meeting of international experts was hosted by American University
> Washington College of Law Program on Information Justice and Intellectual
> Property (PIJIP <http://www.wcl.american.edu/pijip/>).
>
> Both organizations and individuals are welcome to sign-on to the statement
> until *23 June 9am* (US East Coast time) by email to < *
> acta.declaration at gmail.com* >.
>
> Further details for sign-on and proposing edits to the draft declaration
> are below.  Please take a moment and read the declaration and consider
> signing-on and adding your support to raise awareness on ACTA.  And also
> please help to spread the word and gather additional civil society support
> from your own networks and contacts by forwarding this email on to others or
> reference to the website:
> http://www.wcl.american.edu/pijip/go/blog-post/urgent-acta-communique for
> details.
>
> The next closed-door ACTA negotiations are scheduled for 28 June - 2 July
> 2010 in Lucerne, Switzerland, and the US promises a final agreement will be
> concluded shortly thereafter.  Time is of the essence to act on ACTA.
>
> Thank you for any support and assistance you can provide to raise awareness
> on the public interest concerns with ACTA.  It is only through global
> grass-roots efforts and small individual actions made by many people that we
> can fight to overcome this flawed treaty.
>
> All best,
> Robin Gross
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> *From: *"Sean Flynn" <sflynn at wcl.american.edu>
> *Date: *June 19, 2010 10:30:38 AM PDT
> *To: *"Robin Gross" <robin at ipjustice.org>
> *Subject: **acta communique*
>
> The DRAFT statement below reflects the conclusions reached at a meeting of
> over 90 academics, practitioners and public interest organizations from five
> continents gathered at American University Washington College of Law, June
> 16-18, 2010. The statement is now open to endorsements.
> The latest version of the draft communiqué is now posted to a public blog
> post at:
> http://wcl.american.edu/pijip/go/acta-communique
>
> Please share the draft with others, circulate on your blogs, etc.
>
> THIS DRAFT STATEMENT IS NOW OPEN FOR INDIVIDUAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL
> ENDORSEMENTS AS WELL AS EDITING COMMENTS.
> •             Please send signatures to: acta.declaration at gmail.com
> •             Please send edits to: pijip at wcl.american.edu
>
> *EDITING SUGGESTIONS*
> WILL BE ACCEPTED UNTIL NOON MONDAY JUNE 21. THE FINAL TEXT WITH EDITS
> INCLUDED WILL BE RELEASED BY 5PM MONDAY JUNE 21.
>
> THE FINAL STATEMENT WILL BE RELEASED TO THE PUBLIC WITH ENDORSEMENTS ON
> WEDNESDAY JUNE 23 AT 10AM. ENDORSEMENTS WILL BE ACCEPTED UNTIL JUNE 23 AT
> 9AM.
> * *
> *ENDORSEMENTS:*
> WE WILL ACCEPT PROVISIONAL ENDORSEMENTS NOW. ENDORSERS WILL BE GIVEN THE
> OPTION TO OPT-OUT WHEN THE FINAL TEXT IS CIRCULATED BY 5PM MONDAY JUNE 21.
> * *
> *FOR INDIVIDUAL ENDORSEMENTS,* SEND YOUR NAME, TITLE AND ORGANIZATION AND
> PLACE (CITY, COUNTRY) OF OCCUPATION to acta.declaration at gmail.com
>
> *FOR ORGANIZATIONAL ENDORSEMENTS*, ENTER THE NAME OF THE ORGANIZATION AND
> PLACE(S) (CITY(IES), COUNTRY(IES))  IN WHICH THE ORGANIZATION HAS OFFICES
> to acta.declaration at gmail.com.
>
> INDIVIDUALS WITHIN SIGNATORY ORGANIZATIONS MAY ENDORSE AS INDIVIDUALS AS
> WELL AS BEING PART OF THE ORGANIZATIONAL ENDORSEMENT.
>
> PLEASE CIRCULATE WIDELY.
>
>
> DRAFT Urgent Communique: Consultation of International Experts on ACTA and
> the Public Interest
>
> Release Date: June 23, 2010
>
> American University Washington College of Law
>
> Washington, D.C.
> http://wcl.american.edu/pijip/go/acta-communique
> International Experts Find that Pending Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement
> Threatens Public Interests
>
> We find that the terms of the agreement threaten numerous public interests,
> including nearly every concern specifically disclaimed by the negotiators in
> their announcement.
> The proposed agreement is a deeply flawed product of a deeply flawed
> process.
>
> What started as a proposal to coordinate customs enforcement offices has
> morphed into a massive new international intellectual property (IP) and
> internet regulation with grave consequences for the global economy and
> governments' ability to promote and protect public interests.
>
> Any agreement of this scope and consequence must be based on a broad and
> consultative process and reflect a full range of public interest concerns.
> As detailed below, this text fails to meet these standards.
>
> Recognizing that the terms of the agreement are under negotiation, a fair
> reading of the proposed text as a whole leads to our conclusions that ACTA:
>
> THE INTERNET
> -Encourages internet service providers to police users of the internet
> without adequate court oversight or due process;
>
> -Globalizes 'anti-circumvention' provisions which threaten innovation,
> competition, open source business models, interoperability, copyright
> exceptions, and user choice;
>
> FREE TRADE AND ACCESS TO MEDICINES
> -Disrupts the free trade in legitimate generic medicines and other goods,
> and sacrifices the foundational principle that IP rights are territorial, by
> requiring customs authorities to seize goods in transit countries even when
> they do not violate any law of the producing and importing countries;
>
> -Does little or nothing to address the problem of medicines with
> insufficient or wrong ingredients as the majority of these are not IP but
> regulatory system problems.
>
> -Extends the powers of custom officials to search and seize a wide range of
> goods, including computers and other electronic devices, without adequate
> safeguards against unwarranted confiscations and privacy invasions;
>
> -Extends 'ex officio' border search and seizures from willful, commercial
> scale trademark counterfeiting to a broad range of intellectual property
> infringements, including “confusingly similar” trademark violations,
> copyright infringement standards that require interpretation of "fair use"
> or similar user rights, and even to patent cases which frequently involve
> complex questions of law and fact that are difficult to adjudicate even by
> specialist courts after full adjudicative processes;
> FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS
> -Will curtail full enjoyment of fundamental rights and liberties, including
> rights to privacy and the protection of personal data, health, access to
> information, free expression, due process and presumptions of innocence,
> cultural participation, and other internationally protected human rights;
>
> SCOPE AND NATURE OF IP LAW
> Distorts the balance fundamental to IP law between the rights and interests
> of proprietors and users, including by
>
>    - introducing very specific rights and remedies for rights holders
>    without correlative requirements to provide exceptions, limitations, and due
>    process safeguards for users;
>    - shifting enforcement from private civil mechanisms to public
>    authorities and third parties, including to customs officials, criminal
>    prosecutors and internet service providers -- in ways that are likely to be
>    more sensitive to proprietary concerns and less sensitive to user concerns;
>    - omitting liability and disincentives for abuses of enforcement
>    processes by right holders; and
>    - requiring the adoption of automatic damages assessments unrelated to
>    any proven harm;
>
> -Alters the traditional and constitutionally mandated law making processes
> for IP by:
>
>    - locking in and exporting controversial aspects of US and EU
>    enforcement practices whcih have already proven problematic, foreclosing
>    future legislative improvements in response to changes in technology or
>    policy;
>    - requiring substantive changes to intellectual property laws of a
>    large number of negotiating countries.
>
> INTERNATIONAL TRADE AND DEVELOPMENT
> -Will disproportionately harm development and social welfare of the poor,
> particularly in developing countries, including through raising
> unjustifiable trade barriers to imports and exports of needed medicines and
> other knowledge embedded goods;
>
> -Contains provisions inconsistent with the WTO Agreement on Trade Related
> Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement);
>
> -Conflicts with the World Trade Organization Doha Declaration on TRIPS and
> Public Health and World Health Assembly Resolution 61.21 by limiting the
> ability of countries to exercise to the full flexibilities in the TRIPS
> agreement that can promote access to needed medicines;
>
> -Circumvents and undermines the commitments agreed to under the World
> Intellectual Property Organization development agenda, particularly
> recommendation 45 committing to “approach intellectual property enforcement
> in the context of broader societal interests and especially
> development-oriented concerns," and "in accordance with Article 7 of the
> TRIPS Agreement";
>
> INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES
> -Creates a new and redundant international administration for IP issues
> outside of WIPO or the WTO with broad powers but limited transparency,
> threatening multilateralism in international IP norm setting;
>
> -Encourages technical assistance, public awareness campaigns, and
> partnerships with the private sector that appear designed to promote only
> the interests of IP owners;
>
> CONCLUSIONS ABOUT THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS
>
> The current process for considering public input into ACTA is fundamentally
> flawed in numerous respects. In many countries, the only consultations
> taking place are with select members of the public, off-the-record and
> without benefit of sharing the latest version of the rapidly changing text.
> There is little possibility that a fair and balanced agreement that protects
> and promotes public interests can evolve from such a distorted policy making
> process.
>
> Governments, right holders and civil society should have an open and
> evidence-based discussion on the right strategy to confront willful
> commercial scale trademark counterfeiting and commercial scale copyright
> piracy. This discussion should take place in multilateral and national open
> and on-the-record forums with access to current negotiating text so that all
> interested stakeholders can participate.
>
> ENDORSEMENTS
>
>    - Please send signatures (individual or Organization, City, Country)
>    to: acta.declaration at gmail.com
>    - Please send edits to: pijip at wcl.american.edu
>
>
>
> Sean Flynn
> Associate Director
> Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property
> American University Washington College of Law
> 202 274 4157
> www.pijip.org
>
>
>
>
>
>
> IP JUSTICE
> Robin Gross, Executive Director
> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
> p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
> w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin at ipjustice.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
>



-- 
O meu número em Luanda: (+244) 936144613
My number in Luanda: (+244) 936144613
_______________________________________________

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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100620/8b5ece27/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From mariliamaciel at gmail.com  Mon Jun 21 09:34:50 2010
From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2010 10:34:50 -0300
Subject: [governance] Call for endorsements: draft statement about ACTA
Message-ID: <AANLkTim9J24TmwrMWPMRcMMmjLpbdt_g6Zf8bsMF6Pxg@mail.gmail.com>

Sorry for any cross-posting.
I forward to you a call for signatures on a draft statement about ACTA. The
text of the statement can be found below.
Please help to spread the word.
Regards,
Marília

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Sean Flynn <sflynn at wcl.american.edu>
Date: Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 2:23 PM
Subject: URGENT: ACTA Communique Sign On Process
To: IP-ENFORCEMENT at roster.wcl.american.edu


After further internal deliberation, we have decided to establish an
individual sign on process both to avoid representing the views of those who
do not wish to be identified and to open the endorsement process to
individuals and organizations not at the meeting but who support the
findings and conclusions adopted. Please help us maximize the sign ons to
this important document.
The latest version of the draft communiqué is now posted to a public blog
post at:

http://wcl.american.edu/pijip/go/acta-communique



Please share the draft with others, circulate on your blogs, etc.



The sign on process is as follows:



THIS DRAFT STATEMENT IS NOW OPEN FOR INDIVIDUAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL
ENDORSEMENTS AS WELL AS EDITING COMMENTS.

•             Please send signatures to: acta.declaration at gmail.com

•             Please enter edits into the draft (
http://sites.google.com/site/ipenforcement2/draft-declaration) or send edits
to: pijip at wcl.american.edu



*EDITING SUGGESTIONS *

WILL BE ACCEPTED UNTIL NOON MONDAY JUNE 21. THE FINAL TEXT WITH EDITS
INCLUDED WILL BE RELEASED BY 5PM MONDAY JUNE 21.



THE FINAL STATEMENT WILL BE RELEASED TO THE PUBLIC WITH ENDORSEMENTS ON
WEDNESDAY JUNE 23 AT 10AM. ENDORSEMENTS WILL BE ACCEPTED UNTIL JUNE 23 AT
9AM.

* *

*ENDORSEMENTS:*

WE WILL ACCEPT PROVISIONAL ENDORSEMENTS NOW. ENDORSERS WILL BE GIVEN THE
OPTION TO OPT-OUT WHEN THE FINAL TEXT IS CIRCULATED BY 5PM MONDAY JUNE 21.

* *

*FOR INDIVIDUAL ENDORSEMENTS,* SEND YOUR NAME, TITLE AND ORGANIZATION AND
PLACE (CITY, COUNTRY) OF OCCUPATION



*FOR ORGANIZATIONAL ENDORSEMENTS*, ENTER THE NAME OF THE ORGANIZATION AND
PLACE(S) (CITY(IES), COUNTRY(IES))  IN WHICH THE ORGANIZATION HAS OFFICES.



INDIVIDUALS WITHIN SIGNATORY ORGANIZATIONS MAY ENDORSE AS INDIVIDUALS AS
WELL AS BEING PART OF THE ORGANIZATIONAL ENDORSEMENT.



PLEASE CIRCULATE WIDELY.




DRAFT Urgent Communique: Consultation of International Experts on ACTA and
the Public Interest

Release Date: June 23, 2010

American University Washington College of Law

Washington, D.C.

http://wcl.american.edu/pijip/go/acta-communique
International Experts Find that Pending Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement
Threatens Public Interests

This DRAFT statement reflects the conclusions reached at a meeting of over
90 academics, practitioners and public interest organizations from five
continents gathered at American University Washington College of Law, June
16-18, 2010. In the days following the meeting, the statement received the
individual and organizational endorsements listed below, and is still open
for further endorsements at www.pijip.org

The meeting, convened by American University's Program on Information
Justice and Intellectual Property, was called to analyze the official text
of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), released for the first
time in April, 2010, after years of secretive negotiations. The text was
released in the context of public criticism of the process and presumed
substance of the negotiations (see Wellington
Declaration<http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fpublicacta.org.nz%2Fwellington-declaration%2F&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFrqEzfubbC70zfhmFyirMRjPZ4kr2vUPQ>,
EU Resolution on Transparency and State of Play of the ACTA
Negotiations<http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.europarl.europa.eu%2Fsides%2FgetDoc.do%3FpubRef%3D-%2F%2FEP%2F%2FTEXT%2BTA%2BP7-TA-2010-0058%2B0%2BDOC%2BXML%2BV0%2F%2FEN&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFrqEze0LJTmjtyUTkRz83RCgSGUKYea-g>).
Negotiators claim<http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ustr.gov%2Fabout-us%2Fpress-office%2Fpress-releases%2F2010%2Fapril%2Foffice-us-trade-representative-releases-statement-ac&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFrqEzfNswTHzwtNHUVVm9uNU4-oSK6NyQ>that
ACTA will not harm significant public interests.

We find that the terms of the agreement threaten numerous public interests,
including nearly every concern specifically disclaimed by the negotiators in
their announcement.

The proposed agreement is a deeply flawed product of a deeply flawed
process.

What started as a proposal to coordinate customs enforcement offices has
morphed into a massive new international intellectual property (IP) and
internet regulation with grave consequences for the global economy and
governments' ability to promote and protect public interests.

Any agreement of this scope and consequence must be based on a broad and
consultative process and reflect a full range of public interest concerns.
As detailed below, this text fails to meet these standards.

Recognizing that the terms of the agreement are under negotiation, a fair
reading of the proposed text as a whole leads to our conclusions that ACTA:

THE INTERNET
-Encourages internet service providers to police users of the internet
without adequate court oversight or due process;

-Globalizes 'anti-circumvention' provisions which threaten innovation,
competition, open source business models, interoperability, copyright
exceptions, and user choice;

FREE TRADE AND ACCESS TO MEDICINES
-Disrupts the free trade in legitimate generic medicines and other goods,
and sacrifices the foundational principle that IP rights are territorial, by
requiring customs authorities to seize goods in transit countries even when
they do not violate any law of the producing and importing countries;

-Does little or nothing to address the problem of medicines with
insufficient or wrong ingredients as the majority of these are not IP but
regulatory system problems.

-Extends the powers of custom officials to search and seize a wide range of
goods, including computers and other electronic devices, without adequate
safeguards against unwarranted confiscations and privacy invasions;

-Extends 'ex officio' border search and seizures from willful, commercial
scale trademark counterfeiting to a broad range of intellectual property
infringements, including “confusingly similar” trademark violations,
copyright infringement standards that require interpretation of "fair use"
or similar user rights, and even to patent cases which frequently involve
complex questions of law and fact that are difficult to adjudicate even by
specialist courts after full adjudicative processes;

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS
-Will curtail full enjoyment of fundamental rights and liberties, including
rights to privacy and the protection of personal data, health, access to
information, free expression, due process and presumptions of innocence,
cultural participation, and other internationally protected human rights;

SCOPE AND NATURE OF IP LAW
Distorts the balance fundamental to IP law between the rights and interests
of proprietors and users, including by

   - introducing very specific rights and remedies for rights holders
   without correlative requirements to provide exceptions, limitations, and due
   process safeguards for users;
   - shifting enforcement from private civil mechanisms to public
   authorities and third parties, including to customs officials, criminal
   prosecutors and internet service providers -- in ways that are likely to be
   more sensitive to proprietary concerns and less sensitive to user concerns;
   - omitting liability and disincentives for abuses of enforcement
   processes by right holders; and
   - requiring the adoption of automatic damages assessments unrelated to
   any proven harm;

-Alters the traditional and constitutionally mandated law making processes
for IP by:

   - locking in and exporting controversial aspects of US and EU enforcement
   practices whcih have already proven problematic, foreclosing future
   legislative improvements in response to changes in technology or policy;
   - requiring substantive changes to intellectual property laws of a large
   number of negotiating countries.

INTERNATIONAL TRADE AND DEVELOPMENT
-Will disproportionately harm development and social welfare of the poor,
particularly in developing countries, including through raising
unjustifiable trade barriers to imports and exports of needed medicines and
other knowledge embedded goods;

-Contains provisions inconsistent with the WTO Agreement on Trade Related
Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement);

-Conflicts with the World Trade Organization Doha Declaration on TRIPS and
Public Health and World Health Assembly Resolution 61.21 by limiting the
ability of countries to exercise to the full flexibilities in the TRIPS
agreement that can promote access to needed medicines;

-Circumvents and undermines the commitments agreed to under the World
Intellectual Property Organization development agenda, particularly
recommendation 45 committing to “approach intellectual property enforcement
in the context of broader societal interests and especially
development-oriented concerns," and "in accordance with Article 7 of the
TRIPS Agreement";

INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES
-Creates a new and redundant international administration for IP issues
outside of WIPO or the WTO with broad powers but limited transparency,
threatening multilateralism in international IP norm setting;

-Encourages technical assistance, public awareness campaigns, and
partnerships with the private sector that appear designed to promote only
the interests of IP owners;

CONCLUSIONS ABOUT THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS

The current process for considering public input into ACTA is fundamentally
flawed in numerous respects. In many countries, the only consultations
taking place are with select members of the public, off-the-record and
without benefit of sharing the latest version of the rapidly changing text.
There is little possibility that a fair and balanced agreement that protects
and promotes public interests can evolve from such a distorted policy making
process.

Governments, right holders and civil society should have an open and
evidence-based discussion on the right strategy to confront willful
commercial scale trademark counterfeiting and commercial scale copyright
piracy. This discussion should take place in multilateral and national open
and on-the-record forums with access to current negotiating text so that all
interested stakeholders can participate.

ENDORSEMENTS

   - Please send signatures (individual or Organization, City, Country) to:
   acta.declaration at gmail.com
   - Please send edits to: pijip at wcl.american.edu

Sean Flynn

Associate Director

Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property

American University Washington College of Law

202 274 4157

www.pijip.org


-- 
Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
FGV Direito Rio

Center for Technology and Society
Getulio Vargas Foundation
Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100621/3d3409b5/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net  Tue Jun 22 09:36:34 2010
From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker)
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 06:36:34 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] [4 of 6] How best to organize open consultations?
In-Reply-To: <791FD141-1AB5-4781-ADB4-DE9BF7FF8BBF@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <744058.17817.qm@web83909.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>

I look at the process and I have to wonder if maybe the concept is not named properly. It appears to be more of a "closed consultation" system.
Without a strong online global presence it is simply open to invitation. The physical procedural aspects are all normal.  The inclusvity* is nonexistent.
I ask a simple question, answers to which will either prove or disprove my contention.
How would I get an issue and be invited to present that issue to the MAG?

*How has society progressed so that in most "dictionary" this is not a word yet "exclusivity" is a very prominent word -- Does the linguistic emphasis reflect our attitudes?

--- On Thu, 6/17/10, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:

From: Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org>
Subject: [governance] [4 of 6] How best to organize open consultations?
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Date: Thursday, June 17, 2010, 2:57 PM

Moving on to the next question in the MAG questionnaire on reforms to the IGF (and thanks for the valuable contributions so far), we come to the question:
How best to organize open consultations?
The IGF"s open consultation meetings continue a tradition dating back from the Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG).  Held in Geneva, their purpose is to provide an open forum for discussion of themes and processes for the annual meeting.  The ideas put forward during the open consultation meeting (and in written contributions made beforehand) are taken as input into the MAG meeting that follows, where decisions on them (or recommendations for decisions) are made.
Issues that we might address in our comments on this question could include:
Should the consultation meetings continue to be held in Geneva, with remote participation from elsewhere, or could they be held elsewhere, with remote participation from Geneva?Should the meeting be made more deliberative than its present moderated roundtable format?  There are many specific options, but for example, the meeting could split into table groups to discuss and synthesize specific proposals, and a whiteboard (real or virtual) could be used to visually represent and group proposals.Should a more focussed use of online processes be used in planning for the IGF?  Quite apart from remote participation, should there be better use of a central mailing list and/or wiki for preparatory purposes?What groups are currently effectively excluded from the open consultation meetings, and what can be done to include them more effectively?
Thoughts on these or any other issues relating to the organisation of the open consultation meetings are welcome.
-- Jeremy Malcolm
Project Coordinator
Consumers International
Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East
Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Tel: +60 3 7726 1599CI is 50Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010.Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer rights around the world. 
http://www.consumersinternational.org/50

Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary.




-----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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100622/320844b1/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net  Tue Jun 22 09:49:40 2010
From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker)
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 06:49:40 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] Call for Support of International Civil Society
In-Reply-To: <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F87136B13B619@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm>
Message-ID: <440207.7513.qm@web83910.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>

When, lo so many years ago, I signed on to be an attorney, these types of problems were a major reason.  I just wrongfully assumed that fighting these travesties was what it was all about. My lessons were strong and brutal. The "bar" involved in this type of overbearing draconian movements such as ACTA have the power to ostracize and destroy those in the "profession" that would rally and fight against such bastardization of centuries of jurisprudence. So I signed off of being an "attorney". Damned if I want any part of a profession that can proudly take away so many rights from the underrepresented people.
Signing and participation in these objections and stands against this crap is vital.  It allows lawmakers to adopt laws countering such malfeasance and it gives the young and spirited advocates that rage against bar associations some leverage and most importantly some encouragement. We as concerned global netizens must stand united and resolute in order to counterbalance wrongful detractions from self evident and confirmed human rights of speech and freedom from financial legal oppression.
Eric

--- On Sun, 6/20/10, SAMUELS,Carlton A <carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm> wrote:

From: SAMUELS,Carlton A <carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm>
Subject: RE: [governance] Call for Support of International Civil Society
To: "governance at lists.cpsr.org" <governance at lists.cpsr.org>, "Robin Gross" <robin at ipjustice.org>
Date: Sunday, June 20, 2010, 1:14 PM






 






 



Dear Robin: 

Thanks for this.   Knowing that this and related matters are
concerns in these groups, I have onward circulation to the Library Association
of Jamaica  (LIAJA) and the ICT4D Jamaica Group. 

   

Carlton Samuels 

   





From: Robin Gross
[mailto:robin at ipjustice.org] 

Sent: Saturday, June 19, 2010 5:21 PM

To: governance at lists.cpsr.org

Subject: [governance] Call for Support of International Civil Society
Declaration Against ACTA (Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement) 





   



Dear Friends, 





   



As you are probably aware, the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade
Agreement (ACTA)
is a dangerous proposal to radically expand intellectual property rights at the
global level.  The draft agreement has been negotiated in secret, without
inclusion of developing nation perspectives, and without any participation from
civil society or regard for the global public interest.  ACTA specifically
targets the Internet and regulates the flow of information in a digital
environment.  ACTA would create significant negative consequences for
fundamental freedoms, access to medicines, innovation, the balance of
public/private interests, access to knowledge and culture, to name a few of its
problems.  ACTA represents a "wish list" from Hollywood and Big
Pharma which will be imposed unilaterally on developing countries through trade
pressure from the US, Europe and other wealthy states. 



   





Please consider signing on to the below (draft) International Civil
Society Declaration, which was the result of a meeting
in Washington, DC this week of over 90 academics from 5 continents,
public interest organizations and other legal experts concerned with the public
interest aspects of ACTA.  The meeting of international experts was hosted
by American University Washington College of Law Program on Information Justice
and Intellectual Property (PIJIP). 





   





Both organizations and individuals are welcome to sign-on to
the statement until 23 June 9am (US East Coast time) by email
to < acta.declaration at gmail.com >.
  





   





Further details for sign-on and proposing edits to the draft
declaration are below.  Please take a moment and read the declaration and
consider signing-on and adding your support to raise awareness on ACTA.
 And also please help to spread the word and gather additional civil
society support from your own networks and contacts by forwarding this email on
to others or reference to the website: http://www.wcl.american.edu/pijip/go/blog-post/urgent-acta-communique for
details. 





   





The next closed-door ACTA negotiations are scheduled for 28
June - 2 July 2010 in Lucerne, Switzerland, and the US promises a final
agreement will be concluded shortly thereafter.  Time is of the essence to
act on ACTA. 





   





Thank you for any support and assistance you can provide to
raise awareness on the public interest concerns with ACTA.  It is only
through global grass-roots efforts and small individual actions made by many
people that we can fight to overcome this flawed treaty. 





   





All best, 





Robin Gross 









   



Begin forwarded message: 







 



From: "Sean Flynn" <sflynn at wcl.american.edu> 





Date: June 19, 2010 10:30:38 AM PDT 





To: "Robin
Gross" <robin at ipjustice.org> 





Subject: acta communique 





The
DRAFT statement below reflects the conclusions reached at a meeting of over 90
academics, practitioners and public interest organizations from five continents
gathered at American University Washington College of Law, June 16-18, 2010.
The statement is now open to endorsements. 

The latest version of the draft communiqué is
now posted to a public blog post at: 



http://wcl.american.edu/pijip/go/acta-communique 





  





Please share the draft with others, circulate on your blogs, etc. 





  





THIS DRAFT STATEMENT IS NOW OPEN FOR INDIVIDUAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL
ENDORSEMENTS AS WELL AS EDITING COMMENTS. 





•            
Please send signatures to: acta.declaration at gmail.com 





•            
Please send edits to: pijip at wcl.american.edu 





  





EDITING SUGGESTIONS 





WILL BE ACCEPTED UNTIL NOON MONDAY JUNE 21. THE FINAL TEXT WITH
EDITS INCLUDED WILL BE RELEASED BY 5PM MONDAY JUNE 21.  





  





THE FINAL STATEMENT WILL BE RELEASED TO THE PUBLIC WITH
ENDORSEMENTS ON WEDNESDAY JUNE 23 AT 10AM. ENDORSEMENTS WILL BE ACCEPTED UNTIL
JUNE 23 AT 9AM.  





  





ENDORSEMENTS: 





WE WILL ACCEPT PROVISIONAL ENDORSEMENTS NOW. ENDORSERS WILL BE
GIVEN THE OPTION TO OPT-OUT WHEN THE FINAL TEXT IS CIRCULATED BY 5PM MONDAY
JUNE 21. 





  





FOR INDIVIDUAL ENDORSEMENTS, SEND YOUR NAME, TITLE
AND ORGANIZATION AND PLACE (CITY, COUNTRY) OF OCCUPATION to acta.declaration at gmail.com 





  





FOR ORGANIZATIONAL ENDORSEMENTS, ENTER THE NAME OF THE
ORGANIZATION AND PLACE(S) (CITY(IES), COUNTRY(IES))  IN WHICH THE
ORGANIZATION HAS OFFICES to acta.declaration at gmail.com. 





  





INDIVIDUALS WITHIN SIGNATORY ORGANIZATIONS MAY ENDORSE AS
INDIVIDUALS AS WELL AS BEING PART OF THE ORGANIZATIONAL ENDORSEMENT. 





  





PLEASE CIRCULATE WIDELY. 





