From mueller at syr.edu Mon Mar 1 09:53:58 2010 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 09:53:58 -0500 Subject: [governance] FW: Internet Governance Project Headlines Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C78E5D0F@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> [http://internetgovernance.org/images/IGP_logo_Masthead2.gif] March 01, 2010 Accountability wins! Independent Review Panel upholds ICM Registry - .XXX is alive. There’s more to the Google-Italy case than meets the eye The ITU looks at IPv6 addressing Bill centralizes coordination of USG reps in cybersecurity standards development Search Internet Governance Project Headlines ________________________________ Accountability wins! Independent Review Panel upholds ICM Registry - .XXX is alive. In a historic decision, ICANN's Independent Review Process has dealt ICANN's past leadership a severe rebuke. The three judge panel upheld ICM Registry's claim that ICANN treated its application for a .xxx top level domain in an unfair and discriminatory manner. The panelists ruled that the ICANN Board had decided on June 1, 2005 that the .XXX sTLD application met the required sponsorship criteria, and that its "reconsideration of that finding was not consistent with the application of neutral, objective and fair documented policy." If one understands what was at stake in this case, one realizes that this "defeat" for ICANN's past President and Board Chair (and the Bush Administration) is actually a great victory for ICANN as an institution. • Email to a friend • Article Search • [http://assets.feedblitz.com/images/audio.ico] • There’s more to the Google-Italy case than meets the eye Intermediary liability has become one of the critical flashpoints of Internet governance. A few weeks ago, we celebrated an Australian court decision that denied a bid by copyright holders to make ISPs liable for copyright infringement by people who happened to be using their networks. Yesterday, we learned of an Italian court decision that seems to have pointed in the opposite direction. Google executives were convicted of a privacy violation because of a video that one of their millions of users posted. The decision raises major concerns as it seems to require Internet intermediaries to monitor user generated content, which would be a disaster for the freedom and openness of the Internet. But there is more to this case than meets the eye. US news coverage, which concentrates solely on Google’s outraged claims, fails to take into account three broader issues: 1) the fact that Google itself has undercut its exemption from liability by implementing monitoring of copyright; 2) the weakness, vagueness and obsolescence of the EU E-Commerce Directive’s liability protection provisions; 3) the politics in Europe and the way privacy law can be used – for both legitimate and illegitimate reasons – to attack this large global corporation that threatens the business models of entrenched interests. • Email to a friend • Article Search • [http://assets.feedblitz.com/images/audio.ico] • The ITU looks at IPv6 addressing On March 15 and 16 the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) holds a meeting in Geneva focused on internet protocol version 6 addressing policy. One of the focal points of this meeting will be a paper I wrote for the ITU exploring the economics of IPv6 addressing, “Economic Factors in the Allocation of IPv6 Addresses.” The paper put forward the idea of a Transferable Address Block Lease (TABL). This would be a set of address blocks, ranging from /48s to /32s in size, that would be allocated on a provider-independent basis to anyone willing to pay a recurring annual fee based on the size of the block. There would be no “needs assessment,” just a fee. • Email to a friend • Article Search • [http://assets.feedblitz.com/images/audio.ico] • Bill centralizes coordination of USG reps in cybersecurity standards development • Email to a friend • Article Search • [http://assets.feedblitz.com/images/audio.ico] • ________________________________ Click here to safely unsubscribe now from "Internet Governance Project Headlines" or change your subscription or subscribe [http://www.feedblitz.com/logos/3564667/175425/11399627/logo.gif] ________________________________ ________________________________ Your requested content delivery powered by FeedBlitz, LLC, 9 Thoreau Way, Sudbury, MA 01776, USA. +1.978.776.9498 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Mon Mar 1 11:33:05 2010 From: carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm (SAMUELS,Carlton A) Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 11:33:05 -0500 Subject: [governance] Parminder's exchange with Bertrand In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6CD4@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6CCE@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4B85046E.6080509@wzb.eu> <954259bd1002240438w1951d8bch2485f1cbbb798f99@mail.gmail.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C7AB3898@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4B86316D.3020903@wzb.eu> <954259bd1002250444l1199bce8gc4ac897b8005b5b4@mail.gmail.com>,<55631B7A-806F-4D9E-BF2D-FB8A669F329D@orange.fr> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6CD4@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F87133D944508@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> Um, I make no claim to being a historian but the assertion that "No individual, no private, profit-maximizing corporation, could ever produce anything like WW 2 and its national and ethnic carnage" represents the most astounding revisionism we could ever experience on this list. Do please say it was a mistype..... Carlton -----Original Message----- From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2010 7:06 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; massit follea; Bertrand de La Chapelle Subject: RE: [governance] Parminder's exchange with Bertrand I forgot to highlight one of the most important observations here wrt to Ostrom and collective governance, which is this: ________________________________________ > 1. Clearly defined boundaries (effective exclusion of external unentitled parties); In other words, even if you are dealing with something governed as a "commons," in almost all cases there must be boundaries and effective exclusion for that governance form to work. A simple example: there are "common beaches" in the shore areas of New Jersey in the U.S., but those beaches are commons ONLY for people who are citizens of the towns and villages abutting them. This is so for obvious reasons - if you are not a member of that community you have no right to access the beach, and protecting the quality and viability of the shore is the responsibility of the community that owns it, for open access would allow people with little stake in the beaches to despoil them and crowd out the people who live there. A true "open access commons" in which there is no exclusion whatsoever is quite rare, although it does exist and is quite relevant to information resources in the public domain. But information of course is non rival in consumption and therefore not what Ostrom defines as a common pool