  





  



DRAFT Urgent Communique: Consultation of International Experts on
ACTA and the Public Interest 

Release
Date: June 23, 2010 

American
University Washington College of Law 

Washington,
D.C. 



http://wcl.american.edu/pijip/go/acta-communique 



International Experts
Find that Pending Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement Threatens Public
Interests    

We
find that the terms of the agreement threaten numerous public interests,
including nearly every concern specifically disclaimed by the negotiators in
their announcement. 



The proposed agreement is a deeply flawed product of a deeply
flawed process. 



What started as a proposal to coordinate customs enforcement offices has
morphed into a massive new international intellectual property (IP) and
internet regulation with grave consequences for the global economy and
governments' ability to promote and protect public interests. 



Any agreement of this scope and consequence must be based on a broad and
consultative process and reflect a full range of public interest concerns. As
detailed below, this text fails to meet these standards.



Recognizing that the terms of the agreement are under negotiation, a fair
reading of the proposed text as a whole leads to our conclusions that ACTA:



THE INTERNET

-Encourages internet service providers to police users of the internet without
adequate court oversight or due process;



-Globalizes 'anti-circumvention' provisions which threaten innovation,
competition, open source business models, interoperability, copyright
exceptions, and user choice; 



FREE TRADE AND ACCESS TO MEDICINES

-Disrupts the free trade in legitimate generic medicines and other goods, and
sacrifices the foundational principle that IP rights are territorial, by
requiring customs authorities to seize goods in transit countries even when
they do not violate any law of the producing and importing countries;



-Does little or nothing to address the problem of medicines with insufficient
or wrong ingredients as the majority of these are not IP but regulatory system
problems. 



-Extends
the powers of custom officials to search and seize a wide range of goods,
including computers and other electronic devices, without adequate safeguards
against unwarranted confiscations and privacy invasions; 

-Extends
'ex officio' border search and seizures from willful, commercial scale
trademark counterfeiting to a broad range of intellectual property
infringements, including “confusingly similar” trademark violations, copyright
infringement standards that require interpretation of "fair use" or
similar user rights, and even to patent cases which frequently involve complex
questions of law and fact that are difficult to adjudicate even by specialist
courts after full adjudicative processes; 



FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS

-Will curtail full enjoyment of fundamental rights and liberties, including
rights to privacy and the protection of personal data, health, access to
information, free expression, due process and presumptions of innocence,
cultural participation, and other internationally protected human rights; 



SCOPE AND NATURE OF IP LAW

Distorts the balance fundamental to IP law between the rights and interests of
proprietors and users, including by 




 introducing
     very specific rights and remedies for rights holders without correlative
     requirements to provide exceptions, limitations, and due process
     safeguards for users; 
 shifting
     enforcement from private civil mechanisms to public authorities and third
     parties, including to customs officials, criminal prosecutors and internet
     service providers -- in ways that are likely to be more sensitive to
     proprietary concerns and less sensitive to user concerns; 
 omitting
     liability and disincentives for abuses of enforcement processes by right
     holders; and 
 requiring the
     adoption of automatic damages assessments unrelated to any proven harm;  




-Alters the traditional and constitutionally mandated law making
processes for IP by: 




 locking in and
     exporting controversial aspects of US and EU enforcement practices whcih
     have already proven problematic, foreclosing future legislative
     improvements in response to changes in technology or policy; 
 requiring
     substantive changes to intellectual property laws of a large number of
     negotiating countries. 




INTERNATIONAL TRADE AND DEVELOPMENT

-Will disproportionately harm development and social welfare of the poor,
particularly in developing countries, including through raising unjustifiable
trade barriers to imports and exports of needed medicines and other knowledge
embedded goods;



-Contains provisions inconsistent with the WTO Agreement on Trade Related
Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement); 



-Conflicts with the World Trade Organization Doha Declaration on TRIPS and
Public Health and World Health Assembly Resolution 61.21 by limiting the
ability of countries to exercise to the full flexibilities in the TRIPS
agreement that can promote access to needed medicines;   



-Circumvents and undermines the commitments agreed to under the World
Intellectual Property Organization development agenda, particularly
recommendation 45 committing to “approach intellectual property enforcement in
the context of broader societal interests and especially development-oriented
concerns," and "in accordance with Article 7 of the TRIPS
Agreement"; 



INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES

-Creates a new and redundant international administration for IP issues outside
of WIPO or the WTO with broad powers but limited transparency, threatening
multilateralism in international IP norm setting;



-Encourages technical assistance, public awareness campaigns, and partnerships
with the private sector that appear designed to promote only the interests of
IP owners; 



CONCLUSIONS ABOUT THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS 



The
current process for considering public input into ACTA is fundamentally flawed
in numerous respects. In many countries, the only consultations taking place
are with select members of the public, off-the-record and without benefit of
sharing the latest version of the rapidly changing text. There is little
possibility that a fair and balanced agreement that protects and promotes
public interests can evolve from such a distorted policy making process. 

Governments,
right holders and civil society should have an open and evidence-based
discussion on the right strategy to confront willful commercial scale trademark
counterfeiting and commercial scale copyright piracy. This discussion should
take place in multilateral and national open and on-the-record forums with
access to current negotiating text so that all interested stakeholders can
participate. 

ENDORSEMENTS 


 Please send
     signatures (individual or Organization, City, Country) to: acta.declaration at gmail.com 
 Please send
     edits to: pijip at wcl.american.edu 




  





  





Sean Flynn 





Associate Director 





Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property 





American University Washington College of Law 





202 274 4157 





www.pijip.org 





  







   





   





   





IP JUSTICE 





Robin Gross, Executive Director 





1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA 





p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451 





w: http://www.ipjustice.org 
   e: robin at ipjustice.org 





   















 



   



 



-----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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100622/be679874/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From mueller at syr.edu  Wed Jun 23 06:14:12 2010
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 06:14:12 -0400
Subject: [governance] An important discussion o free expression at the
 ICANN meeting
Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D705C7E16A13@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>

http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2010/6/23/4560694.html


Milton Mueller
Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies
XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology
------------------------------
Internet Governance Project:
http://internetgovernance.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100623/ab8d310a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From b.schombe at gmail.com  Wed Jun 23 10:22:28 2010
From: b.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin SCHOMBE)
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 15:22:28 +0100
Subject: [governance] Call for Support of International Civil Society
In-Reply-To: <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F87136B13B619@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm>
References: <0B9D6D67-537E-40D8-B365-B126664AC3E7@ipjustice.org> 
	<39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F87136B13B619@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm>
Message-ID: <AANLkTikgUlTVB4nPgY9TwLIpL-QEFKHVM4UDsmjXci5U@mail.gmail.com>

I give my support for this declaration


SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN
COORDONNATEUR DU CENTRE AFRICAIN D'ECHANGE CULTUREL (CAFEC)
COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC
MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE
GNSO and NCUC MEMBER (ICANN)

Téléphone mobile: +243998983491/+243999334571
                          +243811980914
email:                   b.schombe at gmail.com
blog:                     http://akimambo.unblog.fr
siège temporaire : Boulevard du 30 juin Immeuble   Royal, Entrée A,7e
niveau.


2010/6/20 SAMUELS,Carlton A <carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm>

>  Dear Robin:
>
> Thanks for this.   Knowing that this and related matters are concerns in
> these groups, I have onward circulation to the Library Association of
> Jamaica  (LIAJA) and the ICT4D Jamaica Group.
>
>
>
> Carlton Samuels
>
>
>
> *From:* Robin Gross [mailto:robin at ipjustice.org]
> *Sent:* Saturday, June 19, 2010 5:21 PM
> *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org
> *Subject:* [governance] Call for Support of International Civil Society
> Declaration Against ACTA (Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement)
>
>
>
> Dear Friends,
>
>
>
> As you are probably aware, the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA<http://www.wcl.american.edu/pijip/go/acta04212010>)
> is a dangerous proposal to radically expand intellectual property rights at
> the global level.  The draft agreement has been negotiated in secret,
> without inclusion of developing nation perspectives, and without any
> participation from civil society or regard for the global public interest.
>  ACTA specifically targets the Internet and regulates the flow of
> information in a digital environment.  ACTA would create significant
> negative consequences for fundamental freedoms, access to medicines,
> innovation, the balance of public/private interests, access to knowledge and
> culture, to name a few of its problems.  ACTA represents a "wish list" from
> Hollywood and Big Pharma which will be imposed unilaterally on developing
> countries through trade pressure from the US, Europe and other wealthy
> states.
>
>
>
> Please consider signing on to the below (draft) International Civil
> Society Declaration <http://wcl.american.edu/pijip/go/acta-communique>,
> which was the result of a meeting in Washington, DC<http://www.wcl.american.edu/pijip/go/blog-post/meeting-to-bring-together-academics-and-advocates-to-discuss-public-interest-impacts-of-controversial-intellectual-property-treaty> this
> week of over 90 academics from 5 continents, public interest organizations
> and other legal experts concerned with the public interest aspects of ACTA.
>  The meeting of international experts was hosted by American University
> Washington College of Law Program on Information Justice and Intellectual
> Property (PIJIP <http://www.wcl.american.edu/pijip/>).
>
>
>
> Both organizations and individuals are welcome to sign-on to the statement
> until *23 June 9am* (US East Coast time) by email to < *
> acta.declaration at gmail.com* >.
>
>
>
> Further details for sign-on and proposing edits to the draft declaration
> are below.  Please take a moment and read the declaration and consider
> signing-on and adding your support to raise awareness on ACTA.  And also
> please help to spread the word and gather additional civil society support
> from your own networks and contacts by forwarding this email on to others or
> reference to the website:
> http://www.wcl.american.edu/pijip/go/blog-post/urgent-acta-communique for
> details.
>
>
>
> The next closed-door ACTA negotiations are scheduled for 28 June - 2 July
> 2010 in Lucerne, Switzerland, and the US promises a final agreement will be
> concluded shortly thereafter.  Time is of the essence to act on ACTA.
>
>
>
> Thank you for any support and assistance you can provide to raise awareness
> on the public interest concerns with ACTA.  It is only through global
> grass-roots efforts and small individual actions made by many people that we
> can fight to overcome this flawed treaty.
>
>
>
> All best,
>
> Robin Gross
>
>
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
>
>
>  *From: *"Sean Flynn" <sflynn at wcl.american.edu>
>
> *Date: *June 19, 2010 10:30:38 AM PDT
>
> *To: *"Robin Gross" <robin at ipjustice.org>
>
> *Subject: **acta communique*
>
> The DRAFT statement below reflects the conclusions reached at a meeting of
> over 90 academics, practitioners and public interest organizations from five
> continents gathered at American University Washington College of Law, June
> 16-18, 2010. The statement is now open to endorsements.
> The latest version of the draft communiqué is now posted to a public blog
> post at:
>
> http://wcl.american.edu/pijip/go/acta-communique
>
>
>
> Please share the draft with others, circulate on your blogs, etc.
>
>
>
> THIS DRAFT STATEMENT IS NOW OPEN FOR INDIVIDUAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL
> ENDORSEMENTS AS WELL AS EDITING COMMENTS.
>
> •             Please send signatures to: acta.declaration at gmail.com
>
> •             Please send edits to: pijip at wcl.american.edu
>
>
>
> *EDITING SUGGESTIONS*
>
> WILL BE ACCEPTED UNTIL NOON MONDAY JUNE 21. THE FINAL TEXT WITH EDITS
> INCLUDED WILL BE RELEASED BY 5PM MONDAY JUNE 21.
>
>
>
> THE FINAL STATEMENT WILL BE RELEASED TO THE PUBLIC WITH ENDORSEMENTS ON
> WEDNESDAY JUNE 23 AT 10AM. ENDORSEMENTS WILL BE ACCEPTED UNTIL JUNE 23 AT
> 9AM.
>
>
>
> *ENDORSEMENTS:*
>
> WE WILL ACCEPT PROVISIONAL ENDORSEMENTS NOW. ENDORSERS WILL BE GIVEN THE
> OPTION TO OPT-OUT WHEN THE FINAL TEXT IS CIRCULATED BY 5PM MONDAY JUNE 21.
>
>
>
> *FOR INDIVIDUAL ENDORSEMENTS,* SEND YOUR NAME, TITLE AND ORGANIZATION AND
> PLACE (CITY, COUNTRY) OF OCCUPATION to acta.declaration at gmail.com
>
>
>
> *FOR ORGANIZATIONAL ENDORSEMENTS*, ENTER THE NAME OF THE ORGANIZATION AND
> PLACE(S) (CITY(IES), COUNTRY(IES))  IN WHICH THE ORGANIZATION HAS OFFICES
> to acta.declaration at gmail.com.
>
>
>
> INDIVIDUALS WITHIN SIGNATORY ORGANIZATIONS MAY ENDORSE AS INDIVIDUALS AS
> WELL AS BEING PART OF THE ORGANIZATIONAL ENDORSEMENT.
>
>
>
> PLEASE CIRCULATE WIDELY.
>
>
>
>
>  DRAFT Urgent Communique: Consultation of International Experts on ACTA
> and the Public Interest
>
> Release Date: June 23, 2010
>
> American University Washington College of Law
>
> Washington, D.C.
>
> http://wcl.american.edu/pijip/go/acta-communique
>  International Experts Find that Pending Anti-Counterfeiting Trade
> Agreement Threatens Public Interests
>
> We find that the terms of the agreement threaten numerous public interests,
> including nearly every concern specifically disclaimed by the negotiators in
> their announcement.
>
> The proposed agreement is a deeply flawed product of a deeply flawed
> process.
>
> What started as a proposal to coordinate customs enforcement offices has
> morphed into a massive new international intellectual property (IP) and
> internet regulation with grave consequences for the global economy and
> governments' ability to promote and protect public interests.
>
> Any agreement of this scope and consequence must be based on a broad and
> consultative process and reflect a full range of public interest concerns.
> As detailed below, this text fails to meet these standards.
>
> Recognizing that the terms of the agreement are under negotiation, a fair
> reading of the proposed text as a whole leads to our conclusions that ACTA:
>
> THE INTERNET
> -Encourages internet service providers to police users of the internet
> without adequate court oversight or due process;
>
> -Globalizes 'anti-circumvention' provisions which threaten innovation,
> competition, open source business models, interoperability, copyright
> exceptions, and user choice;
>
> FREE TRADE AND ACCESS TO MEDICINES
> -Disrupts the free trade in legitimate generic medicines and other goods,
> and sacrifices the foundational principle that IP rights are territorial, by
> requiring customs authorities to seize goods in transit countries even when
> they do not violate any law of the producing and importing countries;
>
> -Does little or nothing to address the problem of medicines with
> insufficient or wrong ingredients as the majority of these are not IP but
> regulatory system problems.
>
> -Extends the powers of custom officials to search and seize a wide range of
> goods, including computers and other electronic devices, without adequate
> safeguards against unwarranted confiscations and privacy invasions;
>
> -Extends 'ex officio' border search and seizures from willful, commercial
> scale trademark counterfeiting to a broad range of intellectual property
> infringements, including “confusingly similar” trademark violations,
> copyright infringement standards that require interpretation of "fair use"
> or similar user rights, and even to patent cases which frequently involve
> complex questions of law and fact that are difficult to adjudicate even by
> specialist courts after full adjudicative processes;
>
> FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS
> -Will curtail full enjoyment of fundamental rights and liberties, including
> rights to privacy and the protection of personal data, health, access to
> information, free expression, due process and presumptions of innocence,
> cultural participation, and other internationally protected human rights;
>
> SCOPE AND NATURE OF IP LAW
> Distorts the balance fundamental to IP law between the rights and interests
> of proprietors and users, including by
>
>    - introducing very specific rights and remedies for rights holders
>    without correlative requirements to provide exceptions, limitations, and due
>    process safeguards for users;
>    - shifting enforcement from private civil mechanisms to public
>    authorities and third parties, including to customs officials, criminal
>    prosecutors and internet service providers -- in ways that are likely to be
>    more sensitive to proprietary concerns and less sensitive to user concerns;
>    - omitting liability and disincentives for abuses of enforcement
>    processes by right holders; and
>    - requiring the adoption of automatic damages assessments unrelated to
>    any proven harm;
>
>  -Alters the traditional and constitutionally mandated law making
> processes for IP by:
>
>    - locking in and exporting controversial aspects of US and EU
>    enforcement practices whcih have already proven problematic, foreclosing
>    future legislative improvements in response to changes in technology or
>    policy;
>    - requiring substantive changes to intellectual property laws of a
>    large number of negotiating countries.
>
>  INTERNATIONAL TRADE AND DEVELOPMENT
> -Will disproportionately harm development and social welfare of the poor,
> particularly in developing countries, including through raising
> unjustifiable trade barriers to imports and exports of needed medicines and
> other knowledge embedded goods;
>
> -Contains provisions inconsistent with the WTO Agreement on Trade Related
> Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement);
>
> -Conflicts with the World Trade Organization Doha Declaration on TRIPS and
> Public Health and World Health Assembly Resolution 61.21 by limiting the
> ability of countries to exercise to the full flexibilities in the TRIPS
> agreement that can promote access to needed medicines;
>
> -Circumvents and undermines the commitments agreed to under the World
> Intellectual Property Organization development agenda, particularly
> recommendation 45 committing to “approach intellectual property enforcement
> in the context of broader societal interests and especially
> development-oriented concerns," and "in accordance with Article 7 of the
> TRIPS Agreement";
>
> INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES
> -Creates a new and redundant international administration for IP issues
> outside of WIPO or the WTO with broad powers but limited transparency,
> threatening multilateralism in international IP norm setting;
>
> -Encourages technical assistance, public awareness campaigns, and
> partnerships with the private sector that appear designed to promote only
> the interests of IP owners;
>
> CONCLUSIONS ABOUT THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS
>
> The current process for considering public input into ACTA is fundamentally
> flawed in numerous respects. In many countries, the only consultations
> taking place are with select members of the public, off-the-record and
> without benefit of sharing the latest version of the rapidly changing text.
> There is little possibility that a fair and balanced agreement that protects
> and promotes public interests can evolve from such a distorted policy making
> process.
>
> Governments, right holders and civil society should have an open and
> evidence-based discussion on the right strategy to confront willful
> commercial scale trademark counterfeiting and commercial scale copyright
> piracy. This discussion should take place in multilateral and national open
> and on-the-record forums with access to current negotiating text so that all
> interested stakeholders can participate.
>
> ENDORSEMENTS
>
>    - Please send signatures (individual or Organization, City, Country)
>    to: acta.declaration at gmail.com
>    - Please send edits to: pijip at wcl.american.edu
>
>
>
>
>
> Sean Flynn
>
> Associate Director
>
> Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property
>
> American University Washington College of Law
>
> 202 274 4157
>
> www.pijip.org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> IP JUSTICE
>
> Robin Gross, Executive Director
>
> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
>
> p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
>
> w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin at ipjustice.org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100623/10b83900/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net  Wed Jun 23 10:27:25 2010
From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker)
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 07:27:25 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] An important discussion o free expression at the
 ICANN meeting
In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D705C7E16A13@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <170307.95397.qm@web83906.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>

Milton,
 
I cringed at the US stance.  These IP lawyer dudes are going too far.  This last decade of infringing on freedom of speech by a prior restraint threat and political meddling is one or our darkest decades. When we combine this with the constant cries from religions that cry some sacrosanct right to thought via word use it is becoming scary. 
We are beginning to see striking similarities in approach with terrorism and global multinational megacorps.  One is abusing law to strike terror. And the other is being more honest and striking with terror against the law.  Bloodshed is horrible, but subterfuge and lies strike harder at more than corporeal needs and mere flesh and bone.  Some ideals, like freedom of speech cannot die lest we as a civilization die with them.
 
I believe that good thinkers should take hard looks at concepts such as "hate" speech.  We should revisit the concept of speech that "incites". And we must work hard at returning the freedom of speech to a higher position than the right to own speech.

--- On Wed, 6/23/10, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:


From: Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu>
Subject: [governance] An important discussion o free expression at the ICANN meeting
To: "NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU" <NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>
Cc: "governance at lists.cpsr.org" <governance at lists.cpsr.org>
Date: Wednesday, June 23, 2010, 10:14 AM








http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2010/6/23/4560694.html 
 
 
Milton Mueller
Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies
XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology
------------------------------
Internet Governance Project:
http://internetgovernance.org
 
-----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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100623/b5a45a72/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net  Wed Jun 23 10:30:26 2010
From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker)
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 07:30:26 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] Call for Support of International Civil Society
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikgUlTVB4nPgY9TwLIpL-QEFKHVM4UDsmjXci5U@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <379277.99000.qm@web83916.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>

We are morally required to give more than verbal/written support.  We must somehow engrain in the many a distaste for such usurpation of our honored right of communication and speech.

--- On Wed, 6/23/10, Baudouin SCHOMBE <b.schombe at gmail.com> wrote:


From: Baudouin SCHOMBE <b.schombe at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [governance] Call for Support of International Civil Society
To: acta.declaration at gmail.com
Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org, carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm, robin at ipjustice.org
Date: Wednesday, June 23, 2010, 2:22 PM


I give my support for this declaration


SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN
COORDONNATEUR DU CENTRE AFRICAIN D'ECHANGE CULTUREL (CAFEC)
COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC
MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE
GNSO and NCUC MEMBER (ICANN)

Téléphone mobile: +243998983491/+243999334571
                          +243811980914
email:                   b.schombe at gmail.com
blog:                     http://akimambo.unblog.fr
siège temporaire : Boulevard du 30 juin Immeuble   Royal, Entrée A,7e niveau.



2010/6/20 SAMUELS,Carlton A <carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm>




Dear Robin:
Thanks for this.   Knowing that this and related matters are concerns in these groups, I have onward circulation to the Library Association of Jamaica  (LIAJA) and the ICT4D Jamaica Group.
 
Carlton Samuels
 


From: Robin Gross [mailto:robin at ipjustice.org] 
Sent: Saturday, June 19, 2010 5:21 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: [governance] Call for Support of International Civil Society Declaration Against ACTA (Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement)
 

Dear Friends,

 
As you are probably aware, the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) is a dangerous proposal to radically expand intellectual property rights at the global level.  The draft agreement has been negotiated in secret, without inclusion of developing nation perspectives, and without any participation from civil society or regard for the global public interest.  ACTA specifically targets the Internet and regulates the flow of information in a digital environment.  ACTA would create significant negative consequences for fundamental freedoms, access to medicines, innovation, the balance of public/private interests, access to knowledge and culture, to name a few of its problems.  ACTA represents a "wish list" from Hollywood and Big Pharma which will be imposed unilaterally on developing countries through trade pressure from the US, Europe and other wealthy states.

 

Please consider signing on to the below (draft) International Civil Society Declaration, which was the result of a meeting in Washington, DC this week of over 90 academics from 5 continents, public interest organizations and other legal experts concerned with the public interest aspects of ACTA.  The meeting of international experts was hosted by American University Washington College of Law Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property (PIJIP).

 

Both organizations and individuals are welcome to sign-on to the statement until 23 June 9am (US East Coast time) by email to < acta.declaration at gmail.com >.  

 

Further details for sign-on and proposing edits to the draft declaration are below.  Please take a moment and read the declaration and consider signing-on and adding your support to raise awareness on ACTA.  And also please help to spread the word and gather additional civil society support from your own networks and contacts by forwarding this email on to others or reference to the website: http://www.wcl.american.edu/pijip/go/blog-post/urgent-acta-communique for details.

 

The next closed-door ACTA negotiations are scheduled for 28 June - 2 July 2010 in Lucerne, Switzerland, and the US promises a final agreement will be concluded shortly thereafter.  Time is of the essence to act on ACTA.

 

Thank you for any support and assistance you can provide to raise awareness on the public interest concerns with ACTA.  It is only through global grass-roots efforts and small individual actions made by many people that we can fight to overcome this flawed treaty.

 

All best,

Robin Gross



 

Begin forwarded message:




From: "Sean Flynn" <sflynn at wcl.american.edu>

Date: June 19, 2010 10:30:38 AM PDT

To: "Robin Gross" <robin at ipjustice.org>

Subject: acta communique

The DRAFT statement below reflects the conclusions reached at a meeting of over 90 academics, practitioners and public interest organizations from five continents gathered at American University Washington College of Law, June 16-18, 2010. The statement is now open to endorsements.
The latest version of the draft communiqué is now posted to a public blog post at:

http://wcl.american.edu/pijip/go/acta-communique

 

Please share the draft with others, circulate on your blogs, etc.

 

THIS DRAFT STATEMENT IS NOW OPEN FOR INDIVIDUAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL ENDORSEMENTS AS WELL AS EDITING COMMENTS.

•             Please send signatures to: acta.declaration at gmail.com

•             Please send edits to: pijip at wcl.american.edu

 

EDITING SUGGESTIONS

WILL BE ACCEPTED UNTIL NOON MONDAY JUNE 21. THE FINAL TEXT WITH EDITS INCLUDED WILL BE RELEASED BY 5PM MONDAY JUNE 21. 

 

THE FINAL STATEMENT WILL BE RELEASED TO THE PUBLIC WITH ENDORSEMENTS ON WEDNESDAY JUNE 23 AT 10AM. ENDORSEMENTS WILL BE ACCEPTED UNTIL JUNE 23 AT 9AM. 

 

ENDORSEMENTS:

WE WILL ACCEPT PROVISIONAL ENDORSEMENTS NOW. ENDORSERS WILL BE GIVEN THE OPTION TO OPT-OUT WHEN THE FINAL TEXT IS CIRCULATED BY 5PM MONDAY JUNE 21.

 

FOR INDIVIDUAL ENDORSEMENTS, SEND YOUR NAME, TITLE AND ORGANIZATION AND PLACE (CITY, COUNTRY) OF OCCUPATION to acta.declaration at gmail.com

 

FOR ORGANIZATIONAL ENDORSEMENTS, ENTER THE NAME OF THE ORGANIZATION AND PLACE(S) (CITY(IES), COUNTRY(IES))  IN WHICH THE ORGANIZATION HAS OFFICES to acta.declaration at gmail.com.

 

INDIVIDUALS WITHIN SIGNATORY ORGANIZATIONS MAY ENDORSE AS INDIVIDUALS AS WELL AS BEING PART OF THE ORGANIZATIONAL ENDORSEMENT.

 

PLEASE CIRCULATE WIDELY.

 

 
DRAFT Urgent Communique: Consultation of International Experts on ACTA and the Public Interest
Release Date: June 23, 2010
American University Washington College of Law
Washington, D.C.

http://wcl.american.edu/pijip/go/acta-communique
International Experts Find that Pending Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement Threatens Public Interests   
We find that the terms of the agreement threaten numerous public interests, including nearly every concern specifically disclaimed by the negotiators in their announcement.

The proposed agreement is a deeply flawed product of a deeply flawed process. 

What started as a proposal to coordinate customs enforcement offices has morphed into a massive new international intellectual property (IP) and internet regulation with grave consequences for the global economy and governments' ability to promote and protect public interests. 

Any agreement of this scope and consequence must be based on a broad and consultative process and reflect a full range of public interest concerns. As detailed below, this text fails to meet these standards.

Recognizing that the terms of the agreement are under negotiation, a fair reading of the proposed text as a whole leads to our conclusions that ACTA:

THE INTERNET
-Encourages internet service providers to police users of the internet without adequate court oversight or due process;

-Globalizes 'anti-circumvention' provisions which threaten innovation, competition, open source business models, interoperability, copyright exceptions, and user choice; 

FREE TRADE AND ACCESS TO MEDICINES
-Disrupts the free trade in legitimate generic medicines and other goods, and sacrifices the foundational principle that IP rights are territorial, by requiring customs authorities to seize goods in transit countries even when they do not violate any law of the producing and importing countries;

-Does little or nothing to address the problem of medicines with insufficient or wrong ingredients as the majority of these are not IP but regulatory system problems.
-Extends the powers of custom officials to search and seize a wide range of goods, including computers and other electronic devices, without adequate safeguards against unwarranted confiscations and privacy invasions;
-Extends 'ex officio' border search and seizures from willful, commercial scale trademark counterfeiting to a broad range of intellectual property infringements, including “confusingly similar” trademark violations, copyright infringement standards that require interpretation of "fair use" or similar user rights, and even to patent cases which frequently involve complex questions of law and fact that are difficult to adjudicate even by specialist courts after full adjudicative processes;

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS
-Will curtail full enjoyment of fundamental rights and liberties, including rights to privacy and the protection of personal data, health, access to information, free expression, due process and presumptions of innocence, cultural participation, and other internationally protected human rights; 

SCOPE AND NATURE OF IP LAW
Distorts the balance fundamental to IP law between the rights and interests of proprietors and users, including by

introducing very specific rights and remedies for rights holders without correlative requirements to provide exceptions, limitations, and due process safeguards for users;
shifting enforcement from private civil mechanisms to public authorities and third parties, including to customs officials, criminal prosecutors and internet service providers -- in ways that are likely to be more sensitive to proprietary concerns and less sensitive to user concerns;
omitting liability and disincentives for abuses of enforcement processes by right holders; and
requiring the adoption of automatic damages assessments unrelated to any proven harm; 

-Alters the traditional and constitutionally mandated law making processes for IP by:

locking in and exporting controversial aspects of US and EU enforcement practices whcih have already proven problematic, foreclosing future legislative improvements in response to changes in technology or policy;
requiring substantive changes to intellectual property laws of a large number of negotiating countries.

INTERNATIONAL TRADE AND DEVELOPMENT
-Will disproportionately harm development and social welfare of the poor, particularly in developing countries, including through raising unjustifiable trade barriers to imports and exports of needed medicines and other knowledge embedded goods;

-Contains provisions inconsistent with the WTO Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement); 

-Conflicts with the World Trade Organization Doha Declaration on TRIPS and Public Health and World Health Assembly Resolution 61.21 by limiting the ability of countries to exercise to the full flexibilities in the TRIPS agreement that can promote access to needed medicines;   

-Circumvents and undermines the commitments agreed to under the World Intellectual Property Organization development agenda, particularly recommendation 45 committing to “approach intellectual property enforcement in the context of broader societal interests and especially development-oriented concerns," and "in accordance with Article 7 of the TRIPS Agreement"; 

INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES
-Creates a new and redundant international administration for IP issues outside of WIPO or the WTO with broad powers but limited transparency, threatening multilateralism in international IP norm setting;

-Encourages technical assistance, public awareness campaigns, and partnerships with the private sector that appear designed to promote only the interests of IP owners; 

CONCLUSIONS ABOUT THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS
The current process for considering public input into ACTA is fundamentally flawed in numerous respects. In many countries, the only consultations taking place are with select members of the public, off-the-record and without benefit of sharing the latest version of the rapidly changing text. There is little possibility that a fair and balanced agreement that protects and promotes public interests can evolve from such a distorted policy making process.
Governments, right holders and civil society should have an open and evidence-based discussion on the right strategy to confront willful commercial scale trademark counterfeiting and commercial scale copyright piracy. This discussion should take place in multilateral and national open and on-the-record forums with access to current negotiating text so that all interested stakeholders can participate.
ENDORSEMENTS

Please send signatures (individual or Organization, City, Country) to: acta.declaration at gmail.com
Please send edits to: pijip at wcl.american.edu

 

 

Sean Flynn

Associate Director

Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property

American University Washington College of Law

202 274 4157

www.pijip.org

 
 


 

 

IP JUSTICE

Robin Gross, Executive Director

1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA

p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451

w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin at ipjustice.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


-----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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100623/6f56a134/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From karl at cavebear.com  Wed Jun 23 13:13:07 2010
From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach)
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 10:13:07 -0700
Subject: [governance] Re: [bwg+] An important discussion o free expression
 at the ICANN meeting
In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D705C7E16A13@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D705C7E16A13@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <4C2240A3.8090402@cavebear.com>

On 06/23/2010 03:14 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2010/6/23/4560694.html

Good writeup.

I see that the notion that the internet and the world wide web are the 
same thing is creeping back into the discussions.  That false belief 
tends to make people forget that the internet is a foundation for much 
more than websites.

By-the-way, since we are talking about public morality, should not ICANN 
rename its "intellectual property" nodules so that their names more 
properly reflect that they are composed of the "intellectual property 
protection industry" rather than people from the realm of "intellectual 
property creation"?

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

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

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


From jefsey at jefsey.com  Wed Jun 23 13:14:20 2010
From: jefsey at jefsey.com (jefsey)
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 19:14:20 +0200
Subject: [governance] Call for Support of International Civil
In-Reply-To: <440207.7513.qm@web83910.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
References: <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F87136B13B619@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm>
 <440207.7513.qm@web83910.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20100622211410.0598cea8@jefsey.com>

At 15:49 22/06/2010, Eric Dierker wrote:
>When, lo so many years ago, I signed on to be an attorney, these 
>types of problems were a major reason.  I just wrongfully assumed 
>that fighting these travesties was what it was all about. My lessons 
>were strong and brutal. The "bar" involved in this type of 
>overbearing draconian movements such as ACTA have the power to 
>ostracize and destroy those in the "profession" that would rally and 
>fight against such bastardization of centuries of jurisprudence. So 
>I signed off of being an "attorney". Damned if I want any part of a 
>profession that can proudly take away so many rights from the 
>underrepresented people.

Eric,

this is a very interesting mail of yours. There are professions like 
attorneys, engineers, politicians, militaries, sales, managers, etc. 
that can laminate people in being jointly idiotic, I mean making a 
specialization of being idiot in group. However, if signing and 
participating to objections and standing against their crap is 
ethical, it is not efficient for the oppressed people.

I think that what is efficient is in being an intelligent attorney, 
engineer, military, sales, manager, etc. i.e. someone who  can really 
help  people  outsmating the idiotically  dominating  cast in tying 
reality together. I mean getting real is not enough: one as to get 
real innovation in tying facilitation, simplicity, innovation, etc. 
together and give it to people. Exemples:
-  adapted forms of governance (as I suggested the other day),
- adapted technologies now we "broke" the tyrannic "end to end"ness 
of the network architecture, while respecting and protecting its end 
to end layer necessity down to the smalled iota.
- naming projects: why as not the civil society not yet set up a 
".top" project to provide a free domain name to people round the world?

There is a decentralised idiotic culture that has inflitrated our 
civilizations and enslaves us, the people. WSIS said that we, the 
people, are the centers of the Information Society. We need an 
intelligent (at least in the way a distributed network is 
"inte-ligent" interlinking) culture to develop and disseminate in 
every sphere of Internet usage. If the civil society wants to be any 
use, it is in giving people round the world the education (and 
motivation) on how to empower themselves and engage in their own 
Internet governance best practice.

Signing objections is OK, but publishing a best practice RFC to 
technically explain the ACTA  system and  how for us to keep it 
networkneutral would probably have a more influent and direct impact 
(whatever a netneutral ACTA may mean: up to us to provide the 
thinking, business wants to dry)

jfc


>Signing and participation in these objections and stands against 
>this crap is vital.  It allows lawmakers to adopt laws countering 
>such malfeasance and it gives the young and spirited advocates that 
>rage against bar associations some leverage and most importantly 
>some encouragement. We as concerned global netizens must stand 
>united and resolute in order to counterbalance wrongful detractions 
>from self evident and confirmed human rights of speech and freedom 
>from financial legal oppression.
>
>Eric
>
>--- On Sun, 6/20/10, SAMUELS,Carlton A <carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm> wrote:
>
>From: SAMUELS,Carlton A <carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm>
>Subject: RE: [governance] Call for Support of International Civil Society
>To: "governance at lists.cpsr.org" <governance at lists.cpsr.org>, "Robin 
>Gross" <robin at ipjustice.org>
>Date: Sunday, June 20, 2010, 1:14 PM
>
>Dear Robin:
>
>Thanks for this.   Knowing that this and related matters are 
>concerns in these groups, I have onward circulation to the Library 
>Association of Jamaica  (LIAJA) and the ICT4D Jamaica Group.
>
>
>
>Carlton Samuels
>
>
>
>From: Robin Gross [mailto:robin at ipjustice.org]
>Sent: Saturday, June 19, 2010 5:21 PM
>To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>Subject: [governance] Call for Support of International Civil 
>Society Declaration Against ACTA (Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement)
>
>
>
>Dear Friends,
>
>
>
>As you are probably aware, the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 
>(<http://www.wcl.american.edu/pijip/go/acta04212010>ACTA) is a 
>dangerous proposal to radically expand intellectual property rights 
>at the global level.  The draft agreement has been negotiated in 
>secret, without inclusion of developing nation perspectives, and 
>without any participation from civil society or regard for the 
>global public interest.  ACTA specifically targets the Internet and 
>regulates the flow of information in a digital environment.  ACTA 
>would create significant negative consequences for fundamental 
>freedoms, access to medicines, innovation, the balance of 
>public/private interests, access to knowledge and culture, to name a 
>few of its problems.  ACTA represents a "wish list" from Hollywood 
>and Big Pharma which will be imposed unilaterally on developing 
>countries through trade pressure from the US, Europe and other wealthy states.
>
>
>
>Please consider signing on to the below (draft) 
><http://wcl.american.edu/pijip/go/acta-communique>International 
>Civil Society Declaration, which was the result of a 
><http://www.wcl.american.edu/pijip/go/blog-post/meeting-to-bring-together-academics-and-advocates-to-discuss-public-interest-impacts-of-controversial-intellectual-property-treaty>meeting 
>in Washington, DC this week of over 90 academics from 5 continents, 
>public interest organizations and other legal experts concerned with 
>the public interest aspects of ACTA.  The meeting of international 
>experts was hosted by American University Washington College of Law 
>Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property 
>(<http://www.wcl.american.edu/pijip/>PIJIP).
>
>
>
>Both organizations and individuals are welcome to sign-on to the 
>statement until 23 June 9am (US East Coast time) by email to < 
>acta.declaration at gmail.com >.
>
>
>
>Further details for sign-on and proposing edits to the draft 
>declaration are below.  Please take a moment and read the 
>declaration and consider signing-on and adding your support to raise 
>awareness on ACTA.  And also please help to spread the word and 
>gather additional civil society support from your own networks and 
>contacts by forwarding this email on to others or reference to the 
>website: 
><http://www.wcl.american.edu/pijip/go/blog-post/urgent-acta-communique>http://www.wcl.american.edu/pijip/go/blog-post/urgent-acta-communique 
>for details.
>
>
>
>The next closed-door ACTA negotiations are scheduled for 28 June - 2 
>July 2010 in Lucerne, Switzerland, and the US promises a final 
>agreement will be concluded shortly thereafter.  Time is of the 
>essence to act on ACTA.
>
>
>
>Thank you for any support and assistance you can provide to raise 
>awareness on the public interest concerns with ACTA.  It is only 
>through global grass-roots efforts and small individual actions made 
>by many people that we can fight to overcome this flawed treaty.
>
>
>
>All best,
>
>Robin Gross
>
>
>
>Begin forwarded message:
>
>
>
>From: "Sean Flynn" <sflynn at wcl.american.edu>
>
>Date: June 19, 2010 10:30:38 AM PDT
>
>To: "Robin Gross" <robin at ipjustice.org>
>
>Subject: acta communique
>
>The DRAFT statement below reflects the conclusions reached at a 
>meeting of over 90 academics, practitioners and public interest 
>organizations from five continents gathered at American University 
>Washington College of Law, June 16-18, 2010. The statement is now 
>open to endorsements.
>
>
>The latest version of the draft communiqué is now posted to a 
>public blog post at:
>
>
>
><http://wcl.american.edu/pijip/go/acta-communique>http://wcl.american.edu/pijip/go/acta-communique
>
>
>
>Please share the draft with others, circulate on your blogs, etc.
>
>
>
>THIS DRAFT STATEMENT IS NOW OPEN FOR INDIVIDUAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL 
>ENDORSEMENTS AS WELL AS EDITING COMMENTS.
>
>•             Please send signatures to: acta.declaration at gmail.com
>
>•             Please send edits to: pijip at wcl.american.edu
>
>
>
>EDITING SUGGESTIONS
>
>WILL BE ACCEPTED UNTIL NOON MONDAY JUNE 21. THE FINAL TEXT WITH 
>EDITS INCLUDED WILL BE RELEASED BY 5PM MONDAY JUNE 21.
>
>
>
>THE FINAL STATEMENT WILL BE RELEASED TO THE PUBLIC WITH ENDORSEMENTS 
>ON WEDNESDAY JUNE 23 AT 10AM. ENDORSEMENTS WILL BE ACCEPTED UNTIL 
>JUNE 23 AT 9AM.
>
>
>
>ENDORSEMENTS:
>
>WE WILL ACCEPT PROVISIONAL ENDORSEMENTS NOW. ENDORSERS WILL BE GIVEN 
>THE OPTION TO OPT-OUT WHEN THE FINAL TEXT IS CIRCULATED BY 5PM MONDAY JUNE 21.
>
>
>
>FOR INDIVIDUAL ENDORSEMENTS, SEND YOUR NAME, TITLE AND ORGANIZATION 
>AND PLACE (CITY, COUNTRY) OF OCCUPATION to acta.declaration at gmail.com
>
>
>
>FOR ORGANIZATIONAL ENDORSEMENTS, ENTER THE NAME OF THE ORGANIZATION 
>AND PLACE(S) (CITY(IES), COUNTRY(IES))  IN WHICH THE ORGANIZATION 
>HAS OFFICES to acta.declaration at gmail.com.
>
>
>
>INDIVIDUALS WITHIN SIGNATORY ORGANIZATIONS MAY ENDORSE AS 
>INDIVIDUALS AS WELL AS BEING PART OF THE ORGANIZATIONAL ENDORSEMENT.
>
>
>
>PLEASE CIRCULATE WIDELY.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>DRAFT Urgent Communique: Consultation of International Experts on 
>ACTA and the Public Interest
>
>
>
>Release Date: June 23, 2010
>
>American University Washington College of Law
>
>Washington, D.C.
>
><http://wcl.american.edu/pijip/go/acta-communique>http://wcl.american.edu/pijip/go/acta-communique
>
>
>International Experts Find that Pending Anti-Counterfeiting Trade 
>Agreement Threatens Public Interests
>
>
>
>We find that the terms of the agreement threaten numerous public 
>interests, including nearly every concern specifically disclaimed by 
>the negotiators in their announcement.
>
>The proposed agreement is a deeply flawed product of a deeply flawed process.
>
>What started as a proposal to coordinate customs enforcement offices 
>has morphed into a massive new international intellectual property 
>(IP) and internet regulation with grave consequences for the global 
>economy and governments' ability to promote and protect public interests.
>
>Any agreement of this scope and consequence must be based on a broad 
>and consultative process and reflect a full range of public interest 
>concerns. As detailed below, this text fails to meet these standards.
>
>Recognizing that the terms of the agreement are under negotiation, a 
>fair reading of the proposed text as a whole leads to our 
>conclusions that ACTA:
>
>THE INTERNET
>-Encourages internet service providers to police users of the 
>internet without adequate court oversight or due process;
>
>-Globalizes 'anti-circumvention' provisions which threaten 
>innovation, competition, open source business models, 
>interoperability, copyright exceptions, and user choice;
>
>FREE TRADE AND ACCESS TO MEDICINES
>-Disrupts the free trade in legitimate generic medicines and other 
>goods, and sacrifices the foundational principle that IP rights are 
>territorial, by requiring customs authorities to seize goods in 
>transit countries even when they do not violate any law of the 
>producing and importing countries;
>
>-Does little or nothing to address the problem of medicines with 
>insufficient or wrong ingredients as the majority of these are not 
>IP but regulatory system problems.
>
>-Extends the powers of custom officials to search and seize a wide 
>range of goods, including computers and other electronic devices, 
>without adequate safeguards against unwarranted confiscations and 
>privacy invasions;
>
>-Extends 'ex officio' border search and seizures from willful, 
>commercial scale trademark counterfeiting to a broad range of 
>intellectual property infringements, including “confusingly 
>similar” trademark violations, copyright infringement standards 
>that require interpretation of "fair use" or similar user rights, 
>and even to patent cases which frequently involve complex questions 
>of law and fact that are difficult to adjudicate even by specialist 
>courts after full adjudicative processes;
>
>FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS
>-Will curtail full enjoyment of fundamental rights and liberties, 
>including rights to privacy and the protection of personal data, 
>health, access to information, free expression, due process and 
>presumptions of innocence, cultural participation, and other 
>internationally protected human rights;
>
>SCOPE AND NATURE OF IP LAW
>Distorts the balance fundamental to IP law between the rights and 
>interests of proprietors and users, including by
>introducing very specific rights and remedies for rights holders 
>without correlative requirements to provide exceptions, limitations, 
>and due process safeguards for users;
>shifting enforcement from private civil mechanisms to public 
>authorities and third parties, including to customs officials, 
>criminal prosecutors and internet service providers -- in ways that 
>are likely to be more sensitive to proprietary concerns and less 
>sensitive to user concerns;
>omitting liability and disincentives for abuses of enforcement 
>processes by right holders; and
>requiring the adoption of automatic damages assessments unrelated to 
>any proven harm;
>-Alters the traditional and constitutionally mandated law making 
>processes for IP by:
>locking in and exporting controversial aspects of US and EU 
>enforcement practices whcih have already proven problematic, 
>foreclosing future legislative improvements in response to changes 
>in technology or policy;
>requiring substantive changes to intellectual property laws of a 
>large number of negotiating countries.
>INTERNATIONAL TRADE AND DEVELOPMENT
>-Will disproportionately harm development and social welfare of the 
>poor, particularly in developing countries, including through 
>raising unjustifiable trade barriers to imports and exports of 
>needed medicines and other knowledge embedded goods;
>
>-Contains provisions inconsistent with the WTO Agreement on Trade 
>Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement);
>
>-Conflicts with the World Trade Organization Doha Declaration on 
>TRIPS and Public Health and World Health Assembly Resolution 61.21 
>by limiting the ability of countries to exercise to the full 
>flexibilities in the TRIPS agreement that can promote access to 
>needed medicines;
>
>-Circumvents and undermines the commitments agreed to under the 
>World Intellectual Property Organization development agenda, 
>particularly recommendation 45 committing to “approach 
>intellectual property enforcement in the context of broader societal 
>interests and especially development-oriented concerns," and "in 
>accordance with Article 7 of the TRIPS Agreement";
>
>INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES
>-Creates a new and redundant international administration for IP 
>issues outside of WIPO or the WTO with broad powers but limited 
>transparency, threatening multilateralism in international IP norm setting;
>
>-Encourages technical assistance, public awareness campaigns, and 
>partnerships with the private sector that appear designed to promote 
>only the interests of IP owners;
>
>CONCLUSIONS ABOUT THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS
>
>The current process for considering public input into ACTA is 
>fundamentally flawed in numerous respects. In many countries, the 
>only consultations taking place are with select members of the 
>public, off-the-record and without benefit of sharing the latest 
>version of the rapidly changing text. There is little possibility 
>that a fair and balanced agreement that protects and promotes public 
>interests can evolve from such a distorted policy making process.
>
>Governments, right holders and civil society should have an open and 
>evidence-based discussion on the right strategy to confront willful 
>commercial scale trademark counterfeiting and commercial scale 
>copyright piracy. This discussion should take place in multilateral 
>and national open and on-the-record forums with access to current 
>negotiating text so that all interested stakeholders can participate.
>
>ENDORSEMENTS
>Please send signatures (individual or Organization, City, Country) 
>to: acta.declaration at gmail.com
>Please send edits to: pijip at wcl.american.edu
>
>
>
>
>Sean Flynn
>
>Associate Director
>
>Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property
>
>American University Washington College of Law
>
>202 274 4157
>
>www.pijip.org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>IP JUSTICE
>
>Robin Gross, Executive Director
>
>1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
>
>p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
>
>w: <http://www.ipjustice.org>http://www.ipjustice.org     e: 
>robin at ipjustice.org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>-----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>http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>Translate this email: 
><http://translate.google.com/translate_t>http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
>For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100623/dad22d8d/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net  Wed Jun 23 15:00:22 2010
From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker)
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 12:00:22 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] Re: [bwg+] An important discussion o free
 expression at the ICANN meeting
In-Reply-To: <4C2240A3.8090402@cavebear.com>
Message-ID: <271769.43566.qm@web83905.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>

We are not to take this mixing of different systems into one mold lightly.  Within the differences and distinctions lies critical understanding and perhaps subterfuge.  If the legal beagles can convince the politicos and policy makers and legislatures they are the same then much can be taken without rational relation to the interests of State.  It is said "He who defines the issue wins"*
 
World Wide Web and Internet Infrastructure must be treated with reasonable respect as having their own qualities. We see this same creepy crawly definitional overbroad application nowadays with Patent and Copyright and Trademark being applied to all categories rather than the specific for which application and permission and "rights" were granted. (I think I saw a Burger King objection to King of Torts - as Torts can be confused with Tortas, tortelleni and tarts -- clearly confusing ??? yikes)
 
I concur that the writing of the referenced article made me stop and think -- And that is the highest compliment a lowly man of my means can give to art and Intellectual property.
 
I cc Karl and Jefsey in redundancy and ask if they could lay person give us some insights on critical differences in the referenced complex systems.  This so I may pass it along with some credibility and understanding to my politicians, or what have I.

 
* Haddaway gets some credit for this term in the conceptual analysis of love.
--- On Wed, 6/23/10, Karl Auerbach <karl at cavebear.com> wrote:


From: Karl Auerbach <karl at cavebear.com>
Subject: [governance] Re: [bwg+] An important discussion o free expression at the ICANN meeting
To: bwg-n-friends at jetty.net
Cc: "Milton L Mueller" <mueller at syr.edu>, "NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU" <NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>, "governance at lists.cpsr.org" <governance at lists.cpsr.org>
Date: Wednesday, June 23, 2010, 5:13 PM


On 06/23/2010 03:14 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2010/6/23/4560694.html

Good writeup.

I see that the notion that the internet and the world wide web are the same thing is creeping back into the discussions.  That false belief tends to make people forget that the internet is a foundation for much more than websites.

By-the-way, since we are talking about public morality, should not ICANN rename its "intellectual property" nodules so that their names more properly reflect that they are composed of the "intellectual property protection industry" rather than people from the realm of "intellectual property creation"?

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

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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100623/98c30336/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From gpaque at gmail.com  Wed Jun 23 16:53:35 2010
From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque)
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 16:23:35 -0430
Subject: [governance] Upcoming planning meeting in Geneva and other IGC
 business
Message-ID: <4C22744F.5060209@gmail.com>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100623/d5fe7805/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From lists at privaterra.info  Wed Jun 23 17:30:41 2010
From: lists at privaterra.info (Robert Guerra)
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 17:30:41 -0400
Subject: [governance] 2010 Asia Declaration on Internet Governance
Message-ID: <AANLkTiltzBqQoJpt3WBiTFJaCStq953S5q4LzgVTEnHW@mail.gmail.com>

 I just came across the following that thought could be of interest to those
on the mailing list. Apologies for cross-posting.
Regards

Robert
--
http://bit.ly/aQaaAm


2010 Asia Declaration on Internet Governance <http://bit.ly/aQaaAm>

*"[The IGF is] multilateral, multi-stakeholder, democratic, and
transparent." *

- 2005 Tunis Agenda

*"[We call for] a **people-centered, inclusive and development-oriented
Information Society...**full respect and upholding of universal human rights
including freedom of opinion and expression; and "The universality,
indivisibility, interdependence and interrelation of all human rights and
fundamental freedoms" *

- 2003 Declaration of Principles of World Summit on Information Society.

On the occasion of the first *Asia-Pacific Regional Internet Governance
Forum (APrIGF) Roundtable* in Hong Kong on June 15-16, 2010, we, civil
society representatives from eight Southeast Asian countries, call on *the
Internet Governance Forum (IGF)* and its Multi-Stakeholder Advisory Group
(MAG) to fully uphold these aforementioned commitments and principles, as
mandated by the United Nations Secretary-General.

We applaud the work of the first APrIGF towards building multi-stakeholder
discussion on internet governance. In this vein of inclusive dialogue, we
offer the following perspectives and recommendations to the MAG meeting in
Geneva at the Palais des Nations on June 28-29, as well as for the fifth
annual IGF meeting in Vilnius, Lithuania on September 14-17, 2010.
*Key Observations of the APrIGF *

In response to the first Asia-Pacific Regional Internet Governance
Forum<http://rigf.asia>(APrIGF) Roundtable in Hong Kong on June 15-16,
2010, we, netizens,
journalists, bloggers, IT practitioners and nongovernmental representatives
from across Southeast Asia, offer the following observations from the
Roundtable:
*1. Critical issues of internet governance in Asia should guide future
discussions on internet governance policy: *

*Openness
*

Open access to information is the right of every individual, a right that
servers as a fundamental venue for one's knowledge- and capacity-building.
Access to information ultimately helps foster creativity and innovation,
thus promoting sustainable human and economic development. Openness is key
to a democratic and open society. Restrictions on freedom of opinion and
expression online, such as state censorship which blocks Internet
intermediaries, is one of the threats to open societies. Intimidation and
state censorship facilitate self-censorship, a hazardous social phenomenon
that further undermines democracy and openness.

*Access *

The internet is for everyone; it is a public good. Yet a Digital Divide
between those countries and communities with internet access and those
without persists, and has not been sufficiently addressed in discussions on
internet governance. Proceedings at the APrIGF indicated a higher priority
must be placed on addressing not only the global digital divide, but also
regional and national ones. While Singapore enjoys high Internet access
rates (70% penetration), countries like Burma and Cambodia are at the other
end of the spectrum (0.22% and 0.51% penetration, respectively), ranked the
lowest of 200 countries studied in *the World Bank*.

Internet access is fundamental for progress. Various factors, such as
political, economic and social development, poverty levels, and
technological infrastructure affect whether and how often people can access
the internet. Internationally coordinated efforts must be made to address
domestic policies that contribute to the digital divide in Southeast Asia
and find solutions to bridge the gap.

*Cyber Security *

Definition of cyber security must include elements that address right to
privacy and civil and political freedom.

An individual’s right over his/her own privacy, including personal data and
information, must not be sacrificed. Information technology, such as IPv6,
ZigBee, RFID, when used without transparent and accountable oversight, could
pose threats to individual rights.

Today's information society connects personal IT devices directly to the
outside world, no longer storing personal data on a single server. Given the
involvement of the government and businesses (especially state-owned
enterprises) in running such technologies, surveillance and identity theft
remain a constant threat against Internet users.

In this regard, any national security policy must not deviate from the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights and all international human rights
covenants to which states are parties.
*2. Opportunities exist to continue to improve the IGF Process: *

Awareness of the IGF in Southeast Asia and at the ASEAN level is presently
lacking. Furthermore, Asia-Pacific-wide representation of civil society at
the APrIGF Roundtable was incomplete. There exists a need not only to
develop awareness about the IGF, but also to provide learning materials to
make the IGF accessible to all. Greater access to the IGF would help make it
more inclusive with various stakeholders, including those from the least
developed nations and marginalized and vulnerable groups in Asia-Pacific.

During the APrIGF Roundtable, an open dialogue and two-way exchange of
information and ideas was not fully facilitated. Open space to discuss and
articulate criticism and suggest solutions must be guaranteed in all IGF
events. Such an effort provides practical benefit to Internet users, both
present and future, when the outcome of the APrIGF Roundtable is developed
into a roadmap. Clarifying and planning the roles of local, national,
regional and international multi-stakeholders, will help promote and protect
transparent and democratic Internet governance and hence information society
in the region.
*Requests to the IGF *

The first APrIGF presented a valuable opportunity to analyze both the issues
upon which the IGF focuses and the process by which it is governed. With
respect to these priority issues and opportunities for improved processes,
we therefore recommend the following:

   1. Immediately address as an urgent global internet governance issue the
   increasing implementation of law that suppress and restrict freedom of
   expression and access to information, especially within developing
   countries;
   2. Fully integrate the universal human rights agenda into IGF program and
   engage systematically and regularly with the UN Office of High Commissioner
   for Human Rights, in particular the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of
   Opinion and Expression and the UN Human Rights Council;
   3. Ensure that the IGF policy proposals and recommendations are in line
   with international human rights principles and standards;
   4. Strengthen the IGF's multilateralism and openness in the upcoming
   fifth annual IGF meeting in Vilnius, Lithuania in September and future
   national and sub-regional level IGF meetings in Southeast Asia and
   Asia-Pacific;
   5. Extend the mandate of IGF for another five years;
   6. Conduct wider outreach to civil society actors in Southeast Asia and
   Asia-Pacific and allocate financial resources to encourage and support their
   participation in the fifth annual meeting and subsequent global IGFs, and
   organize national and sub-regional level IGFs;
   7. Ensure active remote participation in the annual meeting and
   subsequent IGFs, utilizing digital technologies such as live-streaming
   webcast, video conference, twitter and other social media tools;
   8. Guarantee that technical discussions during IGFs fully accommodates
   new constituents and stakeholders and incorporate an assessment of policy
   implications on the rights of Internet users and society;
   9. Develop a plan of action in order to facilitate follow-up and
   monitoring of IGF outcomes; and
   10. Conduct an impact study by an independent organization to assess the
   effectiveness of IGF, in accordance with the principles set out in the 2005
   Tunis Agenda and the 2003 Declaration of Principles of the WSIS.