resource. People who romanticize commons governance, especially by counterposing it to private property, typically ignore the fact that both forms of governance require "clearly defined boundaries and effective exclusion." The only difference is that in one case the unit of ownership and decision making is the individual household, person or firm, and in the other case it is a larger collectivity. Those who say that either form of governance is inherently superior to the other are anti-empirical; both have advantages, and either can operate better in certain circumstances. To tie this back to Parminder, based on his latest post I can see where we part ways as well as agree. Parminder has decided that people acting as political collectivities are inherently superior to people acting as private market actors or businesses. Probably he is operating under the delusion that political/democratic processes are inherently guided by a public interest logic whereas private market action is driven by private interest which is inherently opposed to public interest. I disagree. Politicians and political parties have self-interest and can exploit. Competitive market processes can promote the public interest. I think people are people, and they need both political processes and economic maximizing processes to survive, and both serve as appropriate checks on each other. To me, democracy without liberalism is just mob rule, just as capitalism without law, rights and democracy is lousy. So while we agree strongly on extending democratic governance modes into the global arena we probably have radically different ideas about how to do it. If you designate "neo-liberalism" as the main enemy I don't think you understand very well the real challenges of global governance. However, getting back to Ostrom and collective governance, even if you extend democracy beyond the nation-state you still have to decide what is the relevant community for governance decisions. The people who are always yammering about how good and noble it is to be group-oriented or collective oriented, and ridiculing those of us who talk about the individual, always seem to forget that communities have boundaries, and some of the world's worst crimes come not from individuals attacking or exploiting each other, but from groups - states, ethnicities, religions, etc. - defining other groups as excluded and "the other." No individual, no private, profit-maximizing corporation, could ever produce anything like WW 2 and its national and ethnic carnage. --MM ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Mar 1 21:05:33 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2010 07:35:33 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [IRP] Fwd: [IP] USG rescinds 'leave internet alone' policy In-Reply-To: <4d976d8e1003011348n142bef11l8db4a8f9a138afd9@mail.gmail.com> References: <4B8BD007.1060907@gih.com> <4d976d8e1003011348n142bef11l8db4a8f9a138afd9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4B8C726D.4050707@itforchange.net> (With regard to article ' US government rescinds 'leave internet alone' policy' at http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/02/27/internet_3_dot_0_policy/ which Lee also recently forwarded to the IGC list) Max Senges wrote: > Thanks Olivier > > Quite interesting. What do people think? That the US is pushing for > more governance is not necessarily bad, no? No, it wont be bad if the governance they were pushing for was democratic. But note what the article says, in a typical US centric, US-will-save-the-world manner. (all quotes below are from the mentioned article) >Internationally, the Internet Governance Forum -- set up by under a United Nations banner to deal with global >governance issues -- is due to end its experimental run this year and become an acknowledged institution. >However, there are signs that governments are increasingly dominating the IGF, with civil society and the Internet >community sidelined in the decision-making process. That is funny. I never earlier have heard any allegations that govs *are* dominating the IGF. So not only all non US govs are bad separately and collectively - and thus no effort towards any governance models that include all should be supported - but even IGF which is so open etc is already bad because it is being imagined that it is already being dominated by govs - which when not US gov (or maybe also EU), are of course bad. And about US gov, the article is so soft, nay, rather positive. >In this broader context, the US government's newly stated policy is more in line with the traditional laissez-faire >internet approach. Internet Policy 3.0 also offers a more global perspective than the isolationist approach taken by> the previous Bush administration. So, we, the rest of the world, are being exhorted to accept US's benign suzerainty. What a model for our global societies to go forward. (And we already have ICANN .) What is funny is, often all this is in fact is done in the name of democracy, rights ands the such. (But of course the same is the model that is offered in terms of private governance spaces of digital mega-companies, which do offer us some MS models and some rights here and there, within the structures and rules set and controlled by them. Brave new models of democracy, one must say!) And sure, most certainly, there are promises of benignity and inclusivity (any social term can be abused) of the Suzerain. >In explicitly stating that foreign governments will be a part of the upcoming discussions, Strickling recognizes the >United States' unique position as the country that ... ... I often wonder, how easily are we willing to give our democratic rights and credentials - in exchange of what!. Promises of some continued availability and innovation of unheard technical marvels, the smallest danger of any adversity regarding the resplendent technical march makes us shiver and grovel to give up almost anything else. So Max, when you ask > Is there a way to promote human rights and related policy > implementation principles as the basis for the governance efforts? I would say, the basic human right that serves 'as the basis for the governance efforts' is the right of democracy. Please do not try to short cut it to get to some other bunch of rights, which in that case looks a convenient co-option of a 'progressive discourse' by dominant groups to further their interests. When we speak of rights as the basis of governance, mention democracy first. Parminder > Best > Max > > "The future is here. It's just not widely distributed yet." > ---William Gibson > > ........................................................................... > > Max Senges > Berlin > > www.maxsenges.com > > Mobile: 01622122755 > > > On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 3:32 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond > wrote: > > Max, > > you've asked for anything of interest to be forwarded to the IRP list. > What I'm forwarding below has already been forwarded by someone > else on the Governance list, but I thought that since this is a > significant article, it was worthy of being sent out here as well. > Having met Kieren many times when he was working at ICANN, I trust > his judgement. > > Warm regards, > > Olivier > > -- > Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD > http://www.gih.com/ocl.html > > > > -------- Message original -------- > Sujet: [IP] USG rescinds 'leave internet alone' policy > Date : Sat, 27 Feb 2010 15:06:07 -0500 > De : Dave Farber > Répondre à : dave at farber.net > Pour : ip > > > > > > > > Begin forwarded message: > >> *From:* Richard Forno > > >> *Date:* February 26, 2010 9:06:56 PM EST >> *To:* Undisclosed-recipients: <>; >> *Cc:* Dave Farber > >> *Subject:* *USG rescinds 'leave internet alone' policy* >> >> Original URL: >> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/02/27/internet_3_dot_0_policy/ >> >> US government rescinds 'leave internet alone' policy >> >> By Kieren McCarthy >> >> Posted in Networks, 27th February 2010 00:06 GMT >> >> The US government's policy of leaving the Internet alone is over, >> according to Obama's top official at the Department of Commerce. >> >> Instead, an "Internet Policy 3.0" approach will see policy >> discussions between government agencies, foreign governments, and >> key Internet constituencies, according to Assistant Secretary >> Larry Strickling, with those discussions covering issues such as >> privacy, child protection, cybersecurity, copyright protection, >> and Internet governance. >> >> The outcomes of such discussions will be "flexible" but may >> result in recommendations for legislation or regulation, >> Strickling said in a speech at the Media Institute in Washington >> this week. >> >> The new approach >> (http://www.ntia.doc.gov/presentations/2010/MediaInstitute_02242010.html) >> is a far cry from a US government that consciously decided not to >> intrude into the internet's functioning and growth and in so >> doing allowed an academic network to turn into a global >> communications phenomenon. >> >> Strickling referred to these roots arguing that it was "the right >> policy for the United States in the early stages of the Internet, >> and the right message to send to the rest of the world." But, he >> continued, "that was then and this is now. As we at NTIA approach >> a wide range of Internet policy issues, we take the view that we >> are now in the third generation of Internet policy making." >> >> Outlining three decades of internet evolution - from transition >> to commercialization, from the garage to Main Street, and now, >> starting in 2010, the "Policy 3.0" approach - Strickling argued >> that with the internet is now a social network as well a business >> network. "We must take rules more seriously." >> >> He cited a number of examples where this new approach was needed: >> end users worried about credit card transactions, content >> providers who want to prevent their copyright, companies >> concerned about hacking, network neutrality, and foreign >> governments worried about Internet governance systems. >> >> The decision to effectively end the policy that made the internet >> what it is today is part of a wider global trend of governments >> looking to impose rules on use of the network by its citizens. >> >> In the UK, the Digital Economy Bill currently making its way >> through Parliament has been the subject of significant >> controversy for advocating strict rules on copyright infringement >> and threatening to ban people from the internet if they are found >> to do so. The bill includes a wide variety of other measures, >> including giving regulator Ofcom a wider remit, forcing ISPs to >> monitor their customers' behavior, and allowing the government to >> take over the dot-uk registry. >> >> In New Zealand, a similar measure to the UK's cut-off provision >> has been proposed by revising the Copyright Act to allow a >> tribunal to fine those found guilty of infringing copyright >> online as well as suspend their Internet accounts for up to six >> months. And in Italy this week, three Google executives were >> sentenced to jail for allowing a video that was subsequently >> pulled down to be posted onto its YouTube video site. >> >> Internationally, the Internet Governance Forum -- set up by under >> a United Nations banner to deal with global governance issues -- >> is due to end its experimental run this year and become an >> acknowledged institution. However, there are signs that >> governments are increasingly dominating the IGF, with civil >> society and the Internet community sidelined in the >> decision-making process. >> >> In this broader context, the US government's newly stated policy >> is more in line with the traditional laissez-faire internet >> approach. Internet Policy 3.0 also offers a more global >> perspective than the isolationist approach taken by the previous >> Bush administration. >> >> In explicitly stating that foreign governments will be a part of >> the upcoming discussions, Strickling recognizes the United >> States' unique position as the country that gives final approval >> for changes made to the internet's "root zone." Currently the >> global Internet is dependent on an address book whose contents >> are changed through a contract that the US government has granted >> to the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Number >> (ICANN), based in Los Angeles. >> >> ICANN recently adjusted its own agreement with the US government >> to give it more autonomy and now reports to the global Internet >> community through a series of reviews. Strickling sits on the >> panel of one of those reviews. >> >> Overall, this new approach could enable the US government to >> regain the loss of some of its direct influence through >> recommendations made in policy reports. But internet old hands >> will still decry the loss of a policy that made the network what >> it is today. ® > Archives > [Powered by > Listbox] > > > _______________________________________________ > IRP mailing list > IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org > > http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/listinfo.cgi/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > IRP mailing list > IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org > http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/listinfo.cgi/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Tue Mar 2 03:24:55 2010 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 03:24:55 -0500 Subject: [governance] Parminder's exchange with Bertrand In-Reply-To: <4B890CE8.40001@itforchange.net> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6CCE@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4B85046E.6080509@wzb.eu> <954259bd1002240438w1951d8bch2485f1cbbb798f99@mail.gmail.