*Hereby signed by: *
*Yap Swee Seng *

Executive Director Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA)


E-mail: *yap at forum-asia.org *Mobile (Bangkok): +66.81.868.9178 Web: *
www.forum-asia.org *

*Chiranuch Premchaiporn *Executive Director Prachatai Online Newspaper

E-mail: *chiranuch at prachatai.com *Mobile (Bangkok): +66.81.6207707 Web: *
www.prachatai.com*; *www.prachatai.org/english *
*Ernesto G. Sonido Jr *

Blogger TechTanod, the Blog and Soul Movement, the Philippine Blog Awards

E-mail: *1fishtank at gmail.com *Phone: +63.917829.8090 Web: *
http://baratillo.net/*; *http://techtanod.com/ *
*Ndaru *

Blogger (Indonesia)

*http://politikana.com/ *
*Ou Virak *

President Cambodian Center for Human Rights (CCHR)

E-mail: *ouvirak at cchrcambodia.org *Mobile (Phnom Penh): +855.12.404.051 Web:
*www.cchrcambodia.org *
*Phoutthasinh Phimmachanh *

Senior Knowledge Management Officer Swiss Association for International
Development (Helvetas-Laos)

Email: phoutthasinh.phimmachanh at helvetas.org Phone (Laos): +856.21.740.253
*Sean Ang *

Executive Director Southeast Asian Center for e-Media (SEACeM)

E-mail: *sean at seacem.com *Mobile (Kuala Lumpur): +60.166.533.533 Web: *
www.seacem.com *
*Chuah Siew Eng *

Publicity Officer Centre for Independent Journalism

Email: *sieweng.cij at gmail.com *Phone (Kuala Lumpur): +60.340.230.772 Web: *
cijmalaysia.org *
*Leang Delux *

Active member Club of Cambodian Journalist

E-mail: *deluxnews at gmail.com *Mobile (Cambodia): +855.15.523.623 Web: *
www.ccj.com.kh *
*Oliver Robillo *

Founder Mindanao Bloggers Community

E-mail: *blogie at dabawenyo.com *Mobile (Davao): +63.918.540.0878 Web: *
www.mindanaobloggers.com *
*Phisit Siprasatthong *

Coordinator Thai Netizen Network

E-mail: *freethainetizen at gmail.com *Phone (Bangkok): +66.2691.0574 Web: *
thainetizen.org *

*Civil Society Representatives from Burma and Vietnam *
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100623/51448277/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 2010-asia-declaration-on-internet-governance.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 96524 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100623/51448277/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From jeremy at ciroap.org  Thu Jun 24 03:37:46 2010
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2010 15:37:46 +0800
Subject: [governance] [5 of 6] How best to link with regional meetings?
Message-ID: <0D496D78-F6C9-499F-B91A-FC8B565FF72E@ciroap.org>

The penultimate question in the MAG's questionnaire that we have been working through is:

How best to link with regional meetings?

Since the first IGF meeting was held in Athens, a similar concept has been taken up at a regional and national level.  There are currently as many as eight of these at a regional level, and fourteen at a national level.  Often, these meetings also use the name "Internet Governance Forum" or "IGF".  However, they have no formal link with the Internet Governance Forum beyond being listed on the IGF's Web site, and sharing a few of the same participants.

The main issue that this question raises, as I see it, is whether there should be a stronger link between the regional meetings and the central one.  If so, we need to consider and provide feedback on questions such as:

What criteria should the regional/national IGFs satisfy in order to qualify for this stronger linkage?  For example, how open and multi-stakeholder must they be, and how transparent and inclusive their organisation?
If there should be a set of criteria that regional/national IGFs must meet, how and by whom should it be developed?
Should it be permitted to have more than one IGF per region or country, or should the global IGF enforce a rule that only one event per region or country can be officially recognised?
Should the programme of the regional/national IGFs be coordinated with that of the global IGF?  If so, how? - perhaps through some sort of global council of IGFs?
Should written reports of regional/national IGFs be distributed to the global IGF?
Should verbal reports from regional/national IGFs be given at a main session at the global IGF?
Should panelists from the other IGFs be given priority in selection for panels at the global IGF?
Should each session organiser at the global IGF be required to give an opportunity for reports relevant to that session from regional/national IGF organisers?

I'm sure you can think of more ideas, so please let's hear them.  A practical example of how one organisation has addressed a similar issue is found in the guidelines that the TED conference sets for its affiliated events: http://www.ted.com/pages/view/id/351.

-- 
Jeremy Malcolm
Project Coordinator
Consumers International
Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East
Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Tel: +60 3 7726 1599

CI is 50
Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010.
Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer rights around the world. 
http://www.consumersinternational.org/50

Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100624/0d7eca48/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From b.schombe at gmail.com  Thu Jun 24 05:28:56 2010
From: b.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin SCHOMBE)
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2010 10:28:56 +0100
Subject: [governance] [5 of 6] How best to link with regional meetings?
In-Reply-To: <0D496D78-F6C9-499F-B91A-FC8B565FF72E@ciroap.org>
References: <0D496D78-F6C9-499F-B91A-FC8B565FF72E@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <AANLkTikAHDToNrJjM2BIBJ5gI6V__4VpO6683WVmq6jF@mail.gmail.com>

My view below

Very good vision, Jeremy. Congrats

Baudouin

>
> *How best to link with regional meetings?*
>
>   Since the first IGF meeting was held in Athens, a similar concept has
> been taken up at a regional and national level.  There are currently as many
> as eight of these at a regional level, and fourteen at a national level.
>  Often, these meetings also use the name "Internet Governance Forum" or
> "IGF".  However, they have no formal link with the Internet Governance Forum
> beyond being listed on the IGF's Web site, and sharing a few of the same
> participants.
>
> The main issue that this question raises, as I see it, is whether there
> should be a stronger link between the regional meetings and the central one.
>  If so, we need to consider and provide feedback on questions such as:
>
>
>    - What criteria should the regional/national IGFs satisfy in order to
>    qualify for this stronger linkage?  For example, how open and
>    multi-stakeholder must they be, and how transparent and inclusive their
>    organisation?
>
> *As primary endpoint, should the organization or institution has been
present and active since the first phase of WSIS up the second.
The secondary criteria that must be taken into account are:
-Implementation of the action plan and the Tunis Agenda at national level:
constraints and challenges
-National ICT strategies
-The structural mechanism put in place for the management of gTLDs and
stakeholders such as the registry, registrars etc ...
-The consumer right ....
These approaches at national and regional level requires a working synergy
between all actors involved and engaged in the ownership and development of
ICT service providers and consumers.
A national report on the development of ICT is an option of capital
importance.*

>
>    - If there should be a set of criteria that regional/national IGFs must
>    meet, how and by whom should it be developed?
>
> *To this question, I am referring to the mechanism of WSIS implementation
Action Lines. Until proven otherwise, agencies of the United Nations system
were each responsible for coordinating the implementation of Geneva Action
Plan. In my humble opinion, it is logical that these agencies play the role
it has assigned.
In collaboration with official institutions, the private sector and civil
society entities involved in the process of building an information society
should work in synergy.*

>
>    - Should it be permitted to have more than one IGF per region or
>    country, or should the global IGF enforce a rule that only one event per
>    region or country can be officially recognised?
>
> *It is really important to have a national IGF by country first and a
regional IGF will resume all national concerns in order to build a regional
position.*

>
>    - Should the programme of the regional/national IGFs be coordinated
>    with that of the global IGF?  If so, how? - perhaps through some sort of
>    global council of IGFs?
>
> *It is a process of extreme importance to the exponential growth of
digital technology. The digital divide is becoming increasingly growing in
some communities. The use of this technology must be well controlled to
secure the most venerable are no longer in that case, women, children,
people of the third age, disability .... But the people, communities that
have no knowledge of the destructive capacity of this technology.
It is desirable to have national IGFs consist of actors involved and
coordinated among relevant institutions and agencies of the UN system to the
realities of each country.
The national coordination will in turn set up a regional coordination with
focus thematics groups split in each country.*

>
>    - Should written reports of regional/national IGFs be distributed to
>    the global IGF?
>
> *I admire the logic of the problem as submitted. Indeed, with such
organizational arrangements as proposed above, it is essential that each
year there is a national report and a regional report.*

>
>    - Should verbal reports from regional/national IGFs be given at a main
>    session at the global IGF?
>
> *This concern follows the foregoing, it is crucial at this stage that each
region has its verbal report that will provide power during the plenary by
the national participants of the IGF.*

>
>    - Should panelists from the other IGFs be given priority in selection
>    for panels at the global IGF?
>
> *Indeed, in my opinion, the panelists IGF world must be identified and
selected among the IGF panelists from regional and national level.*

>
>    - Should each session organiser at the global IGF be required to give
>    an opportunity for reports relevant to that session
>    from regional/national IGF organisers?
>
>  *Such an approach may be considered during the plenary sessions or
concerns raised by participants.*


>  I'm sure you can think of more ideas, so please let's hear them.  A
> practical example of how one organisation has addressed a similar issue is
> found in the guidelines that the TED conference sets for its affiliated
> events: http://www.ted.com/pages/view/id/351.
>
> --
>
> *Jeremy Malcolm
> Project Coordinator*
> Consumers International
> Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East
> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur,
> Malaysia
> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
> *CI is 50*
> Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in
> 2010.
> Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer
> rights around the world.
> *http://www.consumersinternational.org/50*
>
> Read our email confidentiality notice<http://www.consumersinternational.org/Templates/Internal.asp?NodeID=100521&int1stParentNodeID=89765>.
> Don't print this email unless necessary.
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100624/3d6355d6/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm  Thu Jun 24 06:25:25 2010
From: carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm (SAMUELS,Carlton A)
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2010 05:25:25 -0500
Subject: [governance] 2010 Asia Declaration on Internet Governance
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTiltzBqQoJpt3WBiTFJaCStq953S5q4LzgVTEnHW@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTiltzBqQoJpt3WBiTFJaCStq953S5q4LzgVTEnHW@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F87136B1CA266@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm>

Thanks for this, Robert.  Latin America/Caribbean will have a regional  IGF plenary soon and I know much if not all of the agenda identified in Asia is shared.   It would be good if we could organize to have a congruent declaration from LAC to the same channel.

Carlton Samuels

From: Robert Guerra [mailto:lists at privaterra.info]
Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2010 4:31 PM
To: bill-of-rights at ipjustice.org
Cc: coalition at mailman.thepublicvoice.org; governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: [governance] 2010 Asia Declaration on Internet Governance

I just came across the following that thought could be of interest to those on the mailing list. Apologies for cross-posting.

Regards

Robert
--
http://bit.ly/aQaaAm

2010 Asia Declaration on Internet Governance <http://bit.ly/aQaaAm>

"[The IGF is] multilateral, multi-stakeholder, democratic, and transparent."

- 2005 Tunis Agenda

"[We call for] a people-centered, inclusive and development-oriented Information Society...full respect and upholding of universal human rights including freedom of opinion and expression; and "The universality, indivisibility, interdependence and interrelation of all human rights and fundamental freedoms"

- 2003 Declaration of Principles of World Summit on Information Society.

On the occasion of the first Asia-Pacific Regional Internet Governance Forum (APrIGF) Roundtable in Hong Kong on June 15-16, 2010, we, civil society representatives from eight Southeast Asian countries, call on the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and its Multi-Stakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) to fully uphold these aforementioned commitments and principles, as mandated by the United Nations Secretary-General.

We applaud the work of the first APrIGF towards building multi-stakeholder discussion on internet governance. In this vein of inclusive dialogue, we offer the following perspectives and recommendations to the MAG meeting in Geneva at the Palais des Nations on June 28-29, as well as for the fifth annual IGF meeting in Vilnius, Lithuania on September 14-17, 2010.

Key Observations of the APrIGF

In response to the first Asia-Pacific Regional Internet Governance Forum<http://rigf.asia> (APrIGF) Roundtable in Hong Kong on June 15-16, 2010, we, netizens, journalists, bloggers, IT practitioners and nongovernmental representatives from across Southeast Asia, offer the following observations from the Roundtable:

1. Critical issues of internet governance in Asia should guide future discussions on internet governance policy:

Openness

Open access to information is the right of every individual, a right that servers as a fundamental venue for one's knowledge- and capacity-building. Access to information ultimately helps foster creativity and innovation, thus promoting sustainable human and economic development. Openness is key to a democratic and open society. Restrictions on freedom of opinion and expression online, such as state censorship which blocks Internet intermediaries, is one of the threats to open societies. Intimidation and state censorship facilitate self-censorship, a hazardous social phenomenon that further undermines democracy and openness.

Access

The internet is for everyone; it is a public good. Yet a Digital Divide between those countries and communities with internet access and those without persists, and has not been sufficiently addressed in discussions on internet governance. Proceedings at the APrIGF indicated a higher priority must be placed on addressing not only the global digital divide, but also regional and national ones. While Singapore enjoys high Internet access rates (70% penetration), countries like Burma and Cambodia are at the other end of the spectrum (0.22% and 0.51% penetration, respectively), ranked the lowest of 200 countries studied in the World Bank.

Internet access is fundamental for progress. Various factors, such as political, economic and social development, poverty levels, and technological infrastructure affect whether and how often people can access the internet. Internationally coordinated efforts must be made to address domestic policies that contribute to the digital divide in Southeast Asia and find solutions to bridge the gap.

Cyber Security

Definition of cyber security must include elements that address right to privacy and civil and political freedom.

An individual’s right over his/her own privacy, including personal data and information, must not be sacrificed. Information technology, such as IPv6, ZigBee, RFID, when used without transparent and accountable oversight, could pose threats to individual rights.

Today's information society connects personal IT devices directly to the outside world, no longer storing personal data on a single server. Given the involvement of the government and businesses (especially state-owned enterprises) in running such technologies, surveillance and identity theft remain a constant threat against Internet users.

In this regard, any national security policy must not deviate from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and all international human rights covenants to which states are parties.

2. Opportunities exist to continue to improve the IGF Process:

Awareness of the IGF in Southeast Asia and at the ASEAN level is presently lacking. Furthermore, Asia-Pacific-wide representation of civil society at the APrIGF Roundtable was incomplete. There exists a need not only to develop awareness about the IGF, but also to provide learning materials to make the IGF accessible to all. Greater access to the IGF would help make it more inclusive with various stakeholders, including those from the least developed nations and marginalized and vulnerable groups in Asia-Pacific.

During the APrIGF Roundtable, an open dialogue and two-way exchange of information and ideas was not fully facilitated. Open space to discuss and articulate criticism and suggest solutions must be guaranteed in all IGF events. Such an effort provides practical benefit to Internet users, both present and future, when the outcome of the APrIGF Roundtable is developed into a roadmap. Clarifying and planning the roles of local, national, regional and international multi-stakeholders, will help promote and protect transparent and democratic Internet governance and hence information society in the region.

Requests to the IGF

The first APrIGF presented a valuable opportunity to analyze both the issues upon which the IGF focuses and the process by which it is governed. With respect to these priority issues and opportunities for improved processes, we therefore recommend the following:
1.     Immediately address as an urgent global internet governance issue the increasing implementation of law that suppress and restrict freedom of expression and access to information, especially within developing countries;
2.     Fully integrate the universal human rights agenda into IGF program and engage systematically and regularly with the UN Office of High Commissioner for Human Rights, in particular the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression and the UN Human Rights Council;
3.     Ensure that the IGF policy proposals and recommendations are in line with international human rights principles and standards;
4.     Strengthen the IGF's multilateralism and openness in the upcoming fifth annual IGF meeting in Vilnius, Lithuania in September and future national and sub-regional level IGF meetings in Southeast Asia and Asia-Pacific;
5.     Extend the mandate of IGF for another five years;
6.     Conduct wider outreach to civil society actors in Southeast Asia and Asia-Pacific and allocate financial resources to encourage and support their participation in the fifth annual meeting and subsequent global IGFs, and organize national and sub-regional level IGFs;
7.     Ensure active remote participation in the annual meeting and subsequent IGFs, utilizing digital technologies such as live-streaming webcast, video conference, twitter and other social media tools;
8.     Guarantee that technical discussions during IGFs fully accommodates new constituents and stakeholders and incorporate an assessment of policy implications on the rights of Internet users and society;
9.     Develop a plan of action in order to facilitate follow-up and monitoring of IGF outcomes; and
10. Conduct an impact study by an independent organization to assess the effectiveness of IGF, in accordance with the principles set out in the 2005 Tunis Agenda and the 2003 Declaration of Principles of the WSIS.
Hereby signed by:
Yap Swee Seng

Executive Director Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA)

E-mail: yap at forum-asia.org Mobile (Bangkok): +66.81.868.9178 Web: www.forum-asia.org

Chiranuch Premchaiporn Executive Director Prachatai Online Newspaper

E-mail: chiranuch at prachatai.co<mailto:chiranuch at prachatai.co>m Mobile (Bangkok): +66.81.6207707 Web: www.prachatai.com<http://www.prachatai.com>; www.prachatai.org/englis<http://www.prachatai.org/englis>h

Ernesto G. Sonido Jr

Blogger TechTanod, the Blog and Soul Movement, the Philippine Blog Awards

E-mail: 1fishtank at gmail.co<mailto:1fishtank at gmail.co>m Phone: +63.917829.8090 Web: http://baratillo.net/; http://techtanod.com/

Ndaru

Blogger (Indonesia)

http://politikana.com/

Ou Virak

President Cambodian Center for Human Rights (CCHR)

E-mail: ouvirak at cchrcambodia.org Mobile (Phnom Penh): +855.12.404.051 Web: www.cchrcambodia.org

Phoutthasinh Phimmachanh

Senior Knowledge Management Officer Swiss Association for International Development (Helvetas-Laos)

Email: phoutthasinh.phimmachanh at helvetas.org<mailto:phoutthasinh.phimmachanh at helvetas.org> Phone (Laos): +856.21.740.253

Sean Ang

Executive Director Southeast Asian Center for e-Media (SEACeM)

E-mail: sean at seacem.co<mailto:sean at seacem.co>m Mobile (Kuala Lumpur): +60.166.533.533 Web: www.seacem.co<http://www.seacem.co>m

Chuah Siew Eng

Publicity Officer Centre for Independent Journalism

Email: sieweng.cij at gmail.com<mailto:sieweng.cij at gmail.com> Phone (Kuala Lumpur): +60.340.230.772 Web: cijmalaysia.org<http://cijmalaysia.org>

Leang Delux

Active member Club of Cambodian Journalist

E-mail: deluxnews at gmail.com<mailto:deluxnews at gmail.com> Mobile (Cambodia): +855.15.523.623 Web: www.ccj.com.kh<http://www.ccj.com.kh>

Oliver Robillo

Founder Mindanao Bloggers Community

E-mail: blogie at dabawenyo.com<mailto:blogie at dabawenyo.com> Mobile (Davao): +63.918.540.0878 Web: www.mindanaobloggers.com<http://www.mindanaobloggers.com>

Phisit Siprasatthong

Coordinator Thai Netizen Network

E-mail: freethainetizen at gmail.com<mailto:thainetizen at gmail.com> Phone (Bangkok): +66.2691.0574 Web: thainetizen.org<http://thainetizen.org>

Civil Society Representatives from Burma and Vietnam
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100624/87abd99a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net  Thu Jun 24 07:56:55 2010
From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker)
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2010 04:56:55 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] 2010 Asia Declaration on Internet Governance (5
 of 6) Linking
In-Reply-To: <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F87136B1CA266@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm>
Message-ID: <756923.54864.qm@web83906.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>

Does anyone have some insight as to the level of Country Government support this grouping and or Declaration have/has in general or specific.
This Dovetails interestingly with Jeremy's last installment on the Linking and inclusion of Globally diverse groups.
I am of the mind to engage in the determination of criteria used in 'linking'.  However I am more of the mind to work with groups such as this one to make sure they nominally meet that criteria. The netizens reported are brave and good folk. They are not waiting for appointment or permission or recognition.  They seem to demand nothing for themselves and everything for our brethren. They are personally and collectively standing up for universal principals that are not necessarily in vogue with the regimes where they reside.I am proud to see Laos represented - in their new - Take back .LA - it stands for Laos not LA. And I am saddened to see a lack of Vietnamese presence, whos' Declaration of Independence is akin to the US of A and the US of Mex. and needs to be invoked on both the Web and the Nets.

--- On Thu, 6/24/10, SAMUELS,Carlton A <carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm> wrote:

From: SAMUELS,Carlton A <carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm>
Subject: RE: [governance] 2010 Asia Declaration on Internet Governance
To: "governance at lists.cpsr.org" <governance at lists.cpsr.org>, "Robert Guerra" <lists at privaterra.info>, "bill-of-rights at ipjustice.org" <bill-of-rights at ipjustice.org>
Cc: "coalition at mailman.thepublicvoice.org" <coalition at mailman.thepublicvoice.org>
Date: Thursday, June 24, 2010, 10:25 AM




 
 






 



Thanks for this, Robert.  Latin America/Caribbean will have a
regional  IGF plenary soon and I know much if not all of the agenda identified
in Asia is shared.   It would be good if we could organize to have a congruent
declaration from LAC to the same channel. 

   

Carlton Samuels  

   



From: Robert Guerra
[mailto:lists at privaterra.info] 

Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2010 4:31 PM

To: bill-of-rights at ipjustice.org

Cc: coalition at mailman.thepublicvoice.org; governance at lists.cpsr.org

Subject: [governance] 2010 Asia Declaration on Internet Governance 



   



I just came across the
following that thought could be of interest to those on the mailing list.
Apologies for cross-posting. 



Regards



Robert

--

http://bit.ly/aQaaAm



 

2010
Asia Declaration on Internet Governance  

"[The IGF is]
multilateral, multi-stakeholder, democratic, and transparent."  



- 2005 Tunis Agenda  



"[We call for] a people-centered, inclusive and development-oriented
Information Society...full
respect and upholding of universal human rights including freedom of opinion
and expression; and "The universality, indivisibility, interdependence and
interrelation of all human rights and fundamental freedoms"  

- 2003 Declaration of Principles
of World Summit on Information Society.  

On the occasion of the first Asia-Pacific Regional Internet Governance
Forum (APrIGF) Roundtable
in Hong Kong on June 15-16, 2010, we, civil society representatives from eight
Southeast Asian countries, call on the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and its Multi-Stakeholder Advisory Group
(MAG) to fully uphold these aforementioned commitments and principles, as
mandated by the United Nations Secretary-General.  

We applaud the work of the
first APrIGF towards building multi-stakeholder discussion on internet
governance. In this vein of inclusive dialogue, we offer the following
perspectives and recommendations to the MAG meeting in Geneva at the Palais des Nations on June 28-29, as well as for the fifth annual IGF meeting in Vilnius,
Lithuania on September 14-17, 2010.  



Key Observations of the APrIGF  

In response to the first Asia-Pacific Regional Internet Governance Forum
(APrIGF) Roundtable in Hong Kong on June 15-16, 2010, we, netizens,
journalists, bloggers, IT practitioners and nongovernmental representatives
from across Southeast Asia, offer the following observations from the
Roundtable:  



1. Critical issues of internet
governance in Asia should guide future discussions on internet governance
policy:  

Openness 

Open access to information is the
right of every individual, a right that servers as a fundamental venue
for one's knowledge- and capacity-building. Access to information ultimately
helps foster creativity and innovation, thus promoting sustainable human and
economic development. Openness is key to a democratic and open society.
Restrictions on freedom of opinion and expression online, such as state
censorship which blocks Internet intermediaries, is one of the threats to open
societies. Intimidation and state censorship facilitate self-censorship, a
hazardous social phenomenon that further undermines democracy and openness.  

Access  

The internet is for everyone; it
is a public good. Yet a Digital Divide between those countries and communities
with internet access and those without persists, and has not been sufficiently
addressed in discussions on internet governance. Proceedings at the APrIGF
indicated a higher priority must be placed on addressing not only the global
digital divide, but also regional and national ones. While Singapore enjoys
high Internet access rates (70% penetration), countries like Burma and Cambodia
are at the other end of the spectrum (0.22% and 0.51% penetration,
respectively), ranked the lowest of 200 countries studied in the World Bank.  

Internet access is fundamental
for progress. Various factors, such as political, economic and social
development, poverty levels, and technological infrastructure affect whether
and how often people can access the internet. Internationally coordinated
efforts must be made to address domestic policies that contribute to the
digital divide in Southeast Asia and find solutions to bridge the gap.  

Cyber Security  

Definition of cyber security must
include elements that address right to privacy and civil and political freedom.
 

An individual’s right over
his/her own privacy, including personal data and information, must not be
sacrificed. Information technology, such as IPv6, ZigBee, RFID, when used
without transparent and accountable oversight, could pose threats to individual
rights.  

Today's information society
connects personal IT devices directly to the outside world, no longer storing
personal data on a single server. Given the involvement of the government and
businesses (especially state-owned enterprises) in running such technologies,
surveillance and identity theft remain a constant threat against Internet
users.  

In this regard, any national
security policy must not deviate from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
and all international human rights covenants to which states are parties.  





2. Opportunities exist to
continue to improve the IGF Process:  

Awareness of the IGF in Southeast
Asia and at the ASEAN level is presently lacking. Furthermore,
Asia-Pacific-wide representation of civil society at the APrIGF Roundtable was
incomplete. There exists a need not only to develop awareness about the IGF,
but also to provide learning materials to make the IGF accessible to all.
Greater access to the IGF would help make it more inclusive with various
stakeholders, including those from the least developed nations and marginalized
and vulnerable groups in Asia-Pacific.  

During the APrIGF Roundtable, an
open dialogue and two-way exchange of information and ideas was not fully
facilitated. Open space to discuss and articulate criticism and suggest
solutions must be guaranteed in all IGF events. Such an effort provides
practical benefit to Internet users, both present and future, when the outcome
of the APrIGF Roundtable is developed into a roadmap. Clarifying and planning
the roles of local, national, regional and international multi-stakeholders,
will help promote and protect transparent and democratic Internet governance
and hence information society in the region.  







Requests to the IGF  

The first APrIGF presented a
valuable opportunity to analyze both the issues upon which the IGF focuses and
the process by which it is governed. With respect to these priority issues and
opportunities for improved processes, we therefore recommend the following:  

1.     Immediately address as an urgent global
internet governance issue the increasing implementation of law that suppress
and restrict freedom of expression and access to information, especially within
developing countries;  

2.     Fully integrate the universal human rights
agenda into IGF program and engage systematically and regularly with the UN
Office of High Commissioner for Human Rights, in particular the UN Special
Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression and the UN Human Rights
Council;  

3.     Ensure that the IGF policy proposals and
recommendations are in line with international human rights principles and
standards;  

4.     Strengthen the IGF's multilateralism and
openness in the upcoming fifth annual IGF meeting in Vilnius, Lithuania in
September and future national and sub-regional level IGF meetings in Southeast
Asia and Asia-Pacific;  

5.     Extend the mandate of IGF for another five
years;  

6.     Conduct wider outreach to civil society
actors in Southeast Asia and Asia-Pacific and allocate financial resources to
encourage and support their participation in the fifth annual meeting and
subsequent global IGFs, and organize national and sub-regional level IGFs;  

7.     Ensure active remote participation in the
annual meeting and subsequent IGFs, utilizing digital technologies such as
live-streaming webcast, video conference, twitter and other social media tools;
 

8.     Guarantee that technical discussions
during IGFs fully accommodates new constituents and stakeholders and
incorporate an assessment of policy implications on the rights of Internet
users and society;  

9.     Develop a plan of action in order to
facilitate follow-up and monitoring of IGF outcomes; and  

10. Conduct an impact study by an independent
organization to assess the effectiveness of IGF, in accordance with the
principles set out in the 2005 Tunis Agenda and the 2003 Declaration of
Principles of the WSIS.  





Hereby signed by:  



Yap Swee Seng  

Executive Director Asian Forum
for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA)  

E-mail: yap at forum-asia.org Mobile (Bangkok): +66.81.868.9178 Web: www.forum-asia.org  

Chiranuch Premchaiporn Executive Director Prachatai Online
Newspaper  

E-mail: chiranuch at prachatai.com Mobile (Bangkok): +66.81.6207707 Web: www.prachatai.com; www.prachatai.org/english
 





Ernesto G. Sonido Jr  

Blogger TechTanod, the Blog and
Soul Movement, the Philippine Blog Awards  

E-mail: 1fishtank at gmail.com Phone: +63.917829.8090 Web: http://baratillo.net/; http://techtanod.com/
 





Ndaru  

Blogger (Indonesia)  

http://politikana.com/  





Ou Virak  

President Cambodian Center for
Human Rights (CCHR)  

E-mail: ouvirak at cchrcambodia.org Mobile (Phnom Penh): +855.12.404.051 Web: www.cchrcambodia.org  





Phoutthasinh Phimmachanh  

Senior Knowledge Management
Officer Swiss Association for International Development (Helvetas-Laos)  

Email: phoutthasinh.phimmachanh at helvetas.org
Phone (Laos): +856.21.740.253  







Sean Ang  

Executive Director Southeast
Asian Center for e-Media (SEACeM)  

E-mail: sean at seacem.com Mobile (Kuala Lumpur): +60.166.533.533 Web: www.seacem.com  





Chuah Siew Eng  

Publicity Officer Centre for
Independent Journalism  

Email: sieweng.cij at gmail.com Phone (Kuala Lumpur): +60.340.230.772 Web: cijmalaysia.org  





Leang Delux  

Active member Club of Cambodian
Journalist  

E-mail: deluxnews at gmail.com Mobile (Cambodia): +855.15.523.623 Web: www.ccj.com.kh  





Oliver Robillo  

Founder Mindanao Bloggers
Community  

E-mail: blogie at dabawenyo.com Mobile (Davao): +63.918.540.0878 Web: www.mindanaobloggers.com  





Phisit Siprasatthong  

Coordinator Thai Netizen Network  

E-mail: freethainetizen at gmail.com Phone (Bangkok): +66.2691.0574 Web: thainetizen.org  

Civil Society Representatives
from Burma and Vietnam  











 



-----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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100624/fd86ddd6/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net  Thu Jun 24 08:28:45 2010
From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker)
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2010 05:28:45 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] [5 of 6] How best to link with regional meetings?
In-Reply-To: <0D496D78-F6C9-499F-B91A-FC8B565FF72E@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <903286.99067.qm@web83916.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>

Some comments in italics interwoven:

--- On Thu, 6/24/10, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:

How best to link with regional meetings?



The main issue that this question raises, as I see it, is whether there should be a stronger link between the regional meetings and the central one.  If so, we need to consider and provide feedback on questions such as:
What criteria should the regional/national IGFs satisfy in order to qualify for this stronger linkage?  For example, how open and multi-stakeholder must they be, and how transparent and inclusive their organisation?  For the most part we should require transparency and openness so we may measure the credibility but not as a tool for exclusion.If there should be a set of criteria that regional/national IGFs must meet, how and by whom should it be developed? Open consultations on the most open and active list regarding IG -- HereShould it be permitted to have more than one IGF per region or country, or should the global IGF enforce a rule that only one event per region or country can be officially recognised? No - Res Ipsa LoquitorShould the programme of the regional/national IGFs be coordinated with that of the global IGF?  If so, how? - perhaps through some sort of global council of IGFs? Yes - openly formed and then mandated to set their own
 criteria and standards.Should written reports of regional/national IGFs be distributed to the global IGF? Of course - Why not -- we should be looking for input not claiming the lie of too much.Should verbal reports from regional/national IGFs be given at a main session at the global IGF? Only restriction should be if the impetus is there to try.Should panelists from the other IGFs be given priority in selection for panels at the global IGF? Priority is unnecessary - our field of choices is too narrow as it is.Should each session organiser at the global IGF be required to give an opportunity for reports relevant to that session from regional/national IGF organisers? Mandated opportunity is more efficient than exercising discretion on each. -- My version of a Chair would obviate this need - while Jefsey's would need a strict process.
 http://www.ted.com/pages/view/id/351.
-- Jeremy Malcolm

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100624/ef301b07/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From LisaH at global-partners.co.uk  Fri Jun 25 05:32:35 2010
From: LisaH at global-partners.co.uk (Lisa Horner)
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2010 10:32:35 +0100
Subject: FW: [governance] 2010 Asia Declaration on Internet Governance
Message-ID: <16BC5877C4C91649AF7A89BF3BCA7AB828DEE692FA@SERVER01.globalpartners.local>

From: Lisa Horner
Sent: 25 June 2010 10:27
To:; 'SAMUELS,Carlton A'; Robert Guerra; bill-of-rights at ipjustice.org
Cc: coalition at mailman.thepublicvoice.org
Subject: RE: [governance] 2010 Asia Declaration on Internet Governance

Just to let you know that the IRP dynamic coalition is gathering information on discussions relevant to human rights from all of the regional IGFs with a view to producing a report for Vilnius, comparing perspectives and emphasising the human rights dimensions of internet governance.  If anyone would like to participate or share their perspectives, please do let us know!

All the best,
Lisa

From: SAMUELS,Carlton A [mailto:carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm]
Sent: 24 June 2010 11:25
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Robert Guerra; bill-of-rights at ipjustice.org
Cc: coalition at mailman.thepublicvoice.org
Subject: RE: [governance] 2010 Asia Declaration on Internet Governance

Thanks for this, Robert.  Latin America/Caribbean will have a regional  IGF plenary soon and I know much if not all of the agenda identified in Asia is shared.   It would be good if we could organize to have a congruent declaration from LAC to the same channel.

Carlton Samuels

From: Robert Guerra [mailto:lists at privaterra.info]
Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2010 4:31 PM
To: bill-of-rights at ipjustice.org
Cc: coalition at mailman.thepublicvoice.org; governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: [governance] 2010 Asia Declaration on Internet Governance

I just came across the following that thought could be of interest to those on the mailing list. Apologies for cross-posting.

Regards

Robert
--
http://bit.ly/aQaaAm
2010 Asia Declaration on Internet Governance <http://bit.ly/aQaaAm>

"[The IGF is] multilateral, multi-stakeholder, democratic, and transparent."

- 2005 Tunis Agenda

"[We call for] a people-centered, inclusive and development-oriented Information Society...full respect and upholding of universal human rights including freedom of opinion and expression; and "The universality, indivisibility, interdependence and interrelation of all human rights and fundamental freedoms"

- 2003 Declaration of Principles of World Summit on Information Society.

On the occasion of the first Asia-Pacific Regional Internet Governance Forum (APrIGF) Roundtable in Hong Kong on June 15-16, 2010, we, civil society representatives from eight Southeast Asian countries, call on the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and its Multi-Stakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) to fully uphold these aforementioned commitments and principles, as mandated by the United Nations Secretary-General.

We applaud the work of the first APrIGF towards building multi-stakeholder discussion on internet governance. In this vein of inclusive dialogue, we offer the following perspectives and recommendations to the MAG meeting in Geneva at the Palais des Nations on June 28-29, as well as for the fifth annual IGF meeting in Vilnius, Lithuania on September 14-17, 2010.

Key Observations of the APrIGF

In response to the first Asia-Pacific Regional Internet Governance Forum<http://rigf.asia> (APrIGF) Roundtable in Hong Kong on June 15-16, 2010, we, netizens, journalists, bloggers, IT practitioners and nongovernmental representatives from across Southeast Asia, offer the following observations from the Roundtable:

1. Critical issues of internet governance in Asia should guide future discussions on internet governance policy:

Openness

Open access to information is the right of every individual, a right that servers as a fundamental venue for one's knowledge- and capacity-building. Access to information ultimately helps foster creativity and innovation, thus promoting sustainable human and economic development. Openness is key to a democratic and open society. Restrictions on freedom of opinion and expression online, such as state censorship which blocks Internet intermediaries, is one of the threats to open societies. Intimidation and state censorship facilitate self-censorship, a hazardous social phenomenon that further undermines democracy and openness.

Access

The internet is for everyone; it is a public good. Yet a Digital Divide between those countries and communities with internet access and those without persists, and has not been sufficiently addressed in discussions on internet governance. Proceedings at the APrIGF indicated a higher priority must be placed on addressing not only the global digital divide, but also regional and national ones. While Singapore enjoys high Internet access rates (70% penetration), countries like Burma and Cambodia are at the other end of the spectrum (0.22% and 0.51% penetration, respectively), ranked the lowest of 200 countries studied in the World Bank.

Internet access is fundamental for progress. Various factors, such as political, economic and social development, poverty levels, and technological infrastructure affect whether and how often people can access the internet. Internationally coordinated efforts must be made to address domestic policies that contribute to the digital divide in Southeast Asia and find solutions to bridge the gap.

Cyber Security

Definition of cyber security must include elements that address right to privacy and civil and political freedom.

An individual’s right over his/her own privacy, including personal data and information, must not be sacrificed. Information technology, such as IPv6, ZigBee, RFID, when used without transparent and accountable oversight, could pose threats to individual rights.

Today's information society connects personal IT devices directly to the outside world, no longer storing personal data on a single server. Given the involvement of the government and businesses (especially state-owned enterprises) in running such technologies, surveillance and identity theft remain a constant threat against Internet users.

In this regard, any national security policy must not deviate from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and all international human rights covenants to which states are parties.

2. Opportunities exist to continue to improve the IGF Process:

Awareness of the IGF in Southeast Asia and at the ASEAN level is presently lacking. Furthermore, Asia-Pacific-wide representation of civil society at the APrIGF Roundtable was incomplete. There exists a need not only to develop awareness about the IGF, but also to provide learning materials to make the IGF accessible to all. Greater access to the IGF would help make it more inclusive with various stakeholders, including those from the least developed nations and marginalized and vulnerable groups in Asia-Pacific.

During the APrIGF Roundtable, an open dialogue and two-way exchange of information and ideas was not fully facilitated. Open space to discuss and articulate criticism and suggest solutions must be guaranteed in all IGF events. Such an effort provides practical benefit to Internet users, both present and future, when the outcome of the APrIGF Roundtable is developed into a roadmap. Clarifying and planning the roles of local, national, regional and international multi-stakeholders, will help promote and protect transparent and democratic Internet governance and hence information society in the region.

Requests to the IGF

The first APrIGF presented a valuable opportunity to analyze both the issues upon which the IGF focuses and the process by which it is governed. With respect to these priority issues and opportunities for improved processes, we therefore recommend the following:
1.     Immediately address as an urgent global internet governance issue the increasing implementation of law that suppress and restrict freedom of expression and access to information, especially within developing countries;
2.     Fully integrate the universal human rights agenda into IGF program and engage systematically and regularly with the UN Office of High Commissioner for Human Rights, in particular the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression and the UN Human Rights Council;
3.     Ensure that the IGF policy proposals and recommendations are in line with international human rights principles and standards;
4.     Strengthen the IGF's multilateralism and openness in the upcoming fifth annual IGF meeting in Vilnius, Lithuania in September and future national and sub-regional level IGF meetings in Southeast Asia and Asia-Pacific;
5.     Extend the mandate of IGF for another five years;
6.     Conduct wider outreach to civil society actors in Southeast Asia and Asia-Pacific and allocate financial resources to encourage and support their participation in the fifth annual meeting and subsequent global IGFs, and organize national and sub-regional level IGFs;
7.     Ensure active remote participation in the annual meeting and subsequent IGFs, utilizing digital technologies such as live-streaming webcast, video conference, twitter and other social media tools;
8.     Guarantee that technical discussions during IGFs fully accommodates new constituents and stakeholders and incorporate an assessment of policy implications on the rights of Internet users and society;
9.     Develop a plan of action in order to facilitate follow-up and monitoring of IGF outcomes; and
10. Conduct an impact study by an independent organization to assess the effectiveness of IGF, in accordance with the principles set out in the 2005 Tunis Agenda and the 2003 Declaration of Principles of the WSIS.
Hereby signed by:
Yap Swee Seng

Executive Director Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA)

E-mail: yap at forum-asia.org Mobile (Bangkok): +66.81.868.9178 Web: www.forum-asia.org

Chiranuch Premchaiporn Executive Director Prachatai Online Newspaper

E-mail: chiranuch at prachatai.co<mailto:chiranuch at prachatai.co>m Mobile (Bangkok): +66.81.6207707 Web: www.prachatai.com<http://www.prachatai.com>; www.prachatai.org/englis<http://www.prachatai.org/englis>h

Ernesto G. Sonido Jr

Blogger TechTanod, the Blog and Soul Movement, the Philippine Blog Awards

E-mail: 1fishtank at gmail.co<mailto:1fishtank at gmail.co>m Phone: +63.917829.8090 Web: http://baratillo.net/; http://techtanod.com/

Ndaru

Blogger (Indonesia)

http://politikana.com/

Ou Virak

President Cambodian Center for Human Rights (CCHR)

E-mail: ouvirak at cchrcambodia.org Mobile (Phnom Penh): +855.12.404.051 Web: www.cchrcambodia.org

Phoutthasinh Phimmachanh

Senior Knowledge Management Officer Swiss Association for International Development (Helvetas-Laos)

Email: phoutthasinh.phimmachanh at helvetas.org<mailto:phoutthasinh.phimmachanh at helvetas.org> Phone (Laos): +856.21.740.253

Sean Ang

Executive Director Southeast Asian Center for e-Media (SEACeM)

E-mail: sean at seacem.co<mailto:sean at seacem.co>m Mobile (Kuala Lumpur): +60.166.533.533 Web: www.seacem.co<http://www.seacem.co>m

Chuah Siew Eng

Publicity Officer Centre for Independent Journalism

Email: sieweng.cij at gmail.com<mailto:sieweng.cij at gmail.com> Phone (Kuala Lumpur): +60.340.230.772 Web: cijmalaysia.org<http://cijmalaysia.org>

Leang Delux

Active member Club of Cambodian Journalist

E-mail: deluxnews at gmail.com<mailto:deluxnews at gmail.com> Mobile (Cambodia): +855.15.523.623 Web: www.ccj.com.kh<http://www.ccj.com.kh>

Oliver Robillo

Founder Mindanao Bloggers Community

E-mail: blogie at dabawenyo.com<mailto:blogie at dabawenyo.com> Mobile (Davao): +63.918.540.0878 Web: www.mindanaobloggers.com<http://www.mindanaobloggers.com>

Phisit Siprasatthong

Coordinator Thai Netizen Network

E-mail: freethainetizen at gmail.com<mailto:thainetizen at gmail.com> Phone (Bangkok): +66.2691.0574 Web: thainetizen.org<http://thainetizen.org>

Civil Society Representatives from Burma and Vietnam

______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
______________________________________________________________________
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100625/db98cefc/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From edmanix at gmail.com  Fri Jun 25 08:01:34 2010
From: edmanix at gmail.com (Emmanuel Edet)
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2010 13:01:34 +0100
Subject: [governance] Exclusive Domain for Pornography
Message-ID: <AANLkTimdqphO3-9LpcougGjdCxuGc_LXnUcX1UVi96jO@mail.gmail.com>

Finally the domain has been approved.

Here is the news story from the BBC website.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/10412765.stm

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

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 Jun 25 09:06:30 2010
From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker)
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2010 06:06:30 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] [5 of 6] How best to link with regional meetings?
Message-ID: <87394.42600.qm@web83909.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>

Jeremy,
I know you are working on specifics and your diligence and trudging is appreciated. I digress to the larger picture that is almost like the orange* elephant in the corner of the room.Yesterday we got word of some GAC in the ICANN developments. see Miltons: http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2010/6/23/4560694.html
What
 this discussion must address is not just our or a MAG's desire for inclusion and exclusion but the ratification of governments and/or their antagonism.  The mere words of the
 organization under which we labor in this task is United Nations and this must be kept at the forefront of our process. This is not to say blind abeyance. This is to say - Respectful Interface and the fostering of our Universal Rights in a way that promotes
 accomplishment rather than division. From the inside to the outside we must be aware that attraction is far more useful than mandate or persuasion. 
*a little different than the proverbial pink elephant

--- On Thu, 6/24/10, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:

From: Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org>
Subject: [governance] [5 of 6] How best to link with regional meetings?
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Date: Thursday, June 24, 2010, 7:37 AM

The penultimate question in the MAG's questionnaire that we have been working through is:
How best to link with regional meetings?


Since the first IGF meeting was held in Athens, a similar concept has been taken up at a regional and national level.  There are currently as many as eight of these at a regional level, and fourteen at a national level.  Often, these meetings also use the name "Internet Governance Forum" or "IGF".  However, they have no formal link with the Internet Governance Forum beyond being listed on the IGF's Web site, and sharing a few of the same participants.
The main issue that this question raises, as I see it, is whether there should be a stronger link between the regional meetings and the central one.  If so, we need to consider and provide feedback on questions such as:
What criteria should the regional/national IGFs satisfy in order to qualify for this stronger linkage?  For
 example, how open and multi-stakeholder must they be, and how transparent and inclusive their organisation?If there should be a set of criteria that regional/national IGFs must meet, how and by whom should it be developed?Should it be permitted to have more than one IGF per region or country, or should the global IGF enforce a rule that only one event per region or country can be officially recognised?Should the programme of the regional/national IGFs be coordinated with that of the global IGF?  If so, how? - perhaps through some sort of global council of IGFs?Should written reports of regional/national IGFs be distributed to the global IGF?Should verbal reports from regional/national IGFs be given at a main session at the global IGF?Should panelists from the other IGFs be given priority in selection for panels at the global IGF?Should each session organiser at the global
 IGF be required to give an opportunity for reports relevant to that session from regional/national IGF organisers?
I'm sure you can think of more ideas, so please let's hear them.  A practical example of how one organisation has addressed a similar issue is found in the guidelines that the TED conference sets for its affiliated events: http://www.ted.com/pages/view/id/351.
-- Jeremy Malcolm
Project Coordinator
Consumers International
Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East
Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Tel: +60 3 7726 1599CI is 50Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010.Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer rights around the world. 
http://www.consumersinternational.org/50

Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary.



-----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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100625/a99b0e33/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net  Sat Jun 26 09:06:23 2010
From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker)
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2010 06:06:23 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] IP Web of Influence
Message-ID: <993149.55504.qm@web83912.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>

If perhaps English - especially American, is your second language and you are having a bit of a hard time grasping the two words Spin and Bullshit, and any subtle differences -- This article is very helpful to see that usually they mean the same thing.
http://www.ibls.com/internet_law_news_portal_view.aspx?s=sa&id=1929 
And if you are having trouble really distinguishing between the parties in the US two party system, this same article will help you to see there truly is very little.
And finally if you think that some of us overreact or over dramatize the damage of ACTA, again this article will help you to see we are not crackpots (well ok) but that we have some basis.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100626/37150c3f/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net  Sat Jun 26 09:13:37 2010
From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker)
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2010 06:13:37 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] Organization Leaders and programming them out
Message-ID: <238189.61408.qm@web83915.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>

New Organization and Leadership Paradigm

I will use Jefseys’ arguments and restate them in my way –
tsk tsk how rude and assumptuous*

What Jefsey is saying is that we do not need another
leader** That the new emerging order and what we should embrace in the MAG and
IGF and IGC…  Is a consensus and working
together and some sort of Utopian synergy. 
That we do not need leaders and that our rules and process and charts
should be only filled with facilitators and that scientific rather than
democratic rules should govern.  That is
beautiful and logical and pure socialism. 
It works wonderfully for getting things done,,, Well NO it does not.  See ICANN

As we see on this list, intellect and ideas are not missing.
Masses are not missing. Religion and Government is not missing.  Logic and rational thought are not missing. 

What is missing is passion and commitment.  Dedication and inspiration. Participation and
attraction. Popularity and any “sexiness”. 
There is not impetus.  It is so
respectful and sterile that it begs to be ignored.  We do not inspire here – We Conspire.

If we are to move in the direction of democratic self
governance and equality and human dignity in our twins the Net and Web, we must
begin to include and not do what we loath – dictate.  

Jefsey just wrote that within all walks and professions and
avocations are the good.  Basically that
we must focus on the positive and that deriding a profession or ilk for the
overbearance of a sect is not right.*** This is true.  Will Rogers did not say “I never met a man I
did not like” he said “I never met a man I could not find something to like
about” – a reflection not of mankind but of an attitude we should foster.

Leaders.  Yes Leaders
deserve no less.  How can we accept
bureaucrats, lawyers and techies and yet institutionally ban all leaders and
leadership as ICANN has done?  How can we
breed and create a social order with despise for leadership and yet accept all.
How can we organize and rally masses and the people without a call from a
leader?  Without clear evolutionary
leaders there is no one to go first, to brave the slings and arrows and attack
what is clearly a war against the individual and their rights.

Leadership must be protected in our continuing effort to
reorganize.  We do not need to appoint.
We do not need to set aside.  But we need
to create systems that allow for and do not block the individual with fire and
passion.  We must be mindful to keep open
the opportunity for folks to gather and elect and support and yes, passionately
endorse what one woman stands for and elevate her.  We must find some compromise between our
intellects and our compassion and let rise to an emotional pitch the protection
of our sacred and sacrosanct sanctity of Human dignity and Rights.  

Some would say it is not about personalities.  Well they would have their head in the sand.

For this we need leaders. 
Not Chairwomen who are titular at best.

 

 

*I know, not a word and wrongful to build a straw dog and
attribute – thank Socrates for the method

**Please see and listen: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TViZKt-AX6E  the song really refers to dictators and
tyrants

*** Speaking of my hatred of and failures in the IP legal
arena
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100626/1492794d/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From gpaque at gmail.com  Sat Jun 26 12:03:16 2010
From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque)
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2010 11:33:16 -0430
Subject: [governance] Remote Participation for next week's IGF Planning
 Meeting in Geneva
Message-ID: <4C2624C4.2050802@gmail.com>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100626/77a6c1ca/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From krum.jonev at dir.bg  Sat Jun 26 13:16:05 2010
From: krum.jonev at dir.bg (krum.jonev at dir.bg)
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2010 19:16:05 +0200
Subject: [governance] ICANN declined Bulgarian IDN fast-track
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20100530230827.05bb48a0@jefsey.com>
References: <web-145876651@srv.dir.bg>
 <BAY141-W2FE71C10AA7A43604D1F5FFEB0@phx.gbl>
 <web-145898721@srv.dir.bg>
 <AANLkTikt9jbfwzfML53EDDrKdvBBETpVAcluKzf96e7J@mail.gmail.com>
 <C38A20BC-DA7B-4E26-9295-BD306FFB1287@acm.org>
 <$6tuV$kKhnAMFAvP@perry.co.uk>
 <96587A11-760F-4D95-A061-2EB1A0D105E1@acm.org>
 <7.0.1.0.2.20100530172340.05bb44c8@jefsey.com>
 <14E786AF-D5E7-41A1-8D1F-A76DDAEC1A6A@acm.org>
 <7.0.1.0.2.20100530230827.05bb48a0@jefsey.com>
Message-ID: <web-151282417@srv.dir.bg>

Hi all,

On an interview today, the IT minister announced that Bulgaria will 
send a reconsideration request for the .бг string.

Original source : 
http://dariknews.bg/view_article.php?article_id=551142 (in Bulgarian)

-
Who will be the domain of Bulgaria in Cyrillic alphabet, after it 
emerged that looked like BR (Brazil) and will not happen?

Minister: Yes, we received a refusal for the BG domain. I personally 
believe that this domain is the best for Bulgaria and the same is 
considered perhaps by the majority of IT industry. Therefore, we will 
make a new request. Will ask for reconsideration.

And do not give up.

Minister: No, do not give up the registration of the domain. I think 
he has the greatest effect. Other abbreviations in Cyrillic in my 
opinion will not be so ...

BU, BYA, BGR ...

Minister: No, these are not so typical for Bulgaria and will not be so 
popular.

Even the whole "Bulgaria".

Minister: I think that will not be as popular as both letters БГ (BG)

How this will happen - the change of this refusal?

Minister: Well, to change that refusal is a new procedure in an 
international organization that approves the registration of those 
domains. We got the first refusal, but that does not mean that with 
the second procedure we will also get a refusal - its possible to 
obtain approval.

But what really count, because the simple logic is that true when you 
see BR in Brazil, right, it looks like BG of the Bulgarians. And 
because the Brazilians are the first - they give up?

Minister: No, they will not quit, of course, we still rely on a deeper 
examination of the problem and hopefully to be approved this 
abbreviation because it is most typical for Bulgaria and I think it 
will benefit the most , it introduce the Cyrillic alphabet.

-

However, I don`t have an idea what is this "second"procedure - maybe 
the extended review?

Cheers,

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

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

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


From rebecca.mackinnon at gmail.com  Sat Jun 26 19:23:26 2010
From: rebecca.mackinnon at gmail.com (Rebecca MacKinnon)
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2010 19:23:26 -0400
Subject: [governance] 2010 Asia Declaration on Internet Governance
Message-ID: <AANLkTil0WQe0_q1M-gimuW0Icw9jAp840-wYzoUIk3HZ@mail.gmail.com>

http://thainetizen.org/sites/default/files/2010-asia-declaration-on-internet-governance.pdf

    *2010 Asia Declaration on Internet Governance*



*"[The IGF is] multilateral, multi-stakeholder, democratic, and
transparent."*



        - 2005 Tunis Agenda



*"[We call for] a** people-centered, inclusive and development-oriented
Information Society...**full respect and upholding of universal human rights
including freedom of opinion and expression; and "The universality,
indivisibility, interdependence and interrelation of all human rights and
fundamental freedoms"*



*       * - 2003 Declaration of Principles of World Summit on Information
Society.





On the occasion of the first Asia-Pacific Regional Internet Governance Forum
(APrIGF) Roundtable <rigf.asia> in Hong Kong on June 15-16, 2010, we, civil
society representatives from eight Southeast Asian countries, call on the
Internet Governance Forum (IGF) <http://www.intgovforum.org/> and its
Multi-Stakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) to fully uphold these aforementioned
commitments and principles, as mandated by the United Nations
Secretary-General.



We applaud the work of the first APrIGF towards building multi-stakeholder
discussion on internet governance. In this vein of inclusive dialogue, we
offer the following perspectives and recommendations to the MAG meeting in
Geneva at the Palais des Nations on June 28-29, as well as for the fifth
annual IGF meeting in Vilnius, Lithuania on September 14-17, 2010.



*Key Observations of the APrIGF*



In response to the first Asia-Pacific Regional Internet Governance Forum
(APrIGF) Roundtable in Hong Kong on June 15-16, 2010, we, netizens,
journalists, bloggers, IT practitioners and nongovernmental representatives
from across Southeast Asia, offer the following observations from the
Roundtable:



*1. Critical issues of internet governance in Asia should guide future
discussions on internet governance policy:
**
Openness*



Open access to information is the right of every individual, a right that
servers as a fundamental venue for one's knowledge- and capacity-building.
 Access to information ultimately helps foster creativity and innovation,
thus promoting sustainable human and economic development.

Openness is key to a democratic and open society. Restrictions on freedom of
opinion and expression online, such as state censorship which blocks
Internet intermediaries, is one of the threats to open societies.
Intimidation and state censorship facilitate self-censorship, a hazardous
social phenomenon that further undermines democracy and openness.



*Access*



The internet is for everyone; it is a public good. Yet a Digital Divide
between those countries and communities with internet access and those
without persists, and has not been sufficiently addressed in discussions on
internet governance. Proceedings at the APrIGF indicated a higher priority
must be placed on addressing not only the global digital divide, but also
regional and national ones. While Singapore enjoys high Internet access
rates (70% penetration), countries like Burma and Cambodia are at the other
end of the spectrum (0.22% and 0.51% penetration, respectively), ranked the
lowest of 200 countries studied in the World
Bank<http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/IT.NET.USER.P2>.




Internet access is fundamental for progress. Various factors, such as
political, economic and social development, poverty levels, and
technological infrastructure affect whether and how often people can access
the internet.  Internationally coordinated efforts must be made to address
domestic policies that contribute to the digital divide in Southeast Asia* *and
find solutions to bridge the gap.



*Cyber Security*



Definition of cyber security must include elements that address right to
privacy and civil and political freedom.

An individual’s right over his/her own privacy, including personal data and
information, must not be sacrificed. Information technology, such as IPv6,
ZigBee, RFID, when used without transparent and accountable oversight, could
pose threats to individual rights.



Today's information society connects personal IT devices directly to the
outside world, no longer storing personal data on a single server.  Given
the involvement of the government and businesses (especially state-owned
enterprises) in running such technologies, surveillance and identity theft
remain a constant threat against Internet users.



In this regard, any national security policy must not deviate from the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights and all international human rights
covenants to which states are parties.



*2. Opportunities exist to continue to improve the IGF Process:*



Awareness of the IGF in Southeast Asia and at the ASEAN level is presently
lacking.  Furthermore, Asia-Pacific-wide representation of civil society at
the APrIGF Roundtable was incomplete.  There exists a need not only to
develop awareness about the IGF, but also to provide learning materials to
make the IGF accessible to all. Greater access to the IGF would help make it
more inclusive with various stakeholders, including those from the least
developed nations and marginalized and vulnerable groups in Asia-Pacific*. *




During the APrIGF Roundtable, an open dialogue and two-way exchange of
information and ideas was not fully facilitated.  Open space to discuss and
articulate criticism and suggest solutions must be guaranteed in all IGF
events. Such an effort provides practical benefit to Internet users, both
present and future, when the outcome of the APrIGF Roundtable is developed
into a roadmap.  Clarifying and planning the roles of local, national,
regional and international multi-stakeholders, will help promote and protect
transparent and democratic Internet governance and hence information society
in the region.