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C7AB3898@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4B86316D.3020903@wzb.eu> <954259bd1002250444l1199bce8gc4ac897b8005b5b4@mail.gmail.com>,<55631B7A-806F-4D9E-BF2D-FB8A669F329D@orange.fr> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6CD4@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>,<4B890CE8.40001@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6D04@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> just caught up with this. will try to answer soon. ________________________________________ From: Parminder [parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: Saturday, February 27, 2010 7:15 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton L Mueller Cc: massit follea; Bertrand de La Chapelle Subject: Re: [governance] Parminder's exchange with Bertrand Milton L Mueller wrote: > To tie this back to Parminder, based on his latest post I can see where we part ways as well as agree. Parminder has decided that people acting as political collectivities are inherently superior to people acting as private market actors or businesses. No i dont think so. Both forms of action are legitimate and have their value. who told you that i think so?? > Probably he is operating under the delusion that political/democratic processes are inherently guided by a public interest logic They are supposed to be so guided. But they often are not, and therefore the need for deepening democracy processes and those of transparency, accountability, judicial scrutiny etc to make them work as closely as possible towards public interest. But we cannot solve this problem by junking political/ democratic processes, which is what many new age enthusiasts of MS-ism try to do (not you, i know) > whereas private market action is driven by private interest which is inherently opposed to public interest. not so. It is not inherently opposed. Most often, within good frameworks of social action, like competitive and well regulated markets, good laws etc they promote, in fact constitute, larger public interest. So again you are putting words in my mouth, pertaining to things I dont profess. > I disagree. Politicians and political parties have self-interest and can exploit. yes, they very often do. See the description above on strengthening democratic systems to minimizing such abuses, without junking them. > Competitive market processes can promote the public interest. Competitive markets are indeed one of the primary social institutions to promote public interest. > I think people are people, and they need both political processes and economic maximizing processes to survive, and both serve as appropriate checks on each other. Exactly so. Which is why I think that big business on global scale which has no concomitant political process as 'appropriate check' badly requires such checks, and this is one of the principal global political issues facing us today. (Dont know why you say below that this is not a real challenge.) Especially in the conditions with very fluid financial flows and increasingly more 'open' and often forced trade agreements, global business is easily able to play one national political regime against the other and escape all possibilities of 'appropriate checks', which makes this problem especially acute. Much more so for developing countries. > To me, democracy without liberalism is just mob rule, just as capitalism without law, rights and democracy is lousy. Again agree whole-heatedly. But global capitalism is increasingly without law and democracy to act as 'appropriate checks'. I know you feel it much less in the US where much of global business is incorporated and more sensitive to political checks. Such options are increasingly closed for less powerful nations. Thus we need appropriate democratic political arrangements at the global levels. And the confusing talks of unclear concepts like MS-ism, without full social analysis, serves the interests of big business by perpetuating the political vacuums at the global levels. > So while we agree strongly on extending democratic governance modes into the global arena we probably have radically different ideas about how to do it. Ok, you tell me what is your idea on this. In which ways can global capitalism and its increasing force be met with (what you called as ) 'appropriate checks'? You can also suggest specific solutions in the field of digital capitalism where IG is centrally implicated. I too am ready to share my ideas. The we can decide whether we agree to not, and to what extent. > If you designate "neo-liberalism" as the main enemy I don't think you understand very well the real challenges of global governance. > Read my descriptions of increasing power of global capital and decreasing political controls over it, and how it affects developing countries' interest. Do you disagree with it. I presented that formulation mostly developing your own assertions in your email. And this is what I call as the challenge posed by neoliberalism to global governance. What do you think are the real challenges, and why do you think this is not a real challenge? Parminder > However, getting back to Ostrom and collective governance, even if you extend democracy beyond the nation-state you still have to decide what is the relevant community for governance decisions. The people who are always yammering about how good and noble it is to be group-oriented or collective oriented, and ridiculing those of us who talk about the individual, always seem to forget that communities have boundaries, and some of the world's worst crimes come not from individuals attacking or exploiting each other, but from groups - states, ethnicities, religions, etc. - defining other groups as excluded and "the other." No individual, no private, profit-maximizing corporation, could ever produce anything like WW 2 and its national and ethnic carnage. > > --MM > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Tue Mar 2 03:29:00 2010 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 03:29:00 -0500 Subject: [governance] If web-platforms are "criminally responsible for In-Reply-To: <4B8A53CC.7010400@polito.it> References: <4d976d8e1002240748j67480965n63552c7238d840a1@mail.gmail.com> <488E8B79032F7642949B28142651689CF437AE2243@GVAMAIL.gva.ebu.ch>,<4B8A53CC.7010400@polito.it> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6D06@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> I agree with your comments about not applying old forms of media regulation to the Internet, but I am confused by your distinction between "rules on the Internet" and "Internet governance." --MM ________________________________________ From: J.C. DE MARTIN [demartin at polito.it] Sent: Sunday, February 28, 2010 6:30 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] If web-platforms are "criminally responsible for Dear Giacomo, I believe that you are mixing two different levels, namely, rules on the Internet with Internet Governance. On the first level, when you say that currently there is "zero regulation" or no "basic minimum set of rules" on the Internet, I believe you are plainly wrong: the full set of provisions of the national civil and criminal codes, in fact, fully apply to the Internet. Illicit behavior is illicit behavior whether it happens online or offline. Therefore, there are plenty of rules, and, in practically all cases I am aware of, no need for new rules, if not a revision of some old laws, which the Internet is showing to be strikingly obsolete and illiberal (I am thinking of the Italian press law or of the Italian broadcasting law, for instance). Therefore, rather than extending the "heavy regulation" of broadcasting, which ultimately was rooted on the (often artificial) scarcity of the electromagnetic spectrum, we