*
*
*
*

*Requests to the IGF*



The first APrIGF presented a valuable opportunity to analyze both the issues
upon which the IGF focuses and the process by which it is governed. With
respect to these priority issues and opportunities for improved processes,
we therefore recommend the following:



1.     Immediately address as an urgent global internet governance issue the
increasing implementation of law that suppress and restrict freedom of
expression and access to information, especially within developing
countries;



2.     Fully integrate the universal human rights agenda into IGF program
and engage systematically and regularly with the UN Office of High
Commissioner for Human Rights, in particular the UN Special Rapporteur on
Freedom of Opinion and Expression and the UN Human Rights Council;



3.     Ensure that the IGF policy proposals and recommendations are in line
with international human rights principles and standards;



4.     Strengthen the IGF's multilateralism and openness in the upcoming
fifth annual IGF meeting in Vilnius, Lithuania in September and future
national and sub-regional level IGF meetings in Southeast Asia and
Asia-Pacific;



5.     Extend the mandate of IGF for another five years;



6.     Conduct wider outreach to civil society actors in Southeast Asia and
Asia-Pacific and allocate financial resources to encourage and support their
participation in the fifth annual meeting and subsequent global IGFs, and
organize national and sub-regional level IGFs;



7.     Ensure active remote participation in the annual meeting and
subsequent IGFs, utilizing digital technologies such as live-streaming
webcast, video conference, twitter and other social media tools;



8.     Guarantee that technical discussions during IGFs fully accommodates
new constituents and stakeholders and incorporate an assessment of policy
implications on the rights of Internet users and society;



9.     Develop a plan of action in order to facilitate follow-up and
monitoring of IGF outcomes; and



10.  Conduct an impact study by an independent organization to assess the
effectiveness of IGF, in accordance with the principles set out in the 2005
Tunis Agenda and the 2003 Declaration of Principles of the WSIS.


*
*

*Hereby signed by:*

*Yap Swee Seng*

Executive Director

Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development

(FORUM-ASIA)



E-mail: yap at forum-asia.org

Mobile (Bangkok): +66.81.868.9178

Web: www.forum-asia.org



*Sean Ang*

Executive Director

Southeast Asian Center for e-Media (SEACeM)





E-mail: sean at seacem.com

Mobile (Kuala Lumpur): +60.166.533.533

Web: www.seacem.com

*Chiranuch Premchaipor*n
Executive Director
Prachatai Online Newspaper

E-mail: chiranuch at prachatai.com
Mobile (Bangkok): +66.81.6207707
Web: www.prachatai.com; www.prachatai.org/english



*Chuah Siew Eng*
Publicity Officer
Centre for Independent Journalism

 Email: sieweng.cij at gmail.com
Phone (Kuala Lumpur): +60.340.230.772
Web: cijmalaysia.org

*Ernesto G. Sonido Jr*
Blogger
TechTanod, the Blog and Soul Movement, the Philippine Blog Awards

E-mail: 1fishtank at gmail.com
Phone: +63.917829.8090

Web: http://baratillo.net/; http://techtanod.com/



*Leang Delux*
Active member
Club of Cambodian Journalist



E-mail: deluxnews at gmail.com
Mobile (Cambodia): +855.15.523.623
Web: www.ccj.com.kh

*Ndaru *

Blogger (Indonesia)

http://politikana.com/

*Oliver Robillo*

Founder

Mindanao Bloggers Community



E-mail: blogie at dabawenyo.com

Mobile (Davao): +63.918.540.0878

Web: www.mindanaobloggers.com



*Ou Virak *

President

Cambodian Center for Human Rights (CCHR)



E-mail: ouvirak at cchrcambodia.org

Mobile (Phnom Penh): +855.12.404.051

Web: www.cchrcambodia.org

*Phisit Siprasatthong*
Coordinator
Thai Netizen Network

 E-mail: freethainetizen at gmail.com
Phone (Bangkok): +66.2691.0574
Web: thainetizen.org

* *

*Phoutthasinh Phimmachanh*

Senior Knowledge Management Officer**

Swiss Association for International Development (Helvetas-Laos)



Email: phoutthasinh.phimmachanh at helvetas.org

Phone (Laos):  +856.21.740.253

* *

* *

*Civil Society Representatives from Burma and Vietnam*






-- 
Rebecca MacKinnon
Visiting Fellow, Center for Information Technology Policy, Princeton
University
Co-founder, GlobalVoicesOnline.org
Cell: +1-617-939-3493
E-mail: rebecca.mackinnon at gmail.com
Blog: http://RConversation.blogs.com
Twitter: http://twitter.com/rmack
Friendfeed: http://friendfeed.com/rebeccamack
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100626/2a29d904/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From isolatedn at gmail.com  Sun Jun 27 07:54:00 2010
From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M)
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2010 17:24:00 +0530
Subject: [governance] Horror on the Cloud: the plight of a user against an
 answering machine corporation
Message-ID: <AANLkTikJ3P4O7RlHGz2bhRw7DBlXh0ndBWF0Ozostn2B@mail.gmail.com>

Hello

This is a link from a PFIR list message with a different caption. The story
is worthy of attention for several reasons, one of which is the predicament
of a user trapped as a customer of a large corporation that increasingly
hides behind a BPO barrier that shuts out direct connection. Happens at
Yahoo, happens at Visa or Mastercard, this barrier helps corporations
conduct their businesses without the fear of f2f contact with the customer.

Sivasubramanian M

Yahoo has shut down Brent Stinski's business,Media
Predict<http://www.mediapredict.com/>,
which is a fantasy market game for TV shows and movies, without warning.
Brent Stinski narrates his difficulties in establishing contact with Yahoo:

*It took three more hours to locate a support number. Eventually I found one
> on my credit card bill.*

*With the consistency of a World Cup soccer wall, support referred me
straight to Yahoo Abuse. They also made it clear that nobody talks to Yahoo
Abuse:*

*- “Abuse doesn’t take calls. All you can do is e-mail them.”*

*- “We don’t even have a contact number for them.”*

*- “We have no idea what Abuse does once we hand tickets on to them. We
never see the outcomes.”*

*- “No one here has had any contact with Abuse or can tell you how they
normally operate.”*

*- “We don’t know their hours or if they work on the weekends.”*

*So I e-mailed. An auto-reply promised a response within 24 to 48 hours – I
waited 90.*



---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: <pfir at pfir.org>
Date: Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 5:14 AM
Subject: [ PFIR ] After site is hacked, Yahoo asserts "death penalty"
against innocent businessman
To: pfir-list at pfir.org



After site is hacked, Yahoo asserts "death penalty" against innocent
businessman

http://bit.ly/cGUMS8  (VentureBeat)

--Lauren--
Lauren Weinstein
lauren at vortex.com
Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800
http://www.pfir.org/lauren
Co-Founder, PFIR
  - People For Internet Responsibility - http://www.pfir.org
Co-Founder, NNSquad
  - Network Neutrality Squad - http://www.nnsquad.org
Founder, GCTIP - Global Coalition
  for Transparent Internet Performance - http://www.gctip.org
Founder, PRIVACY Forum - http://www.vortex.com
Member, ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy
Lauren's Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com
Twitter: https://twitter.com/laurenweinstein

_______________________________________________
pfir mailing list
http://lists.pfir.org/mailman/listinfo/pfir
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100627/647d40d6/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From pouzin at well.com  Sun Jun 27 08:15:29 2010
From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin)
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2010 14:15:29 +0200
Subject: [governance] ICANN declined Bulgarian IDN fast-track
Message-ID: <201006271255.o5RCt2ra022169@well.com>

*If the ICANN board were intellectually consistent in its abysmal thinking, it
should ban half ot the following ccTLDs that are "confusingly similar".

       Al vs. AI
       Cl vs. CI
       GI vs. Gl
       IR vs. lR
       IS vs. lS
       IT vs. lT
       NI vs. Nl
       Sl vs. SI

*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100627/68bd86c1/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From avri at acm.org  Sun Jun 27 09:22:06 2010
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2010 15:22:06 +0200
Subject: [governance] ICANN declined Bulgarian IDN fast-track
In-Reply-To: <201006271255.o5RCt2ra022169@well.com>
References: <201006271255.o5RCt2ra022169@well.com>
Message-ID: <54D5F0A4-223C-401D-81CF-FCE7B406902A@acm.org>

hi,

you are right about the substance.  the only thing it might be confused for is 6r.  and leading numbers aren't allowed anyway - so 6r is illegal.  the board should reconsider.

but you are wrong if you think the board members are picked for their intellectual consistency.  and i am not sure why they should be, given the diversity of their origin and experience.

also all of the similarities you mention below were done by ISO and Postel and these directors never had a say it, so it is irrelevant from a consistency, intellectual or otherwise, point of view.

a.

PS.  besides, all of my MBA friends tell me that intellectuality and corporate management do not mix.


On 27 Jun 2010, at 14:15, Louis Pouzin wrote:

> If the ICANN board were intellectually consistent in its abysmal thinking, it should ban half ot the following ccTLDs that are "confusingly similar".
> 
>        Al vs. AI
>        Cl vs. CI
>        GI vs. Gl
>        IR vs. lR
>        IS vs. lS
>        IT vs. lT
>        NI vs. Nl
>        Sl vs. SI
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

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

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

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

From David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu  Sun Jun 27 11:19:40 2010
From: David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu (David Allen)
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2010 11:19:40 -0400
Subject: [governance] Re: ICANN declined Bulgarian IDN fast-track
In-Reply-To: <54D5F0A4-223C-401D-81CF-FCE7B406902A@acm.org>
References: <201006271255.o5RCt2ra022169@well.com> <54D5F0A4-223C-401D-81CF-FCE7B406902A@acm.org>
Message-ID: <E35B9E6B-6C8E-44E9-8CE9-25946EA6AA1B@post.harvard.edu>

As usual, Louis, and Avri, push to pivot points.

> my MBA friends tell me that intellectuality and corporate management  
> do not mix.

So then, pushing out the other side:  Exit the MBA mentality and the  
failures associated with it.  Hopefully move to an organization, with  
a culture, that does faithfully provide a (non-corporate) public  
service to the world community.

David

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

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

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


From rebecca.mackinnon at gmail.com  Sun Jun 27 14:16:32 2010
From: rebecca.mackinnon at gmail.com (Rebecca MacKinnon)
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2010 14:16:32 -0400
Subject: [governance] Fwd: Monday #BillOfRights planning call 2 p.m (PDT)
 1-213-289-0500 access code 869727
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimYKGlAu7E11soXxvbSdDG2GG9n_Ht4phj6ditR@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTimYKGlAu7E11soXxvbSdDG2GG9n_Ht4phj6ditR@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTilbwxcO1unU6ouL6ns_-VgBFjDoHc0mIsrHIK52@mail.gmail.com>

FYI, the people behind the Social Media Bill of Rights created at the
Computers Freedom and Privacy conference in San Jose are organizing a
conference call and live chat for Monday 5pm EDT/2pm PDT to plan activism
and next steps. Anybody is welcome to join and they would very much like to
get more international input. Please see the link for the chat in the
forwarded e-mail below. If you have questions about how to connect please
contact Jon Pincus: jon at qworky.net. I'm not sure if international or
toll-free numbers will be available or whether low cost/toll-free options
will be possible for people calling from outside the United States, but
hopefully Jon will have some suggestions.

For background and more information:
http://cfp.acm.org/wordpress/?p=495
http://cfp.acm.org/wordpress/?p=523

Best,
Rebecca

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Jon Pincus <jon at qworky.net>
Date: Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 12:38 PM
Subject: Monday #BillOfRights planning call 2 p.m (PDT) 1-213-289-0500
access code 869727

Feel free to invite others as well.

There's a chat room http://preview.qworky.net/q/meetings/123 we can use
during the meeting.

Here's what I've got for goals and agenda.  Thoughts?
Goals

   -  Build on initial momentum and lay groundwork for a sustained campaign
   for the #BillOfRights <http://preview.qworky.net/q/meetings/123/invitation#>
   -  Identify next steps and
owners<http://preview.qworky.net/q/meetings/123/invitation#>

 Agenda

   -  Introductions and agenda
review<http://preview.qworky.net/q/meetings/123/invitation#>
   -  Overall strategy: engagement with grassroots, allies, media, site
   operators; international
focus<http://preview.qworky.net/q/meetings/123/invitation#>
   -  Web presence and
voting<http://preview.qworky.net/q/meetings/123/invitation#>
   -  Blogworld presentation and conference
strategy<http://preview.qworky.net/q/meetings/123/invitation#>
   -  Next steps <http://preview.qworky.net/q/meetings/123/invitation#>

jon



-- 
Rebecca MacKinnon
Visiting Fellow, Center for Information Technology Policy, Princeton
University
Co-founder, GlobalVoicesOnline.org
Cell: +1-617-939-3493
E-mail: rebecca.mackinnon at gmail.com
Blog: http://RConversation.blogs.com
Twitter: http://twitter.com/rmack
Friendfeed: http://friendfeed.com/rebeccamack
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100627/0b626104/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From toml at communisphere.com  Sun Jun 27 15:46:34 2010
From: toml at communisphere.com (Thomas Lowenhaupt)
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2010 15:46:34 -0400
Subject: [governance] Update on City TLD Governance and Best Practices
 workshop proposal for IGF Vilnius
Message-ID: <00cb01cb1631$745ece90$7800a8c0@powuseren2ihcx>

With the IGF Vilnius Open Consultation beginning tomorrow, here's an update on my efforts on behalf of a proposed City TLD Governance and Best Practices Workshop. I'd appreciate advice as to any steps I might take to facilitate its acceptance.

Over the past couple of months I've contacted directly, and, via this and a few other lists, several hundred people inviting participation on the City TLD Workshop. From an expertise perspective, I've received confirmations from an exceptional group. Listed in order of their acceptance, the prospective participants are Wolfgang Kleinwächter, Dirk Krischenowski, Bertrand de La Chapelle, Werner Staub, Thomas Schneider, Hong Xue, Sébastien Bachollet, Hawa Diakite, Ana Cristina Amoroso das Neves, Jonathan Shea (via remote participation), Izumi Aizu. 

With my first in-person participation on a TLD workshop having taken place at the 2006 Prague Studienkreis, I knew there was enough expertise to make the panel productive with the arrival of Wolfgang's acceptance. And as each new one arrived, I saw layer upon later of expertise being added to the workshop. 

I've also received a "Yes, if it fits with my other panels" acceptance from a highly desired panelist. As well, I've three outstanding invites: to someone from the U.S. government to comment on the impact city TLDs might have on urban affairs, particularly regionalization. If nothing comes through, perhaps an existing panelist might comment on that. The New York City government's response, "if there was a definite application filing time we would surely be able to arrange something" might change if the ICANN timeline is clearer by September. The third outstanding invite, to someone from the common pool resource community, is one I'm very hopeful about getting a positive response. Question: What is the status of the participant list going forward: can it be changed, do I continue the pursuit?  

As we approach Vilnius my plan is to reach out to global cities considering TLDs, request questions and share these with panelists in preparation. 

For tomorrow's meeting, I'll be participating through the remote channels. I'd appreciate any of you who will be in Geneva speaking up for the City TLD workshop when appropriate. Beyond the fruitful topic and great participants, you might point out we should have good technical scores: reasonable geographic and gender balance and both moderators at the ready.

If you have a question or feel I've missed something, please let me know.

Best,

Tom Lowenhaupt
---------------------------

Thomas Lowenhaupt, Founder & Chair
Connecting.nyc Inc.

tom at connectingnyc.org 
Jackson Hts., NYC 11372
718 639 4222
Web  Wiki  Blog 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100627/40f5c5f3/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: tech.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 862 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100627/40f5c5f3/attachment.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From gpaque at gmail.com  Sun Jun 27 16:07:59 2010
From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque)
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2010 15:37:59 -0430
Subject: [governance] Update on City TLD Governance and Best Practices
In-Reply-To: <00cb01cb1631$745ece90$7800a8c0@powuseren2ihcx>
References: <00cb01cb1631$745ece90$7800a8c0@powuseren2ihcx>
Message-ID: <4C27AF9F.8060609@paque.net>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100627/324bbe15/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From mueller at syr.edu  Sun Jun 27 17:32:36 2010
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2010 17:32:36 -0400
Subject: [governance] ICANN declined Bulgarian IDN fast-track
In-Reply-To: <201006271255.o5RCt2ra022169@well.com>
References: <201006271255.o5RCt2ra022169@well.com>
Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D705C7E16AAF@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>

Nice to see the tide of opinion turning against the .6r decision.


From: Louis Pouzin [mailto:pouzin at well.com]
Sent: Sunday, June 27, 2010 8:15 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Cc: krum.jonev at dir.bg
Subject: [governance] ICANN declined Bulgarian IDN fast-track

If the ICANN board were intellectually consistent in its abysmal thinking, it should ban half ot the following ccTLDs that are "confusingly similar".

       Al vs. AI
       Cl vs. CI
       GI vs. Gl
       IR vs. lR
       IS vs. lS
       IT vs. lT
       NI vs. Nl
       Sl vs. SI
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100627/83b99b2e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From mariliamaciel at gmail.com  Mon Jun 28 05:29:05 2010
From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2010 06:29:05 -0300
Subject: [governance] Remote Participation for next week's IGF Planning
In-Reply-To: <4C2624C4.2050802@gmail.com>
References: <4C2624C4.2050802@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTikV4ANgUUwzwHfrQRR9fbdh6I6pZczgNqWRpzjl@mail.gmail.com>

Good morning everybody,

Just a quick remind that you can participate remotely in the Geneva Open
Consultations for the preparation of the IGF. See the instructions to access
the webcast at the IGF website: www.intgovforum.org

To participate remotely, send an e-mail to june2010 at intgovforum.org, or a
Twitter message with #IGF. To make a live intervention you can contact me
through Skype (marilia.ferreira.maciel) and I will give you the microphone
:)

Best wishes,

Marília

On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 1:03 PM, Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com> wrote:

>  Remote participation will again be available for the IGF Planning Meeting
> in Geneva (next week). Marilia Maciel of the IGF Remote Participation
> Working Group will be present at the meeting, and will act as remote/online
> moderator. You can find her online during the remote participation, through
> the provided platform (watch for updated links at www.intgovforum.org) and
> you can also send questions or comments to june2010 at intgovforum.org
>
> This will be particularly helpful if you have input to the main session
> planning or for workshops. I suggest that you take advantage of the
> opportunity, as the IGF Secretariat is ensuring that remote participants are
> heard.
>
> Please keep in mind that this is a planning meeting for IGF10 in Vilnius,
> and other issues will not be address at this meeting. Comments can always be
> sent to igf at unog.ch, and will be taken into consideration.
>
> 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
>



-- 
Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
FGV Direito Rio

Center for Technology and Society
Getulio Vargas Foundation
Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100628/3ae1a8c2/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From nhklein at gmx.net  Mon Jun 28 11:14:10 2010
From: nhklein at gmx.net (Norbert Klein)
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2010 11:14:10 -0400
Subject: [governance] ICANN declined Bulgarian IDN fast-track
In-Reply-To: <54D5F0A4-223C-401D-81CF-FCE7B406902A@acm.org>
References: <201006271255.o5RCt2ra022169@well.com> <54D5F0A4-223C-401D-81CF-FCE7B406902A@acm.org>
Message-ID: <4C28BC42.4090906@gmx.net>

Hi Avri,

I am not sure if you are a victim of "confusingly similar" or if you are
sarcastic: the Bulgarian .бг string is not starting with the leading
number 6, but with a Bulgarian the "б" [which will be displayed
correctly on your screen only if you have the facility to display Kyrillic].

Whoever looks with a "Bulgarian eye" at these characters, will not
confuse a 6 or a b with a б.

Hi Milton, you said:

"Nice to see the tide of opinion turning against the .6r decision."

Who decided .6r? The Bulgarians want the .бг string. Different.

Norbert Klein
(living in the Bulgarian Embassy Apartments in Cambodia)

=

Avri Doria wrote:
> hi,
>
> you are right about the substance.  the only thing it might be confused for is 6r.  and leading numbers aren't allowed anyway - so 6r is illegal.  the board should reconsider.
>
> but you are wrong if you think the board members are picked for their intellectual consistency.  and i am not sure why they should be, given the diversity of their origin and experience.
>
> also all of the similarities you mention below were done by ISO and Postel and these directors never had a say it, so it is irrelevant from a consistency, intellectual or otherwise, point of view.
>
> a.
>
> PS.  besides, all of my MBA friends tell me that intellectuality and corporate management do not mix.
>   
-- 
If you want to know what is going on in Cambodia, please visit
The Mirror, a regular review of the Cambodian language press in English.

This is the latest weekly editorial of the Mirror:

Not Everything Legal is Considered Legitimate 
Sunday, 20.6.2010

http://wp.me/p2Gyf-1ve
(to read it, click on the line above.)

And here is something new every day:
http://cambodiamirror.wordpress.com

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

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

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


From avri at acm.org  Mon Jun 28 11:25:06 2010
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2010 17:25:06 +0200
Subject: [governance] Hi norbert,nance] ICANN declined Bulgarian IDN
 fast-track
In-Reply-To: <4C28BC42.4090906@gmx.net>
References: <201006271255.o5RCt2ra022169@well.com> <54D5F0A4-223C-401D-81CF-FCE7B406902A@acm.org> <4C28BC42.4090906@gmx.net>
Message-ID: <06EF922A-DE86-44FD-81B5-86B3DA02FF79@acm.org>


what is said was the only thing it could possibly be confused with is <.6r>. and since that can't never be a TLD. then there is no confusing similarity.

on the subject of a cyrillic eye, i am not sure that only cyrillic eyes are to be considered in the consideration of confusion.

sorry is i was confusing.

a.



On 28 Jun 2010, at 17:14, Norbert Klein wrote:

> Hi Avri,
> 
> I am not sure if you are a victim of "confusingly similar" or if you are
> sarcastic: the Bulgarian .бг string is not starting with the leading
> number 6, but with a Bulgarian the "б" [which will be displayed
> correctly on your screen only if you have the facility to display Kyrillic].
> 
> Whoever looks with a "Bulgarian eye" at these characters, will not
> confuse a 6 or a b with a б.
> 
> Hi Milton, you said:
> 
> "Nice to see the tide of opinion turning against the .6r decision."
> 
> Who decided .6r? The Bulgarians want the .бг string. Different.
> 
> Norbert Klein
> (living in the Bulgarian Embassy Apartments in Cambodia)
> 
> =
> 
> Avri Doria wrote:
>> hi,
>> 
>> you are right about the substance.  the only thing it might be confused for is 6r.  and leading numbers aren't allowed anyway - so 6r is illegal.  the board should reconsider.
>> 
>> but you are wrong if you think the board members are picked for their intellectual consistency.  and i am not sure why they should be, given the diversity of their origin and experience.
>> 
>> also all of the similarities you mention below were done by ISO and Postel and these directors never had a say it, so it is irrelevant from a consistency, intellectual or otherwise, point of view.
>> 
>> a.
>> 
>> PS.  besides, all of my MBA friends tell me that intellectuality and corporate management do not mix.
>> 
> -- 
> If you want to know what is going on in Cambodia, please visit
> The Mirror, a regular review of the Cambodian language press in English.
> 
> This is the latest weekly editorial of the Mirror:
> 
> Not Everything Legal is Considered Legitimate 
> Sunday, 20.6.2010
> 
> http://wp.me/p2Gyf-1ve
> (to read it, click on the line above.)
> 
> And here is something new every day:
> http://cambodiamirror.wordpress.com
> 

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

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

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

From avri at psg.com  Mon Jun 28 11:29:38 2010
From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2010 17:29:38 +0200
Subject: [governance] ICANN declined Bulgarian IDN fast-track
In-Reply-To: <06EF922A-DE86-44FD-81B5-86B3DA02FF79@acm.org>
References: <201006271255.o5RCt2ra022169@well.com> <54D5F0A4-223C-401D-81CF-FCE7B406902A@acm.org> <4C28BC42.4090906@gmx.net> <06EF922A-DE86-44FD-81B5-86B3DA02FF79@acm.org>
Message-ID: <53002D50-B968-481B-9306-2D7E8C52A442@psg.com>

ok, so garbled i was.

a.

On 28 Jun 2010, at 17:25, Avri Doria wrote:

> 
> what is said was the only thing it could possibly be confused with is <.6r>. and since that can't never be a TLD. then there is no confusing similarity.
> 
> on the subject of a cyrillic eye, i am not sure that only cyrillic eyes are to be considered in the consideration of confusion.
> 
> sorry is i was confusing.
> 
> a.
> 
> 
> 
> On 28 Jun 2010, at 17:14, Norbert Klein wrote:
> 
>> Hi Avri,
>> 
>> I am not sure if you are a victim of "confusingly similar" or if you are
>> sarcastic: the Bulgarian .бг string is not starting with the leading
>> number 6, but with a Bulgarian the "б" [which will be displayed
>> correctly on your screen only if you have the facility to display Kyrillic].
>> 
>> Whoever looks with a "Bulgarian eye" at these characters, will not
>> confuse a 6 or a b with a б.
>> 
>> Hi Milton, you said:
>> 
>> "Nice to see the tide of opinion turning against the .6r decision."
>> 
>> Who decided .6r? The Bulgarians want the .бг string. Different.
>> 
>> Norbert Klein
>> (living in the Bulgarian Embassy Apartments in Cambodia)
>> 
>> =
>> 
>> Avri Doria wrote:
>>> hi,
>>> 
>>> you are right about the substance.  the only thing it might be confused for is 6r.  and leading numbers aren't allowed anyway - so 6r is illegal.  the board should reconsider.
>>> 
>>> but you are wrong if you think the board members are picked for their intellectual consistency.  and i am not sure why they should be, given the diversity of their origin and experience.
>>> 
>>> also all of the similarities you mention below were done by ISO and Postel and these directors never had a say it, so it is irrelevant from a consistency, intellectual or otherwise, point of view.
>>> 
>>> a.
>>> 
>>> PS.  besides, all of my MBA friends tell me that intellectuality and corporate management do not mix.
>>> 
>> -- 
>> If you want to know what is going on in Cambodia, please visit
>> The Mirror, a regular review of the Cambodian language press in English.
>> 
>> This is the latest weekly editorial of the Mirror:
>> 
>> Not Everything Legal is Considered Legitimate 
>> Sunday, 20.6.2010
>> 
>> http://wp.me/p2Gyf-1ve
>> (to read it, click on the line above.)
>> 
>> And here is something new every day:
>> http://cambodiamirror.wordpress.com
>> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

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

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

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

From jefsey at jefsey.com  Mon Jun 28 12:15:21 2010
From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin)
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2010 18:15:21 +0200
Subject: [governance] Hi norbert,nance] ICANN declined Bulgarian
In-Reply-To: <06EF922A-DE86-44FD-81B5-86B3DA02FF79@acm.org>
References: <201006271255.o5RCt2ra022169@well.com>
 <54D5F0A4-223C-401D-81CF-FCE7B406902A@acm.org>
 <4C28BC42.4090906@gmx.net>
 <06EF922A-DE86-44FD-81B5-86B3DA02FF79@acm.org>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20100628175812.05db22f0@jefsey.com>

At 17:25 28/06/2010, Avri Doria wrote:
>what is said was the only thing it could possibly be confused with 
>is <.6r>. and since that can't never be a TLD. then there is no 
>confusing similarity.

Why "6r" could not be a TLD? I mean, you have an RFC reference?
jfc

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

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

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


From avri at acm.org  Mon Jun 28 15:42:34 2010
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2010 21:42:34 +0200
Subject: [governance] Hi norbert,nance] ICANN declined Bulgarian IDN
 fast-track
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20100628175812.05db22f0@jefsey.com>
References: <201006271255.o5RCt2ra022169@well.com> <54D5F0A4-223C-401D-81CF-FCE7B406902A@acm.org> <4C28BC42.4090906@gmx.net> <06EF922A-DE86-44FD-81B5-86B3DA02FF79@acm.org> <7.0.1.0.2.20100628175812.05db22f0@jefsey.com>
Message-ID: <F83E4636-A5F7-4FE5-9968-2E7561B4AEAA@acm.org>

hi,

leading digits are being considered unsafe. 

a.

On 28 Jun 2010, at 18:15, JFC Morfin wrote:

> At 17:25 28/06/2010, Avri Doria wrote:
>> what is said was the only thing it could possibly be confused with is <.6r>. and since that can't never be a TLD. then there is no confusing similarity.
> 
> Why "6r" could not be a TLD? I mean, you have an RFC reference?
> jfc
> 

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

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

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

From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net  Tue Jun 29 00:24:18 2010
From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker)
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2010 21:24:18 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] Hi norbert,nance] ICANN declined Bulgarian IDN
 fast-track
In-Reply-To: <F83E4636-A5F7-4FE5-9968-2E7561B4AEAA@acm.org>
References: <201006271255.o5RCt2ra022169@well.com> <54D5F0A4-223C-401D-81CF-FCE7B406902A@acm.org> <4C28BC42.4090906@gmx.net> <06EF922A-DE86-44FD-81B5-86B3DA02FF79@acm.org> <7.0.1.0.2.20100628175812.05db22f0@jefsey.com> <F83E4636-A5F7-4FE5-9968-2E7561B4AEAA@acm.org>
Message-ID: <583254.80244.qm@web83902.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>

Please reference



________________________________
From: Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>
To: IGC <governance at lists.cpsr.org>
Sent: Mon, June 28, 2010 12:42:34 PM
Subject: Re: [governance] Hi norbert,nance] ICANN declined Bulgarian IDN fast-track

hi,

leading digits are being considered unsafe. 

a.

On 28 Jun 2010, at 18:15, JFC Morfin wrote:

> At 17:25 28/06/2010, Avri Doria wrote:
>> what is said was the only thing it could possibly be confused with is <.6r>. and since that can't never be a TLD. then there is no confusing similarity.
> 
> Why "6r" could not be a TLD? I mean, you have an RFC reference?
> jfc
> 

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

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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100628/32046826/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net  Tue Jun 29 00:29:52 2010
From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker)
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2010 21:29:52 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] Update on City TLD Governance and Best Practices
In-Reply-To: <4C27AF9F.8060609@paque.net>
References: <00cb01cb1631$745ece90$7800a8c0@powuseren2ihcx> <4C27AF9F.8060609@paque.net>
Message-ID: <811852.98409.qm@web83909.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>

Thomas,

I am sending good intentions for your endeavor.   Update when you have a chance this morning please?



________________________________
From: Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com>
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Thomas Lowenhaupt <toml at communisphere.com>; igf at unog.ch; Marilia Maciel <mariliam at diplomacy.edu>
Sent: Sun, June 27, 2010 1:07:59 PM
Subject: Re: [governance] Update on City TLD Governance and Best Practices

Hi Thomas, 
I hope you have seen the email on remote participation details as your
participation is important. If not, you or anyone else that is
interested in RP should email me privately, please. Marilia Maciel will
be present in Geneva, and handling remote moderation. I suggest you
prepare a short 'intervention' and send it to her to be read, or
arrange to read it yourself. 

It sounds like you have an excellent panel prepared. Have you written
to igf at unog.ch (copied on this email) to ask for an update? Anything
you can confirm before the meeting will facilitate the process.

Good luck! Best, Ginger

On 6/27/2010 3:16 PM, Thomas Lowenhaupt wrote: 
>  
>  
>  > 
>With the IGF Vilnius Open
>Consultation beginning tomorrow, here's an update on my efforts on
>behalf of a proposed City TLD Governance and Best Practices
>Workshop. I'd appreciate advice as to any steps I might take
>to facilitate its acceptance.
> 
>Over the past couple
>of months I've contacted directly, and, via this and a few other lists,
>several hundred people inviting participation on the City TLD Workshop.
>From an expertise perspective, I've received confirmations from an
>exceptional group. Listed in order of their acceptance, the prospective
>participants are Wolfgang Kleinwächter, Dirk Krischenowski, Bertrand de
>La Chapelle, Werner Staub, Thomas Schneider, Hong Xue, Sébastien
>Bachollet, Hawa Diakite, Ana Cristina Amoroso das Neves, Jonathan Shea
>(via remote participation), Izumi Aizu. 
> 
>With my first
>in-person participation on a TLD workshop having taken place at the
>2006 Prague Studienkreis, I knew there was enough expertise to make the
>panel productive with the arrival of Wolfgang's acceptance. And as each
>new one arrived, I saw layer upon later of expertise being added to the
>workshop. 
> 
>I've also received a
>"Yes, if it fits with my other panels" acceptance from a highly desired
>panelist. As well, I've three outstanding invites: to someone from
>the U.S. government to comment on the impact city TLDs might have on
>urban affairs, particularly regionalization. If nothing comes through,
>perhaps an existing panelist might comment on that. The New York City government's
>response, "if there was a definite application filing time we would
>surely be able to arrange something" might change if the ICANN timeline
>is clearer by September. The third outstanding invite, to someone from
>the common pool resource community, is one I'm very hopeful about
>getting a positive response. Question: What is the status of the
>participant list going forward: can it be changed, do I continue the
>pursuit?  
> 
>As we
>approach Vilnius my plan is to reach out to global cities considering
>TLDs, request questions and share these with panelists in preparation. 
> 
>For
>tomorrow's meeting, I'll be participating through the remote channels.
>I'd appreciate any of you who will be in
>Geneva speaking up for the City TLD workshop when appropriate. Beyond
>the fruitful topic and great participants, you might point out we
>should have good technical scores: reasonable geographic and gender
>balance and both moderators at the ready.
> 
>If you
>have a question or feel I've missed something, please let me know.
> 
>Best,
> 
>Tom Lowenhaupt
>---------------------------
> 
>Thomas Lowenhaupt, Founder & Chair
>Connecting.nyc Inc.
> 
>tom at connectingnyc.org
>Jackson Hts., NYC 11372
>718 639 4222
>Web  Wiki  Blog
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100628/22a80ef8/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From karl at cavebear.com  Tue Jun 29 01:36:19 2010
From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach)
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2010 22:36:19 -0700
Subject: [governance] Hi norbert,nance] ICANN declined Bulgarian IDN
 fast-track
In-Reply-To: <F83E4636-A5F7-4FE5-9968-2E7561B4AEAA@acm.org>
References: <201006271255.o5RCt2ra022169@well.com> <54D5F0A4-223C-401D-81CF-FCE7B406902A@acm.org> <4C28BC42.4090906@gmx.net> <06EF922A-DE86-44FD-81B5-86B3DA02FF79@acm.org> <7.0.1.0.2.20100628175812.05db22f0@jefsey.com> <F83E4636-A5F7-4FE5-9968-2E7561B4AEAA@acm.org>
Message-ID: <4C298653.6020803@cavebear.com>

On 06/28/2010 12:42 PM, Avri Doria wrote:

> leading digits are being considered unsafe.

Really?

We've had names in DNS with leading digits ever since the inception of 
DNS - we have the very early (from the 1980's) example "3com.com".

And doing a whois query for names with leading digits e.g. whois 3\* 
tends to reveal that names with leading digits are rather common.

There is, of course an ambiguity when the FQDN (fully qualified domain 
name) contains exactly four labels and each label consists of from one 
to three digits which, if treated as a value, range from 0 to 255.  In 
that case the name looks a lot like an IPv4 address.  That, of course, 
can be remedied by banning TLDs consisting of 0-3 digits that would have 
a value of 0 to 255.

(Is there is any similar potential ambiguity with IPv6 addresses?)

		--karl--

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

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

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


From avri at acm.org  Tue Jun 29 01:48:39 2010
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 07:48:39 +0200
Subject: [governance] ICANN declined Bulgarian IDN fast-track
In-Reply-To: <583254.80244.qm@web83902.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
References: <201006271255.o5RCt2ra022169@well.com> <54D5F0A4-223C-401D-81CF-FCE7B406902A@acm.org> <4C28BC42.4090906@gmx.net> <06EF922A-DE86-44FD-81B5-86B3DA02FF79@acm.org> <7.0.1.0.2.20100628175812.05db22f0@jefsey.com> <F83E4636-A5F7-4FE5-9968-2E7561B4AEAA@acm.org> <583254.80244.qm@web83902.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <EF7AAEE7-91AB-472E-B041-5622DED8105A@acm.org>

hi,

i may be wrong.  the DAG says:

Part I -- Technical Requirements for all Labels (Strings) – The
technical requirements for top-level domain labels follow.

1.1 The ASCII label (i.e., the label as transmitted on the wire) must be valid as specified in technical standards Domain Names: Implementation and Specification (RFC 1035), and Clarifications to the DNS Specification (RFC 2181). This includes the following:

1.1.1 The label must have no more than 63 characters.

1.1.2 Upper and lower case characters are treated as identical.

1.2 The ASCII label must be a valid host name, as specified in the technical standards DOD Internet Host Table Specification (RFC 952), Requirements for Internet Hosts — Application and Support (RFC 1123), and Application Techniques for Checking and Transformation of Names (RFC 3696). This includes the following:

1.2.1 The label must consist entirely of letters, digits and hyphens.

1.2.2 The label must not start or end with a hyphen.

1.3 There must be no possibility for confusing an ASCII label for an IP address or other numerical identifier by application software. For example, representations such as “255”, “o377” (255 in octal) or “0xff” (255 in hexadecimal) as the top-level domain can be interpreted as IP addresses. As such, labels:

1.3.1 Must not be wholly comprised of digits between “0” and “9.”

1.3.2 Must not commence with “0x” or “x,” and have the remainder of the label wholly
comprised of hexadecimal digits, “0” to “9” and “a” through “f.”

1.3.3 Must not commence with “0o” or “o,” and have the remainder of the label wholly comprised of digits between “0” and “7.”

1.4 The ASCII label may only include hyphens in the third and fourth position if it represents a valid internationalized domain name in its A-label form (ASCII encoding as described in Part II).

1.5 The presentation format of the domain (i.e., either the label for ASCII domains, or the U-label for internationalized domain names) must not begin or
end with a digit.2

so by this it seems ok.  though policy would still forbid giving it to anyone other than a country form who 6r was a meaningful representation, but the rule i getting wrong was that it could not start and end with a digit.  and that is in the DAG and has to do with concern over misinterpretation by various applications in the world.

----

but then again  - rfc 1035

The following syntax will result in fewer problems with many

applications that use domain names (e.g., mail, TELNET).

<domain> ::= <subdomain> | " "

<subdomain> ::= <label> | <subdomain> "." <label>

<label> ::= <letter> [ [ <ldh-str> ] <let-dig> ]

<ldh-str> ::= <let-dig-hyp> | <let-dig-hyp> <ldh-str>

<let-dig-hyp> ::= <let-dig> | "-"

<let-dig> ::= <letter> | <digit>

<letter> ::= any one of the 52 alphabetic characters A through Z in
upper case and a through z in lower case

<digit> ::= any one of the ten digits 0 through 9

Note that while upper and lower case letters are allowed in domain
names, no significance is attached to the case.  That is, two names with
the same spelling but different case are to be treated as if identical.

The labels must follow the rules for ARPANET host names.  They must
start with a letter, end with a letter or digit, and have as interior
characters only letters, digits, and hyphen.  There are also some
restrictions on the length.  Labels must be 63 characters or less.



a.

On 29 Jun 2010, at 06:24, Eric Dierker wrote:

> Please reference
> 
> From: Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>
> To: IGC <governance at lists.cpsr.org>
> Sent: Mon, June 28, 2010 12:42:34 PM
> Subject: Re: [governance] Hi norbert,nance] ICANN declined Bulgarian IDN fast-track
> 
> hi,
> 
> leading digits are being considered unsafe. 
> 
> a.
> 
> On 28 Jun 2010, at 18:15, JFC Morfin wrote:
> 
> > At 17:25 28/06/2010, Avri Doria wrote:
> >> what is said was the only thing it could possibly be confused with is <.6r>. and since that can't never be a TLD. then there is no confusing similarity.
> > 
> > Why "6r" could not be a TLD? I mean, you have an RFC reference?
> > jfc
> > 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

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

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

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

From mariliamaciel at gmail.com  Tue Jun 29 05:15:15 2010
From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 06:15:15 -0300
Subject: [governance] Remote participation in the Open Consultations
Message-ID: <AANLkTikuhyXpDZP9S18-SJKm8Akc1U-8VIghWxVeUT7w@mail.gmail.com>

Good morning,

The open consultations is taking place now and making decisions about the
workshop proposals for the next IGF. If you have a comment to make, please
write to june2010 at intgovforum.org, send a Twitter message with #IGF10 or
contact me through skype: marilia.ferreira.maciel. Live interventions
through Skype are also welcome.
Best wishes,

Marilia

On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 6:29 AM, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>wrote:

> Good morning everybody,
>
> Just a quick remind that you can participate remotely in the Geneva Open
> Consultations for the preparation of the IGF. See the instructions to access
> the webcast at the IGF website: www.intgovforum.org
>
> To participate remotely, send an e-mail to june2010 at intgovforum.org, or a
> Twitter message with #IGF. To make a live intervention you can contact me
> through Skype (marilia.ferreira.maciel) and I will give you the microphone
> :)
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Marília
>
> On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 1:03 PM, Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>  Remote participation will again be available for the IGF Planning
>> Meeting in Geneva (next week). Marilia Maciel of the IGF Remote
>> Participation Working Group will be present at the meeting, and will act as
>> remote/online moderator. You can find her online during the remote
>> participation, through the provided platform (watch for updated links at
>> www.intgovforum.org) and you can also send questions or comments tojune2010 at intgovforum.org
>>
>> This will be particularly helpful if you have input to the main session
>> planning or for workshops. I suggest that you take advantage of the
>> opportunity, as the IGF Secretariat is ensuring that remote participants are
>> heard.
>>
>> Please keep in mind that this is a planning meeting for IGF10 in Vilnius,
>> and other issues will not be address at this meeting. Comments can always be
>> sent to igf at unog.ch, and will be taken into consideration.
>>
>> 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
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
> FGV Direito Rio
>
> Center for Technology and Society
> Getulio Vargas Foundation
> Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>



-- 
Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
FGV Direito Rio

Center for Technology and Society
Getulio Vargas Foundation
Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100629/dfe795bc/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From gpaque at gmail.com  Tue Jun 29 05:32:56 2010
From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque)
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 05:02:56 -0430
Subject: [governance] IGF Workshop Proposal No. 56 URGENT
Message-ID: <4C29BDC8.9080308@gmail.com>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100629/ccef3113/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From gpaque at gmail.com  Tue Jun 29 05:34:05 2010
From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque)
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 05:04:05 -0430
Subject: [governance] Resend: Upcoming planning meeting in Geneva and other
 IGC business
Message-ID: <4C29BE0D.4080205@gmail.com>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100629/302fc5e5/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From mariliamaciel at gmail.com  Tue Jun 29 05:37:10 2010
From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 06:37:10 -0300
Subject: [governance] IGF Workshop Proposal No. 56 URGENT
In-Reply-To: <4C29BDC8.9080308@gmail.com>
References: <4C29BDC8.9080308@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTim0QbMdmaefzFkS0HXWIVEC2mijL0DqlbAUzFYF@mail.gmail.com>

We will ask what are the issues with this proposal and get back to you

On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 6:32 AM, Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com> wrote:

>  Jeremy and others who proposed Workshop No. 56  transnational enforcement
> of a new information order...
>
> There are issues that need to be addressed before this proposal can move
> forward. In order to be approved, this must be resolved. If any of you can
> check in to the IGF Planning meeting on remote participation, or email
> Raquel Gatto, who is moderating remote participation today, she will help
> present questions and find answers in the meeting. Raquel and Marilia, the
> remote moderators, are both members of the IGC and have offered to help push
> this workshop forward, but as none of us is an organizer, we are not aware
> of the issues. Please contact them as soon as possible! (I am in the Caracas
> airport, waiting for a flight, so best contact them).
>
> Thanks!
> 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
>



-- 
Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
FGV Direito Rio

Center for Technology and Society
Getulio Vargas Foundation
Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100629/aeb2e0c5/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From jefsey at jefsey.com  Tue Jun 29 05:39:36 2010
From: jefsey at jefsey.com (jefsey)
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 11:39:36 +0200
Subject: [governance] ICANN declined Bulgarian IDN fast-track
In-Reply-To: <EF7AAEE7-91AB-472E-B041-5622DED8105A@acm.org>
References: <201006271255.o5RCt2ra022169@well.com>
 <54D5F0A4-223C-401D-81CF-FCE7B406902A@acm.org>
 <4C28BC42.4090906@gmx.net>
 <06EF922A-DE86-44FD-81B5-86B3DA02FF79@acm.org>
 <7.0.1.0.2.20100628175812.05db22f0@jefsey.com>
 <F83E4636-A5F7-4FE5-9968-2E7561B4AEAA@acm.org>
 <583254.80244.qm@web83902.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
 <EF7AAEE7-91AB-472E-B041-5622DED8105A@acm.org>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20100629112426.05db2be8@jefsey.com>

At 07:48 29/06/2010, Avri Doria wrote:
>hi,
>i may be wrong.  the DAG says:


Hi!
What is the "DAG"? Is it published with an RFC number?

Look I used to operate around 1200 all numeric TLDs (French post 
codes) for a few years with national access. This "webs de france" 
test project was also included in the "dot-root" community test-bed I 
ran and reported (in French) a few years ago, along the ICANN ICP-3 
requested testing for the non-unique root possible future of the DNS.

This was part of the various "intertests" (real life testing on the 
public internet) which lead to the IUI architectural IDNA2008 
requirements that IAB is now to deal with, and to the VROOM concept 
of unique Virtual Root Open Matrix, ICANN should consider seriously 
and quickly (still time, dont tell I did not warned them!) before 
giving away TLDs for big money that might sell for free soon enough now.

Building an ISOCANN bulb with its own people, laws, rules, contracts, 
technology, economy is a second life interesting game, but it is only 
second life. Prime life is more fun. You will enjoy ML-DNS.

jfc




>Part I -- Technical Requirements for all Labels (Strings) ­ The
>technical requirements for top-level domain labels follow.
>
>1.1 The ASCII label (i.e., the label as transmitted on the wire) 
>must be valid as specified in technical standards Domain Names: 
>Implementation and Specification (RFC 1035), and Clarifications to 
>the DNS Specification (RFC 2181). This includes the following:
>
>1.1.1 The label must have no more than 63 characters.
>
>1.1.2 Upper and lower case characters are treated as identical.
>
>1.2 The ASCII label must be a valid host name, as specified in the 
>technical standards DOD Internet Host Table Specification (RFC 952), 
>Requirements for Internet Hosts — Application and Support (RFC 
>1123), and Application Techniques for Checking and Transformation of 
>Names (RFC 3696). This includes the following:
>
>1.2.1 The label must consist entirely of letters, digits and hyphens.
>
>1.2.2 The label must not start or end with a hyphen.
>
>1.3 There must be no possibility for confusing an ASCII label for an 
>IP address or other numerical identifier by application software. 
>For example, representations such as "255", "o377" (255 in octal) or 
>"0xff" (255 in hexadecimal) as the top-level domain can be 
>interpreted as IP addresses. As such, labels:
>
>1.3.1 Must not be wholly comprised of digits between "0" and "9."
>
>1.3.2 Must not commence with "0x" or "x," and have the remainder of 
>the label wholly
>comprised of hexadecimal digits, "0" to "9" and "a" through "f."
>
>1.3.3 Must not commence with "0o" or "o," and have the remainder of 
>the label wholly comprised of digits between "0" and "7."
>
>1.4 The ASCII label may only include hyphens in the third and fourth 
>position if it represents a valid internationalized domain name in 
>its A-label form (ASCII encoding as described in Part II).
>
>1.5 The presentation format of the domain (i.e., either the label 
>for ASCII domains, or the U-label for internationalized domain 
>names) must not begin or
>end with a digit.2
>
>so by this it seems ok.  though policy would still forbid giving it 
>to anyone other than a country form who 6r was a meaningful 
>representation, but the rule i getting wrong was that it could not 
>start and end with a digit.  and that is in the DAG and has to do 
>with concern over misinterpretation by various applications in the world.
>
>----
>
>but then again  - rfc 1035
>
>The following syntax will result in fewer problems with many
>
>applications that use domain names (e.g., mail, TELNET).
>
><domain> ::= <subdomain> | " "
>
><subdomain> ::= <label> | <subdomain> "." <label>
>
><label> ::= <letter> [ [ <ldh-str> ] <let-dig> ]
>
><ldh-str> ::= <let-dig-hyp> | <let-dig-hyp> <ldh-str>
>
><let-dig-hyp> ::= <let-dig> | "-"
>
><let-dig> ::= <letter> | <digit>
>
><letter> ::= any one of the 52 alphabetic characters A through Z in
>upper case and a through z in lower case
>
><digit> ::= any one of the ten digits 0 through 9
>
>Note that while upper and lower case letters are allowed in domain
>names, no significance is attached to the case.  That is, two names with
>the same spelling but different case are to be treated as if identical.
>
>The labels must follow the rules for ARPANET host names.  They must
>start with a letter, end with a letter or digit, and have as interior
>characters only letters, digits, and hyphen.  There are also some
>restrictions on the length.  Labels must be 63 characters or less.
>
>
>
>a.
>
>On 29 Jun 2010, at 06:24, Eric Dierker wrote:
>
> > Please reference
> >
> > From: Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>
> > To: IGC <governance at lists.cpsr.org>
> > Sent: Mon, June 28, 2010 12:42:34 PM
> > Subject: Re: [governance] Hi norbert,nance] ICANN declined 
> Bulgarian IDN fast-track
> >
> > hi,
> >
> > leading digits are being considered unsafe.
> >
> > a.
> >
> > On 28 Jun 2010, at 18:15, JFC Morfin wrote:
> >
> > > At 17:25 28/06/2010, Avri Doria wrote:
> > >> what is said was the only thing it could possibly be confused 
> with is <.6r>. and since that can't never be a TLD. then there is 
> no confusing similarity.
> > >
> > > Why "6r" could not be a TLD? I mean, you have an RFC reference?
> > > jfc
> > >
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> >
> > For all list information and functions, see:
> >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> >
> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
>For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

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

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

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


From mariliamaciel at gmail.com  Tue Jun 29 05:42:05 2010
From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 06:42:05 -0300
Subject: [governance] IGC Workshop 56 urgent
Message-ID: <AANLkTikO9oOgVUHIoOiZ_aqU9gGkmHSv88L04eYYh2Qk@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all,

Workshop 56 Transnational (or transborder) enforcement from IGC is being
discussed and maybe removed
Would anyone want to adress this through remote participation?

Standing by
Marilia
-- 
Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
FGV Direito Rio

Center for Technology and Society
Getulio Vargas Foundation
Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100629/7a51f13d/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From mariliamaciel at gmail.com  Tue Jun 29 05:45:28 2010
From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 06:45:28 -0300
Subject: [governance] Update on City TLD Governance and Best Practices
In-Reply-To: <4C27AF9F.8060609@paque.net>
References: <00cb01cb1631$745ece90$7800a8c0@powuseren2ihcx>
	<4C27AF9F.8060609@paque.net>
Message-ID: <AANLkTinTsQ5l42kJCiVEnRtyeqdSYrzKCBbgCDYBwxxt@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Thomas,

I am not sure you have been receinving my message through twitter. The
workshop on City TLD has been approved.
Just making sure you know it.
Best,
Marilia

On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 5:07 PM, Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com> wrote:

>  Hi Thomas,
> I hope you have seen the email on remote participation details as your
> participation is important. If not, you or anyone else that is interested in
> RP should email me privately, please. Marilia Maciel will be present in
> Geneva, and handling remote moderation. I suggest you prepare a short
> 'intervention' and send it to her to be read, or arrange to read it
> yourself.
>
> It sounds like you have an excellent panel prepared. Have you written to
> igf at unog.ch (copied on this email) to ask for an update? Anything you can
> confirm before the meeting will facilitate the process.
>
> Good luck! Best, Ginger
>
> On 6/27/2010 3:16 PM, Thomas Lowenhaupt wrote:
>
> With the IGF Vilnius Open Consultation beginning tomorrow, here's an update
> on my efforts on behalf of a proposed City TLD Governance and Best Practices
> Workshop. I'd appreciate advice as to any steps I might take to facilitate
> its acceptance.
>
> Over the past couple of months I've contacted directly, and, via this and a
> few other lists, several hundred people inviting participation on the City
> TLD Workshop. From an expertise perspective, I've received confirmations
> from an exceptional group. Listed in order of their acceptance,
> the prospective participants are Wolfgang Kleinwächter, Dirk Krischenowski,
> Bertrand de La Chapelle, Werner Staub, Thomas Schneider, Hong Xue, Sébastien
> Bachollet, Hawa Diakite, Ana Cristina Amoroso das Neves, Jonathan Shea (via
> remote participation), Izumi Aizu.
>
> With my first in-person participation on a TLD workshop having taken place
> at the 2006 Prague Studienkreis, I knew there was enough expertise to make
> the panel productive with the arrival of Wolfgang's acceptance. And as each
> new one arrived, I saw layer upon later of expertise being added to the
> workshop.
>
> I've also received a "Yes, if it fits with my other panels" acceptance from
> a highly desired panelist. As well, I've three outstanding invites: to
> someone from the U.S. government to comment on the impact city TLDs might
> have on urban affairs, particularly regionalization. If nothing comes
> through, perhaps an existing panelist might comment on that. The New York
> City government's response, "if there was a definite application filing time
> we would surely be able to arrange something" might change if the ICANN
> timeline is clearer by September. The third outstanding invite, to someone
> from the common pool resource community, is one I'm very hopeful about
> getting a positive response. Question: What is the status of the participant
> list going forward: can it be changed, do I continue the pursuit?
>
> As we approach Vilnius my plan is to reach out to global cities considering
> TLDs, request questions and share these with panelists in preparation.
>
> For tomorrow's meeting, I'll be participating through the remote channels.
> I'd appreciate any of you who will be in Geneva speaking up for the City
> TLD workshop when appropriate. Beyond the fruitful topic and great
> participants, you might point out we should have good technical
> scores: reasonable geographic and gender balance and both moderators at the
> ready.
>
> If you have a question or feel I've missed something, please let me know.
>
> Best,
>
>  Tom Lowenhaupt
> ---------------------------
>
> Thomas Lowenhaupt, Founder & Chair
> Connecting.nyc Inc.
>
> tom at connectingnyc.org
> Jackson Hts., NYC 11372
> 718 639 4222
> Web <http://www.connectingnyc.org/>  Wiki<http://www.connectingnyc.openplans.org/>
> Blog <http://www.openplans.org/projects/campaign-for.nyc/blog/>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>



-- 
Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
FGV Direito Rio

Center for Technology and Society
Getulio Vargas Foundation
Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100629/3b438c0d/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From katitza at eff.org  Tue Jun 29 05:46:14 2010
From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez)
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 11:46:14 +0200
Subject: [governance] IGC Workshop 56 urgent
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikO9oOgVUHIoOiZ_aqU9gGkmHSv88L04eYYh2Qk@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTikO9oOgVUHIoOiZ_aqU9gGkmHSv88L04eYYh2Qk@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4C29C0E6.6000306@eff.org>

Dear all

This workshop needs to confirm all their panelist to be able to give it 
the green light. We were able to do so but you need to update the 
website as soon as possible. As far as I remember, it was Parminder who 
where coordinating this workshop?

Gwen Hinze, EFF International Director, will be in IGF Lithuania this 
year, and she would be great speaker if she is available (we need to ask 
for her availability).

Best, Katitza



On 6/29/10 11:42 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> Workshop 56 Transnational (or transborder) enforcement from IGC is 
> being discussed and maybe removed
> Would anyone want to adress this through remote participation?
>
> Standing by
> Marilia
> -- 
> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
> FGV Direito Rio
>
> Center for Technology and Society
> Getulio Vargas Foundation
> Rio de Janeiro - Brazil


-- 
Katitza Rodriguez
International Rights Director
Electronic Frontier Foundation
katitza at eff.org
katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email)

Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990

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

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

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


From mariliamaciel at gmail.com  Tue Jun 29 05:48:51 2010
From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 06:48:51 -0300
Subject: [governance] Re: IGC Workshop 56 urgent
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikO9oOgVUHIoOiZ_aqU9gGkmHSv88L04eYYh2Qk@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTikO9oOgVUHIoOiZ_aqU9gGkmHSv88L04eYYh2Qk@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTilakMbYv0_muf5yiHs09F_TzgHjfPm6GuhG5cHo@mail.gmail.com>

Due to support given to this proposal from people in the room, it has been
approved and moved to development. The names of the speakers should be
updated as soon as possible, though.