should be seizing this historic opportunity to expand freedom of expression (within the limits of law, e.g., defamation, of course). A whole different level, in my view, is the level of Internet Governance. Which, ultimately, is a matter of discussing power, that is, sovereignty: who has power on the Internet, why, how, with what limits. Best regards, juan carlos juan carlos de martin co-director / nexa center for internet & society politecnico di torino http://nexa.polito.it Mazzone, Giacomo wrote (on 2/27/10 7:16 PM): Dear Max, In Italy currently there is a very bad atmosphere on civil rights and freedom of expression. I'm sad to say so, but it's exactly what's happening. In the last months various initiatives have tried to restrict in various forms the Internet freedom. Some of them have been stopped in Parliament, others have gone through, others have been promoted directly by the government, other -like in the case you pinpoint- by singles judges. When I say that the distance between the world of broadcasting and of the press (heavily regulated) and the world of the Internet (with zero regulation) cannot continue to be like it is Today, I'm really serious. The need for a basic minimum set of rules become more and more a need also for Internet, in order not to be exposed to the vexations of one country, one community or a single judge. This fact (like the many others before and the next ones that will inevitably follow) can only reinforce our unanimous belief that there is a real need for a governance of the Internet… Giacomo From: Max Senges [mailto:maxsenges at gmail.com] Sent: mercredi, 24. février 2010 16:49 To: irp; governance; expression Subject: [governance] If web-platforms are "criminally responsible for content that users upload" "the Web as we know it will cease to exist" Hi IRPlers, FoE coalition & IGClers I believe many of you have heard about the devestating result of the vividown court-case in Italy, but for those who have not please read the Google policy-blog-post. It is important to stress that this is not about Google, but about Freedom of Expression online! Here is a summary: A judge in Milan today convicted three Google executives in a case involving a reprehensible video posted to Google Video that we took down within hours of being notified by the Italian police. The video showed an autistic boy being bullied by several classmates. In essence this ruling means that employees of hosting platforms like Google Video are criminally responsible for content that users upload. We will appeal this astonishing decision because the Google employees on trial had nothing to do with the video in question. The law in Europe -- as in the U.S. -- specifically gives hosting providers a safe harbor from liability so long as they remove illegal content once they are notified of its existence. These laws are premised on the belief that a notice and takedown regime helps creativity flourish and support free speech while protecting personal privacy. If that principle is swept aside and sites like Blogger, YouTube and indeed every social network and any community bulletin board, are held responsible for vetting every single piece of content that is uploaded to them — every piece of text, every photo, every file, every video — then the Web as we know it will cease to exist, and many of the economic, social, political and technological benefits it brings could disappear. Below is some additional background on the case. We would of course welcome any public statements you might be willing to make today expressing concern about this ruling. It would be great if we could agree to speak up on this matter! Best Max Some more background articles: New York Times story on ruling: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/25/technology/companies/25google.html?hp Leslie Harris/CDT op-ed: Italy's Case Against Google is a Bad Moon Rising http://www.huffingtonpost.com/leslie-harris/italys-case-against-googl_b_395634.html Jeff Jarvis: Italy Endangers the Web http://www.buzzmachine.com/2010/02/24/italy-endangers-the-web/ UK Member of Parliament Tom Watson: “This is the biggest threat to internet freedom we have seen in Europe. The only people who will support this decision are Silvio Berlusconi and the governments of China and Iran. It effectively breaks the internet in Italy.” http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23809508-google-bosses-convicted-over-abuse-video-of-downs-syndrome-boy.do TechCrunch: Can Someone Tell this Italian Judge what YouTube is? http://eu.techcrunch.com/2010/02/24/can-someone-tell-this-italian-judge-what-youtube-is/ -- "The future is here. It’s just not widely distributed yet." —William Gibson ........................................................................... Max Senges Berlin www.maxsenges.com Mobile: 01622122755 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Tue Mar 2 03:30:26 2010 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 03:30:26 -0500 Subject: [governance] Parminder's exchange with Bertrand In-Reply-To: <4B8997DD.4030103@gih.com> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6CCE@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4B85046E.6080509@wzb.eu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C7AB3897@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>,<4B8997DD.4030103@gih.com> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6D07@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> ________________________________________ From: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond [ocl at gih.com] > - governments: law and order > - business: economy and money >- civil society: conscience > >Any social ecosystem requires all three to work. Take one out and either >the system will fail, tear itself apart, or reach an untenable extreme. >That's why I believe in multi-stakeholderism. Nice formulation, Olivier. But suppose we called it "popular sovereignty" and "individual rights" instead of "multistakeholderism" - would that not allow individuals, in various aggregations, to produce the appropriate mix of law, order, economy and conscience? Is not the division into three estates (with millions of individuals overlapping and participating in two or more at the same time) artificial? --MM____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Tue Mar 2 04:01:02 2010 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 04:01:02 -0500 Subject: [governance] Strangeness in the IGF programme Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6D09@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Just been looking at the Working Draft Programme for the 2010 meeting. As expected, some of it is good, some of it maintains the well-established tradition of diverting attention away from governance issues to harmless informational discussions, and some of it....I just have no idea what they mean. Perhaps people with some background in the thinking that led to the programme can help me out here (note how I am being Europhilic by adding two superfluous letters to the word "program") : "Mobile telephony and Internet security" What's the thinking here? Are they talking specifically about VoIP? Or did they actually mean "mobile telecommunications and internet security"? Most mobile telephony (i.e. voice communication) is not internet-based, but of course a big economic issue in the industry is the avoidance of costly mobile telephony by using VoIP over WiFi. But what's the security angle here? I'm not paranoid or anything, but are the telcos going to try to convince us that VoIP is bad for security? "Maintaining Internet services in situations of disaster and crisis" - a good topic for network operators but what's the CIR angle and how is global governance involved? "The cultural and technological perspectives of regulating malicious Internet content" This one raises my blood pressure a bit. First, what is meant by "malicious Internet content?" The term "malicious" is usually reserved for malware or code that actually damages the network. I have never seen it applied to content before. I have heard of illegal content, objectionable content, indecent content, even harmful content, but not "malicious content." Second, note that this topic, which involves _content regulation_ is grouped NOT under the "openness" theme with other freedom of expression issues, but under "Security." Now we have seen for several years the attempt by censorship advocates to "securitize" certain forms of content regulation, because doing so eliminates all free expression concerns and makes it a matter of security which means that police repression takes precedence. Is this another one of those games? If so, what specifically is the content that is now being targeted for censorship under the security rubric? "Bidirectional flow of payments (e.g. payment for access to local content by international providers)" - Can't believe that this old horse is still being ridden. Must have been an ITU rep. Conspicuous by its absence: the CIR theme includes discussions of IPv6 availability. If fails to even mention a far more pressing governance issue: the impact of IPv4 scarcity in the next 5 years. Some good things: "internationalization of critical Internet resources management"; "The importance of new TLDs and IDNs for development (though I am sure ways will be found to make this topic boring); "Global privacy standards, technological capabilities, business practices and legal developments (wow, someone finally talks about global gov!); Cross border enforcement of IP - trade embargos - whatever position you take on this, it's a discussion we should have. It may be IGF's first real foray into the "meat" of the copyright wars. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Mar 2 04:14:40 2010 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 12:14:40 +0300 Subject: [governance] Re: [IRP] Fwd: [IP] USG rescinds 'leave internet In-Reply-To: <4B8C726D.4050707@itforchange.net> References: <4B8BD007.1060907@gih.com> <4d976d8e1003011348n142bef11l8db4a8f9a138afd9@mail.gmail.com> <4B8C726D.4050707@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 5:05 AM, Parminder wrote: > > (With regard to article ' US government rescinds 'leave internet alone' policy' at http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/02/27/internet_3_dot_0_policy/  which Lee also recently forwarded to the IGC list) > > Max Senges wrote: > > Thanks Olivier > Quite interesting. What do people think? That the US is pushing for more governance is not necessarily bad, no? > > No, it wont be bad if the governance they were pushing for was democratic. > > But note what the article says, in a typical US centric, US-will-save-the-world manner. > > (all quotes below are from the mentioned article) > >Internationally, the Internet Governance Forum – set up by under a United Nations banner to deal with global >governance issues – is due to end its experimental run this year and become an acknowledged institution. >However, there are signs that governments are increasingly dominating the IGF, with civil society and the Internet >community sidelined in the decision-making process. > > > That is funny. I never earlier have heard any allegations that govs *are* dominating the IGF. Didn't we say as much in our statement regarding MAG composition? Deciding on the future of the IGF, where they are held, etc is entirely an intergov proposition.  Of course it's dominated by govs.  As for the body of your screed, it seems we are reading 2 completely different articles! -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Tue Mar 2 07:29:38 2010 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2010 09:29:38 -0300 Subject: [governance] Strangeness in the IGF programme In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6D09@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6D09@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4B8D04B2.3060406@cafonso.ca> Grande Milton, you would not stand one day in a regular, closed MAG session -- your blood pressure would raise to exploding levels :) The level of discussions barely touches the surface of the issues. Not to speak of the open session -- the last one became a bit interesting only when UNDESA, basically influenced by the Chinese, unilaterally announced a change of rules, kicking out CSTD, which surprised even the CSTD people in the room (interesting because revealed deep divergences within UN regarding the future of the IGF and/or how it should be manipulated) -- the objective seems to be to restrict the decision on the future of the IGF to the intergovernmental level only. Gone are the days of the struggle to make sure crucial issues such as logical infrastructure's governance should be included as main themes (with the resulting fits-anything "Critical Internet Resources" being inserted in the IGF Rio meeting). Now the MAG is basically reduced to concluding phrases generic enough to, for one, satisfy the Chinese, and go through the filter of the well-organized business front. Even the sometimes lively discussions in the igf-members list (an opportunity to deepen the issues) are history. One of the promising "collateral effects" of the IGF is the several national/regional IGFs (which might continue even if this UN thing disappears) -- but in the last MAG the UN made sure that there will be little time for regional meetings to report back and have a reasonable space to debate their reports in the plenary. However, let us recall that in the IGF Sharm-el-Sheik nearly one full day was consumed in local government's rituals... So... --c.a. Milton L Mueller wrote: > Just been looking at the Working Draft Programme for the 2010 > meeting. As expected, some of it is good, some of it maintains the > well-established tradition of diverting attention away from > governance issues to harmless informational discussions, and some of > it....I just have no idea what they mean. > > Perhaps people with some background in the thinking that led to the > programme can help me out here (note how I am being Europhilic by > adding two superfluous letters to the word "program") : > > "Mobile telephony and Internet security" What's the thinking here? > Are they talking specifically about VoIP? Or did they actually mean > "mobile telecommunications and internet security"? Most mobile > telephony (i.e. voice communication) is not internet-based, but of > course a big economic issue