Best,
Marilia

On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 6:42 AM, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> Workshop 56 Transnational (or transborder) enforcement from IGC is being
> discussed and maybe removed
> Would anyone want to adress this through remote participation?
>
> Standing by
> Marilia
> --
> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
> FGV Direito Rio
>
> Center for Technology and Society
> Getulio Vargas Foundation
> Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
>



-- 
Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
FGV Direito Rio

Center for Technology and Society
Getulio Vargas Foundation
Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100629/86cabe4d/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From gpaque at gmail.com  Tue Jun 29 05:49:41 2010
From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque)
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 05:19:41 -0430
Subject: [governance] IGC Workshop 56 urgent
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikO9oOgVUHIoOiZ_aqU9gGkmHSv88L04eYYh2Qk@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTikO9oOgVUHIoOiZ_aqU9gGkmHSv88L04eYYh2Qk@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4C29C1B5.6090208@paque.net>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100629/5add782d/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch  Tue Jun 29 05:54:31 2010
From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake)
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 11:54:31 +0200
Subject: [governance] IGC Workshop 56 urgent
In-Reply-To: <4C29C0E6.6000306@eff.org>
References: <AANLkTikO9oOgVUHIoOiZ_aqU9gGkmHSv88L04eYYh2Qk@mail.gmail.com> <4C29C0E6.6000306@eff.org>
Message-ID: <C8B49BC7-E3F1-4A7A-B910-A235F8AA5878@graduateinstitute.ch>

Hi

It's staying in.  But along related lines, I see two of the three IGC-sponsored workshop proposals have speaker line-ups, and don't recall any discussion of these on the list after their initial formulation.  Did I miss something?  Just wondering…

Thanks,

Bill 


On Jun 29, 2010, at 11:46 AM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote:

> Dear all
> 
> This workshop needs to confirm all their panelist to be able to give it the green light. We were able to do so but you need to update the website as soon as possible. As far as I remember, it was Parminder who where coordinating this workshop?
> 
> Gwen Hinze, EFF International Director, will be in IGF Lithuania this year, and she would be great speaker if she is available (we need to ask for her availability).
> 
> Best, Katitza
> 
> 
> 
> On 6/29/10 11:42 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote:
>> Dear all,
>> 
>> Workshop 56 Transnational (or transborder) enforcement from IGC is being discussed and maybe removed
>> Would anyone want to adress this through remote participation?
>> 
>> Standing by
>> Marilia
>> -- 
>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
>> FGV Direito Rio
>> 
>> Center for Technology and Society
>> Getulio Vargas Foundation
>> Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
> 
> 
> -- 
> Katitza Rodriguez
> International Rights Director
> Electronic Frontier Foundation
> katitza at eff.org
> katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email)
> 
> Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

***********************************************************
William J. Drake
Senior Associate
Centre for International Governance
Graduate Institute of International and
 Development Studies
Geneva, Switzerland
william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch
www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html
www.linkedin.com/in/williamjdrake
***********************************************************


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

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

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

From jeremy at ciroap.org  Tue Jun 29 06:00:01 2010
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 18:00:01 +0800
Subject: [governance] IGC Workshop 56 urgent
In-Reply-To: <C8B49BC7-E3F1-4A7A-B910-A235F8AA5878@graduateinstitute.ch>
References: <AANLkTikO9oOgVUHIoOiZ_aqU9gGkmHSv88L04eYYh2Qk@mail.gmail.com> <4C29C0E6.6000306@eff.org> <C8B49BC7-E3F1-4A7A-B910-A235F8AA5878@graduateinstitute.ch>
Message-ID: <9E87063B-9CB3-4586-BAAC-8110C8BA9665@ciroap.org>

On 29/06/2010, at 5:54 PM, William Drake wrote:

> It's staying in.  But along related lines, I see two of the three IGC-sponsored workshop proposals have speaker line-ups, and don't recall any discussion of these on the list after their initial formulation.  Did I miss something?  Just wondering…

Those who proposed the workshops* invited the speakers off-list, including anyone who had previously expressed interest in the workshops on-list.

On a procedural issue, I think we can suggest some improvements to this process whereby the fate of a workshop depends on a decision made in the room, even if the workshop proponents are not available.  We could suggest instead that decisions be made using a wiki, mailing list or polling software that doesn't put remote participants at a disadvantage.

* This was Parminder and myself for the workshops you're referring to; Fouad decided not to have panelists for the workshop he proposed.

-- 
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 katitza at eff.org  Tue Jun 29 06:02:27 2010
From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez)
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 12:02:27 +0200
Subject: [governance] workshop 70:  Policy, governance and participation:
 Harnessing all aspects of the net for youth activism
Message-ID: <4C29C4B3.4020407@eff.org>

Greetings,

We should support workshop 70 and make sure that they are green lighted. 
See description below.

Workshop 70:  Policy, governance and participation: Harnessing all 
aspects of the net for youth activism
Globally, youth activists are increasingly turning to online platforms 
and social media as means for initiating and organizing social action. 
However, along with the enabling factors, youth activists find numerous 
barriers to entry in participation in social media. They often find that 
norms, local laws, and international treaties hinder open participation 
in these media platforms when it comes to social, political, and 
cultural activism. The variety or rules and regulations that may govern 
the same social media platform in different parts of the world creates 
great confusion. Differences in quality of communication infratructure 
and inequality in the level of online skills add another tear of 
complexity when it comes to efficient utilization of social media in 
youth activism.

Multi-stakeholder initiatives like the Global Network Initiative are 
working to create broad standards for online platforms. Numerous NGOs 
are acting to bridge the access and the skills divides. But what else 
can be done? This workshop will discuss the various ways in which social 
media can be used to increase transparency and ways in which youth 
activists, can evoke change using such platforms. It will bring together 
social media professionals and youth activists to discuss ways to 
encourage youth participation and will hear from the youth themselves 
about how they use and would like to use social networks, blogs, and 
other social media for creation of positive change.

*Which of the five broad IGF Themes or the Cross-Cutting Priorities does 
your workshop fall under?*
Security, Openness and Privacy

*Have you organized an IGF workshop before?* Yes
*If so, please provide the link to the report:*
http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/component/chronocontact/?chronoformname=Workshopsreports2009View&curr=1&wr=46 
<http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/component/chronocontact/?chronoformname=Workshopsreports2009View&curr=1&wr=46> 


*Provide the names and affiliations of the panellists you are planning 
to invite:*
Jillian York, Berkman Center for Internet & Society (USA)
Mary Joyce, DigiActive (USA)
Hisham Khribchi, Global Voices Online (Morocco)
Rebecca MacKinnon, Visiting Fellow at Princeton's Center for Information 
Technology Policy (USA)
Lucie Morillon or Clothilde le Coz of Reporters Without Borders (France)
Robert Guerra, Internet FreedomHouse (Canada)
Sami Ben Ghrabia, Global Voices Advocacy (Tunisia)
Issac Mao, Blogger, (China)
Victoria Grand, YouTube
Robin Sloane,Twitter

*Provide the name of the organizer(s) of the workshop and their 
affiliation to various stakeholder groups:*
Global Voices Online, Academia
Berkman Center For Internet & Society, Academia
Youth Coalition on Internet Governance, Multi-stakeholder group

*Organization:*The Berkman Center for Internet & Society

*Contact Person:* Jillian York

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100629/5c06ee52/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From b.schombe at gmail.com  Tue Jun 29 07:52:23 2010
From: b.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin SCHOMBE)
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 12:52:23 +0100
Subject: [governance] Update on City TLD Governance and Best Practices
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinTsQ5l42kJCiVEnRtyeqdSYrzKCBbgCDYBwxxt@mail.gmail.com>
References: <00cb01cb1631$745ece90$7800a8c0@powuseren2ihcx> 
	<4C27AF9F.8060609@paque.net> <AANLkTinTsQ5l42kJCiVEnRtyeqdSYrzKCBbgCDYBwxxt@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTinH_jDZBv5PVQ5hLn9lMqe6_ve5NNKnMm3B5otl@mail.gmail.com>

I am involved in this option because we have proposed for our national
workshop with  theme "new gTLDs and best practices for cities."
I think it logically corresponds to the theme of the year compared with the
day World Telecommunication and Information Society, including "*Better
city, better life with ICTs".*
This theme is also involved in the consideration of most major urban areas
in Africa and particularly in Congo Kinshasa, which have no website.

we support this workshop.

SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN
COORDONNATEUR DU CENTRE AFRICAIN D'ECHANGE CULTUREL (CAFEC)
COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC
MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE
GNSO and NCUC MEMBER (ICANN)

Téléphone mobile: +243998983491/+243999334571
                          +243811980914
email:                   b.schombe at gmail.com
blog:                     http://akimambo.unblog.fr
siège temporaire : Boulevard du 30 juin Immeuble   Royal, Entrée A,7e
niveau.


2010/6/29 Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>

> Dear Thomas,
>
> I am not sure you have been receinving my message through twitter. The
> workshop on City TLD has been approved.
> Just making sure you know it.
> Best,
> Marilia
>
> On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 5:07 PM, Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>  Hi Thomas,
>> I hope you have seen the email on remote participation details as your
>> participation is important. If not, you or anyone else that is interested in
>> RP should email me privately, please. Marilia Maciel will be present in
>> Geneva, and handling remote moderation. I suggest you prepare a short
>> 'intervention' and send it to her to be read, or arrange to read it
>> yourself.
>>
>> It sounds like you have an excellent panel prepared. Have you written to
>> igf at unog.ch (copied on this email) to ask for an update? Anything you can
>> confirm before the meeting will facilitate the process.
>>
>> Good luck! Best, Ginger
>>
>> On 6/27/2010 3:16 PM, Thomas Lowenhaupt wrote:
>>
>> With the IGF Vilnius Open Consultation beginning tomorrow, here's an
>> update on my efforts on behalf of a proposed City TLD Governance and Best
>> Practices Workshop. I'd appreciate advice as to any steps I might take
>> to facilitate its acceptance.
>>
>> Over the past couple of months I've contacted directly, and, via this and
>> a few other lists, several hundred people inviting participation on the City
>> TLD Workshop. From an expertise perspective, I've received confirmations
>> from an exceptional group. Listed in order of their acceptance,
>> the prospective participants are Wolfgang Kleinwächter, Dirk Krischenowski,
>> Bertrand de La Chapelle, Werner Staub, Thomas Schneider, Hong Xue, Sébastien
>> Bachollet, Hawa Diakite, Ana Cristina Amoroso das Neves, Jonathan Shea (via
>> remote participation), Izumi Aizu.
>>
>> With my first in-person participation on a TLD workshop having taken place
>> at the 2006 Prague Studienkreis, I knew there was enough expertise to make
>> the panel productive with the arrival of Wolfgang's acceptance. And as each
>> new one arrived, I saw layer upon later of expertise being added to the
>> workshop.
>>
>> I've also received a "Yes, if it fits with my other panels" acceptance
>> from a highly desired panelist. As well, I've three outstanding invites:
>> to someone from the U.S. government to comment on the impact city TLDs might
>> have on urban affairs, particularly regionalization. If nothing comes
>> through, perhaps an existing panelist might comment on that. The New York
>> City government's response, "if there was a definite application filing time
>> we would surely be able to arrange something" might change if the ICANN
>> timeline is clearer by September. The third outstanding invite, to someone
>> from the common pool resource community, is one I'm very hopeful about
>> getting a positive response. Question: What is the status of the participant
>> list going forward: can it be changed, do I continue the pursuit?
>>
>> As we approach Vilnius my plan is to reach out to global cities
>> considering TLDs, request questions and share these with panelists in
>> preparation.
>>
>> For tomorrow's meeting, I'll be participating through the remote channels.
>> I'd appreciate any of you who will be in Geneva speaking up for the City
>> TLD workshop when appropriate. Beyond the fruitful topic and great
>> participants, you might point out we should have good technical
>> scores: reasonable geographic and gender balance and both moderators at the
>> ready.
>>
>> If you have a question or feel I've missed something, please let me know.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>>  Tom Lowenhaupt
>> ---------------------------
>>
>> Thomas Lowenhaupt, Founder & Chair
>> Connecting.nyc Inc.
>>
>> tom at connectingnyc.org
>> Jackson Hts., NYC 11372
>> 718 639 4222
>> Web <http://www.connectingnyc.org/>  Wiki<http://www.connectingnyc.openplans.org/>
>> Blog <http://www.openplans.org/projects/campaign-for.nyc/blog/>
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
> FGV Direito Rio
>
> Center for Technology and Society
> Getulio Vargas Foundation
> Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100629/838779c4/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From mariliamaciel at gmail.com  Tue Jun 29 08:37:15 2010
From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 09:37:15 -0300
Subject: [governance] Re: Remote participation in the Open Consultations
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikuhyXpDZP9S18-SJKm8Akc1U-8VIghWxVeUT7w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTikuhyXpDZP9S18-SJKm8Akc1U-8VIghWxVeUT7w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTikj-HpicAtDyXIlWGkGWxf2QmDl56iSby_cVkkj@mail.gmail.com>

This afternoon we are discussing the schedule. See the draft list here:
http://tinyurl.com/277th3b

Make your comments by e-mail, Twitter or chat and I will forward them

Marilia

On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 6:15 AM, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>wrote:

> Good morning,
>
> The open consultations is taking place now and making decisions about the
> workshop proposals for the next IGF. If you have a comment to make, please
> write to june2010 at intgovforum.org, send a Twitter message with #IGF10 or
> contact me through skype: marilia.ferreira.maciel. Live interventions
> through Skype are also welcome.
> Best wishes,
>
> Marilia
>
> On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 6:29 AM, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Good morning everybody,
>>
>> Just a quick remind that you can participate remotely in the Geneva Open
>> Consultations for the preparation of the IGF. See the instructions to access
>> the webcast at the IGF website: www.intgovforum.org
>>
>> To participate remotely, send an e-mail to june2010 at intgovforum.org, or a
>> Twitter message with #IGF. To make a live intervention you can contact me
>> through Skype (marilia.ferreira.maciel) and I will give you the microphone
>> :)
>>
>> Best wishes,
>>
>> Marília
>>
>> On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 1:03 PM, Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>  Remote participation will again be available for the IGF Planning
>>> Meeting in Geneva (next week). Marilia Maciel of the IGF Remote
>>> Participation Working Group will be present at the meeting, and will act as
>>> remote/online moderator. You can find her online during the remote
>>> participation, through the provided platform (watch for updated links at
>>> www.intgovforum.org) and you can also send questions or comments tojune2010 at intgovforum.org
>>>
>>> This will be particularly helpful if you have input to the main session
>>> planning or for workshops. I suggest that you take advantage of the
>>> opportunity, as the IGF Secretariat is ensuring that remote participants are
>>> heard.
>>>
>>> Please keep in mind that this is a planning meeting for IGF10 in Vilnius,
>>> and other issues will not be address at this meeting. Comments can always be
>>> sent to igf at unog.ch, and will be taken into consideration.
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
>> FGV Direito Rio
>>
>> Center for Technology and Society
>> Getulio Vargas Foundation
>> Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
> FGV Direito Rio
>
> Center for Technology and Society
> Getulio Vargas Foundation
> Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
>



-- 
Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
FGV Direito Rio

Center for Technology and Society
Getulio Vargas Foundation
Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100629/376c42b3/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From roland at internetpolicyagency.com  Tue Jun 29 11:49:31 2010
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 16:49:31 +0100
Subject: [governance] IGC Workshop 56 urgent
In-Reply-To: <9E87063B-9CB3-4586-BAAC-8110C8BA9665@ciroap.org>
References: <AANLkTikO9oOgVUHIoOiZ_aqU9gGkmHSv88L04eYYh2Qk@mail.gmail.com>
 <4C29C0E6.6000306@eff.org>
 <C8B49BC7-E3F1-4A7A-B910-A235F8AA5878@graduateinstitute.ch>
 <9E87063B-9CB3-4586-BAAC-8110C8BA9665@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <1iHszxfLYhKMFA+M@perry.co.uk>

In message <9E87063B-9CB3-4586-BAAC-8110C8BA9665 at ciroap.org>, at 
18:00:01 on Tue, 29 Jun 2010, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> writes
>On a procedural issue, I think we can suggest some improvements to this
>process whereby the fate of a workshop depends on a decision made in
>the room, even if the workshop proponents are not available.

The decisions were made on the basis of the proposals filed (some time 
ago) with the secretariat, with quite clear deadlines. That's a 100% 
"remote participation" exercise.

All that happened in the room today, was some special pleading which 
allowed a few workshops, whose proposals didn't meet the well known 
criteria, to be given a reprieve.

At the last count, that resulted in 96 sessions, well above the number 
that was hoped for. And there are quite a few qualifying proposals 
"missing in action" that will add to that. Nine parallel streams, plus 
the main sessions.

Unlike last year, there were relatively few "forced marriages" between 
two similar workshops. Most of that (for some of the themes anyway) was 
done at the *previous* meeting.
-- 
Roland Perry
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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


From avri at acm.org  Tue Jun 29 12:35:27 2010
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 18:35:27 +0200
Subject: [governance] IGC Workshop 56 urgent
In-Reply-To: <1iHszxfLYhKMFA+M@perry.co.uk>
References: <AANLkTikO9oOgVUHIoOiZ_aqU9gGkmHSv88L04eYYh2Qk@mail.gmail.com> <4C29C0E6.6000306@eff.org> <C8B49BC7-E3F1-4A7A-B910-A235F8AA5878@graduateinstitute.ch> <9E87063B-9CB3-4586-BAAC-8110C8BA9665@ciroap.org> <1iHszxfLYhKMFA+M@perry.co.uk>
Message-ID: <EC97185A-D29E-4872-A930-BEA4CAE3FF0A@acm.org>

Hi,

I would also like to point out that it was an open meeting and anyone could participate either remotely on in person.

a.

On 29 Jun 2010, at 17:49, Roland Perry wrote:

> In message <9E87063B-9CB3-4586-BAAC-8110C8BA9665 at ciroap.org>, at 18:00:01 on Tue, 29 Jun 2010, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> writes
>> On a procedural issue, I think we can suggest some improvements to this
>> process whereby the fate of a workshop depends on a decision made in
>> the room, even if the workshop proponents are not available.
> 
> The decisions were made on the basis of the proposals filed (some time ago) with the secretariat, with quite clear deadlines. That's a 100% "remote participation" exercise.
> 
> All that happened in the room today, was some special pleading which allowed a few workshops, whose proposals didn't meet the well known criteria, to be given a reprieve.
> 
> At the last count, that resulted in 96 sessions, well above the number that was hoped for. And there are quite a few qualifying proposals "missing in action" that will add to that. Nine parallel streams, plus the main sessions.
> 
> Unlike last year, there were relatively few "forced marriages" between two similar workshops. Most of that (for some of the themes anyway) was done at the *previous* meeting.
> -- 
> Roland Perry
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

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

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

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

From jefsey at jefsey.com  Tue Jun 29 16:44:56 2010
From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin)
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 22:44:56 +0200
Subject: [governance] IGF and TLDs
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinTsQ5l42kJCiVEnRtyeqdSYrzKCBbgCDYBwxxt@mail.gmail.c
 om>
References: <00cb01cb1631$745ece90$7800a8c0@powuseren2ihcx>
 <4C27AF9F.8060609@paque.net>
 <AANLkTinTsQ5l42kJCiVEnRtyeqdSYrzKCBbgCDYBwxxt@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20100629171109.05db2e78@jefsey.com>

Dear all,

a recent exchange with Avri Doria rises an interesting point. As 
Civil Society (not as ISOC) what is a TLD? In which way is it related 
to the sole Internet? In which way is it related to the sole ICANN?

URI/IRI are built in using domain names or other kind of identifiers. 
They are documented in RFC 3986 (URI) and RFC 3987 (IRI).

URLs are the use of a general concept (URI/IRI) by the Internet; the 
same as URC could be used for TV Channels, or URF for Radio 
Frequencies, and URA for network addresses.

There is a growing list of planned TLDs at http://registries.tel/. I suggest:

1. we send them information about all the TLD projects we may know to 
the guy who started it: jean at guillon.tel.
2. the "DAG" is presented by ICANN or by others as a candidate RFC 
subject to the IETF review and Last Call.

The main problem created by the ISOCANN enhanced cooperation lonesome 
attitude is their lack of interoperability with other URI resolution systems.

jfc

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

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

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


From avri at psg.com  Tue Jun 29 17:32:29 2010
From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 23:32:29 +0200
Subject: [governance] IGF and TLDs
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20100629171109.05db2e78@jefsey.com>
References: <00cb01cb1631$745ece90$7800a8c0@powuseren2ihcx> <4C27AF9F.8060609@paque.net> <AANLkTinTsQ5l42kJCiVEnRtyeqdSYrzKCBbgCDYBwxxt@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20100629171109.05db2e78@jefsey.com>
Message-ID: <2DF30816-798B-4AC0-80BE-08C8F01D09CA@psg.com>


On 29 Jun 2010, at 22:44, JFC Morfin wrote:

> The main problem created by the ISOCANN enhanced cooperation lonesome attitude is their lack of interoperability with other URI resolution systems.

not really,  if someone defines other naming schemes (have participated in defining one myself: draft-irtf-dtnrg-dtn-uri-scheme/draft-davies-dtnrg-uri-find -  drafts currently out of date) and builds the servers and end-system code to support it, they may do anything they can do.

no one is stopping anyone from defining another naming system according to rfc3986 and the protocols that go along with it.  it is just that there is no uptake for it at the moment (or even research support as far as i can tell).

and if someone builds a real system out in the world that really works and really starts to reach decent deployments levels (for some value of decent) the gateways and interop will happen.  they always do.

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

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

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

From lehto.paul at gmail.com  Tue Jun 29 17:42:18 2010
From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto)
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 17:42:18 -0400
Subject: [governance] Proposed Judgment: Ticketmaster / Live Nation ordered
 to divest TIcketmaster Host Platform & Paciolan
Message-ID: <AANLkTikHvtNPU_E3GcjRFItGZOkQKyfzDmWPPc8JaqmF@mail.gmail.com>

The US government proposed today a Final Judgment for review and
approval by the federal judge in the antitrust case against
Ticketmaster and LiveNation, involving control of North American
ticket sales via sales primarily accomplished via the internet.  The
proposed Judgment, already agreed to by the parties to the case but to
come before the judge for review in terms of compliance with the
public interest, requires Ticketmaster and LiveNation to divest
themselves, within 60 days, of a license to operate the Ticketmaster
Host Platform software (including source code) in any manner the
Acquirer sees fit, as well as Paciolan, Inc, in its entirety.

The proposed order provides in part: "Defendants are ordered and
directed, concurrently with the closing of the Merger, to enter into a
Letter of Intent to divest Paciolan to Comcast-Spectacor in a manner
consistent with this Final Judgment. Within sixty (60) calendar days
of closing the Merger, Defendants shall complete the divestiture of
Paciolan in a manner consistent with this Final Judgment to
Comcast-Spectacor or an alternative Acquirer acceptable to the United
States, in its sole discretion, after consultation with Plaintiff
States."

The entire proposed judgment can be viewed at
http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f260100/260171.htm

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

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

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


From jefsey at jefsey.com  Tue Jun 29 19:35:47 2010
From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin)
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 01:35:47 +0200
Subject: [governance] IGF and TLDs
In-Reply-To: <2DF30816-798B-4AC0-80BE-08C8F01D09CA@psg.com>
References: <00cb01cb1631$745ece90$7800a8c0@powuseren2ihcx>
 <4C27AF9F.8060609@paque.net>
 <AANLkTinTsQ5l42kJCiVEnRtyeqdSYrzKCBbgCDYBwxxt@mail.gmail.com>
 <7.0.1.0.2.20100629171109.05db2e78@jefsey.com>
 <2DF30816-798B-4AC0-80BE-08C8F01D09CA@psg.com>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20100630002013.065a8d30@jefsey.com>

At 23:32 29/06/2010, Avri Doria wrote:

>On 29 Jun 2010, at 22:44, JFC Morfin wrote:
>
> > The main problem created by the ISOCANN enhanced cooperation 
> lonesome attitude is their lack of interoperability with other URI 
> resolution systems.
>
>not really,  if someone defines other naming schemes (have 
>participated in defining one myself: 
>draft-irtf-dtnrg-dtn-uri-scheme/draft-davies-dtnrg-uri-find 
>-  drafts currently out of date) and builds the servers and 
>end-system code to support it, they may do anything they can do.

This matter interests me (my main interest is the asynchronous 
receiving of the information never sent [ambient, active and meta 
content]). I did not know about the DTNRG. Reading this will be good 
teaching about this kind of Draft. Thank you.

>no one is stopping anyone from defining another naming system 
>according to rfc3986 and the protocols that go along with it.  it is 
>just that there is no uptake for it at the moment (or even research 
>support as far as i can tell).

As far as you can tell.

>And if someone builds a real system out in the world that really 
>works and really starts to reach decent deployments levels (for some 
>value of decent) the gateways and interop will happen.  they always do.

The beauty of the Interplus proposition (once IAB answers) is that it 
does not change a single bit in the existing underused Internet 
architecture. It just follows the same principles as IDNA; it 
encapsulates the Internet for each user.

jfc 

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

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

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


From karl at cavebear.com  Tue Jun 29 21:25:23 2010
From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach)
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 18:25:23 -0700
Subject: [governance] IGF and TLDs
In-Reply-To: <2DF30816-798B-4AC0-80BE-08C8F01D09CA@psg.com>
References: <00cb01cb1631$745ece90$7800a8c0@powuseren2ihcx> <4C27AF9F.8060609@paque.net> <AANLkTinTsQ5l42kJCiVEnRtyeqdSYrzKCBbgCDYBwxxt@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20100629171109.05db2e78@jefsey.com> <2DF30816-798B-4AC0-80BE-08C8F01D09CA@psg.com>
Message-ID: <4C2A9D03.9070103@cavebear.com>

On 06/29/2010 02:32 PM, Avri Doria wrote:

> no one is stopping anyone from defining another naming system
> according to rfc3986 and the protocols that go along with it.  it is
> just that there is no uptake for it at the moment (or even research
> support as far as i can tell).

At a technical level, there is nothing stopping anyone from building 
anything - the end-to-end principle exists, at least in theory.

However, given the increasing number of internet walls, proxies, NATs, 
application-embedded rules, and application layer gateways, anything out 
of the ordinary may have a hard time getting its packets from hither to yon.

At a commercial level, however, ICANN has played "Chicken Little" ( 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sky_Is_Falling_%28fable%29 ) and spread 
FUD ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt ) to 
discourage anyone from experimenting on anything in the realm of DNS 
that is not approved by ICANN, most particularly in the area of 
competing roots.

(I have heard, but I have not looked myself, that ICANN's contracts 
require TLD aspirants to promise to refrain from engaging in any 
business practice that could be construed as recognition of any root 
other than the ICANN/NTIA/Verisign root.  I'd like to know whether I'm 
hearing truth or false in this regard.)

Leaping back to technology - There are already people practicing 
variations on DNS - Is it Ultranet that is offering filtered DNS 
services so that people can purchase constrained views of the internet 
DNS landscape?

Any the deployment of Anycast based routing to root and tld servers was 
done by technical people despite ICANN rather than with ICANN.

In the cloud computing area it has become abundantly clear that DNS 
simply does not do the job.

In clouds - where applications can split and merge and move - DNS simply 
is inadequate.

There are systems, such as IF-MAP, that are more agile than DNS and also 
are more immune than DNS to single points of failure or political control.

(Such new systems might use DNS names as internal tokens - so DNS isn't 
going away, rather it might simply be moved into the internet 
infrastructure basement where most users don't see it as distinctly as 
they do today.)

		--karl--



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

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

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


From LisaH at global-partners.co.uk  Wed Jun 30 06:45:59 2010
From: LisaH at global-partners.co.uk (Lisa Horner)
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 11:45:59 +0100
Subject: [governance] FW: UK IGF
Message-ID: <16BC5877C4C91649AF7A89BF3BCA7AB828DEE6934A@SERVER01.globalpartners.local>

FYI.  I'll be at the event and participating in the workshop on "protecting the consumer".  Are any UK people going?

Apologies for cross posting.

Lisa

From: Rafid Fatani [mailto:Rafid.Fatani at ukigf.org.uk]
Sent: 30 June 2010 10:54
To: Lisa Horner
Subject: UK IGF

Just a reminder that the next UK IGF event is taking place on 7 July.  We are pleased to announce that Ed Vaizey the Culture, Communications & Creative Industries Minister will be giving a keynote speech at the event.

If you haven't already registered for next week's UK IGF conference, you can book your place and view the full agenda at:  http://www.nominet.org.uk/about/events/UKIGF/.

The conference will begin with a light lunch at 12.30pm, with the event starting at 1.30pm, finishing by 6pm.

We are keen to get new people involved in the UK IGF so please pass the details of this event onto any colleagues who may be interested in attending.

We look forward to seeing you there!
------------------------------------------------------------
Rafid A Y Fatani
Council Secretary
United Kingdom Internet Governance Forum (UK IGF)

M- +44 (0)7772 777 960
E- Rafid.Fatani at ukigf.org.uk<mailto:Rafid.Fatani at ukigf.org.uk>
W- www.UKIGF.org.uk<http://www.UKIGF.org.uk/>

------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer

This message and its attachments are confidential and may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, please email the sender and delete this message and any attachments from your system. Further, you should not disclose, copy, distribute or use this message and any attachments.

______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
______________________________________________________________________
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100630/809ad040/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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