in the industry is the avoidance of > costly mobile telephony by using VoIP over WiFi. But what's the > security angle here? I'm not paranoid or anything, but are the telcos > going to try to convince us that VoIP is bad for security? > > "Maintaining Internet services in situations of disaster and crisis" > - a good topic for network operators but what's the CIR angle and how > is global governance involved? > > "The cultural and technological perspectives of regulating malicious > Internet content" This one raises my blood pressure a bit. First, > what is meant by "malicious Internet content?" The term "malicious" > is usually reserved for malware or code that actually damages the > network. I have never seen it applied to content before. I have heard > of illegal content, objectionable content, indecent content, even > harmful content, but not "malicious content." Second, note that this > topic, which involves _content regulation_ is grouped NOT under the > "openness" theme with other freedom of expression issues, but under > "Security." Now we have seen for several years the attempt by > censorship advocates to "securitize" certain forms of content > regulation, because doing so eliminates all free expression concerns > and makes it a matter of security which means that police repression > takes precedence. Is this another one of those games? If so, what > specifically is the content that is now being targeted for censorship > under the security rubric? > > "Bidirectional flow of payments (e.g. payment for access to local > content by international providers)" - Can't believe that this old > horse is still being ridden. Must have been an ITU rep. > > Conspicuous by its absence: the CIR theme includes discussions of > IPv6 availability. If fails to even mention a far more pressing > governance issue: the impact of IPv4 scarcity in the next 5 years. > > Some good things: "internationalization of critical Internet > resources management"; "The importance of new TLDs and IDNs for > development (though I am sure ways will be found to make this topic > boring); "Global privacy standards, technological capabilities, > business practices and legal developments (wow, someone finally talks > about global gov!); Cross border enforcement of IP - trade embargos - > whatever position you take on this, it's a discussion we should have. > It may be IGF's first real foray into the "meat" of the copyright > wars. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ You > received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any > message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 fouadbajwa at gmail.com Tue Mar 2 09:07:11 2010 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 19:07:11 +0500 Subject: [governance] Strangeness in the IGF programme In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6D09@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6D09@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <701af9f71003020607x61cd7718xbaa8a818d60568d3@mail.gmail.com> Hi Milton, There are moments for many to raise their blood pressures and trust me it happens across the IGF :o) By the way, the MAG looks into issues proposed by stakeholders during open consultations or supporting their stakeholder group's interests as stakeholder member groups of the multistakeholderism reflecting those in the program paper through consensus. An example is the IG4D inclusion that received good support for inclusion by a good mutual consensus. As far as I can recall, the aspect of Mobile Telephony and Internet Security didn't come in the form you specified and I think the example of VOIP is a bit of a narrow way of looking at it. It came with specific reference to the developing countries and some quoted examples that encouraged its inclusion were similar to what we face in Pakistan. This comes from the way we people access the Internet in the developing world despite having the Internet infrastructure but no electricity to power it. Most of my interaction in the lists comes through my accessing the Internet through my meagre Nokia cell phone (without touch-screen or qwerty keyboard features) because most of the time I don't have electricity due to the prevailing energy crisis in Pakistan. I am in an urban setting of Lahore and it is much worse are the conditions for our rural regions that comprises 66% of national population of over 180 million citizens and sometimes have power for less than a few single digit hours. I also pay a much higher cost to connect through a mobile network to the Internet as opposed to my ADSL provider. For 1MB on my cell, I pay Rs.150 per MB almost equivalent to approx. USD $2.00 whereas I pay Rs. 1200 equivalent to approx. USD $14 for my ADSL per/month with a 20 GB cap. When you compare this, I am paying 8 times more for access on my cell as opposed to the direct Internet connectivity with similar usage. This is one way of looking at it. When I connect to the Internet over the cell phone network, I am exposed to the issues of another carrier/network medium so that's two layers of connectivity on a mobile/cellular network. With the issues of connecting to the Internet over the mobile networks, the issue of Internet Security can also be looked at that what are the layers of Internet Security in interplay with the mobile networks and I think everyone present wanted to have a look at Internet Security issues with relevance to Internet Connectivity through cellular networks. Trust me most of the topics included in the program paper have no conspiracy theory attached to them and were suggestions with a bit of more discussion backed by more reasoning in light of stakeholder inputs and the fact remains, we aren't the only stakeholder group in their, there are governments and private sector too as well as international organizations. The program paper intends to facilitate opportunities for dialogue with mutual consensus. -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 2:01 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Just been looking at the Working Draft Programme for the 2010 meeting. As expected, some of it is good, some of it maintains the well-established tradition of diverting attention away from governance issues to harmless informational discussions, and some of it....I just have no idea what they mean. > > Perhaps people with some background in the thinking that led to the programme can help me out here (note how I am being Europhilic by adding two superfluous letters to the word "program") : > > "Mobile telephony and Internet security" > What's the thinking here? Are they talking specifically about VoIP? Or did they actually mean "mobile telecommunications and internet security"? Most mobile telephony (i.e. voice communication) is not internet-based, but of course a big economic issue in the industry is the avoidance of costly mobile telephony by using VoIP over WiFi. But what's the security angle here? I'm not paranoid or anything, but are the telcos going to try to convince us that VoIP is bad for security? > > "Maintaining Internet services in situations of disaster and crisis" >  - a good topic for network operators but what's the CIR angle and how is global governance involved? > > "The cultural and technological perspectives of regulating malicious Internet content" > This one raises my blood pressure a bit. First, what is meant by "malicious Internet content?" The term "malicious" is usually reserved for malware or code that actually damages the network. I have never seen it applied to content before. I have heard of illegal content, objectionable content, indecent content, even harmful content, but not "malicious content." Second, note that this topic, which involves _content regulation_ is grouped NOT under the "openness" theme with other freedom of expression issues, but under "Security." Now we have seen for several years the attempt by censorship advocates to "securitize" certain forms of content regulation, because doing so eliminates all free expression concerns and makes it a matter of security which means that police repression takes precedence. Is this another one of those games? If so, what specifically is the content that is now being targeted for censorship under the security rubric? > > "Bidirectional flow of payments (e.g. payment for access to local content by international providers)" - Can't believe that this old horse is still being ridden. Must have been an ITU rep. > > Conspicuous by its absence: the CIR theme includes discussions of IPv6 availability. If fails to even mention a far more pressing governance issue: the impact of IPv4 scarcity in the next 5 years. > > Some good things: "internationalization of critical Internet resources management"; "The importance of new TLDs and IDNs for development (though I am sure ways will be found to make this topic boring); "Global privacy standards, technological capabilities, business practices and legal developments (wow, someone finally talks about global gov!); Cross border enforcement of IP - trade embargos - whatever position you take on this, it's a discussion we should have. It may be IGF's first real foray into the "meat" of the copyright wars. > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Mar 2 09:42:53 2010 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 14:42:53 +0000 Subject: [governance] Strangeness in the IGF programme In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6D09@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6D09@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: In message <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6D09 at SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>, at 04:01:02 on Tue, 2 Mar 2010, Milton L Mueller writes >"Maintaining Internet services in situations of disaster and crisis" > - a good topic for network operators but what's the CIR angle and >how is global governance involved? There's a whole world out there that calls itself "Critical [National] Infrastructure" and is all about governments having enough levers to pull in a time a time of natural (or un-natural) disaster to instruct operators to do things "in the National Interest" that they would not normally feel obliged to - as a result of contractual or other considerations. -- 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 bdelachapelle at gmail.com Tue Mar 2 13:11:53 2010 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 19:11:53 +0100 Subject: [governance] Parminder's exchange with Bertrand In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6D07@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6CCE@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4B85046E.6080509@wzb.eu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C7AB3897@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4B8997DD.4030103@gih.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6D07@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <954259bd1003021011qb6d95e0gd3926e1fdda38d19@mail.gmail.com> Milton, Do you actually mean a sort of "personal sovereignty" principle, that would enable individuals to gather in numerous human groupings, including nations, but also business and non-profit entities ? so that the unifying governance unit becomes stakeholders of various sizes but with equal status instead of three (or four) separate and siloed stakeholder groups ? B. On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 9:30 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > ________________________________________ > From: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond [ocl at gih.com] > > > - governments: law and order > > - business: economy and money > >- civil society: conscience > > > >Any social ecosystem requires all three to work. Take one out and either > >the system will fail, tear itself apart, or reach an untenable extreme. > >That's why I believe in multi-stakeholderism. > > Nice formulation, Olivier. But suppose we called it "popular sovereignty" > and "individual rights" instead of "multistakeholderism" - would that not > allow individuals, in various aggregations, to produce the appropriate mix > of law, order, economy and conscience? Is not the division into three > estates (with millions of individuals overlapping and participating in two > or more at the same time) artificial? > > --MM____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the Information Society Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Tue Mar 2 13:39:02 2010 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2010 15:39:02 -0300 Subject: [governance] Parminder's exchange with Bertrand In-Reply-To: <954259bd1003021011qb6d95e0gd3926e1fdda38d19@mail.gmail.com> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6CCE@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4B85046E.6080509@wzb.eu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C7AB3897@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4B8997DD.4030103@gih.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6D07@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <954259bd1003021011qb6d95e0gd3926e1fdda38d19@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4B8D5B46.10101@cafonso.ca> "Separated" and/or "siloed" in which sense? If we are talking about coordination, some stakeholder groups are indeed quite "siloed" and very well in synch... I feel "separated" from the bu$ine$$ community but not "siloed" within/by organized civil society... rather partner, sympathizer, collaborator etc. --c.a. Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > Milton, > > Do you actually mean a sort of "personal sovereignty" principle, that > would enable individuals to gather in numerous human groupings, > including nations, but also business and non-profit entities ? so that > the unifying governance unit becomes stakeholders of various sizes but > with equal status instead of three (or four) separate and siloed > stakeholder groups ? > > B. > > On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 9:30 AM, Milton L Mueller > wrote: > > > ________________________________________ > From: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond [ocl at gih.com ] > > > - governments: law and order > > - business: economy and money > >- civil society: conscience > > > >Any social ecosystem requires all three to work. Take one out and > either > >the system will fail, tear itself apart, or reach an untenable extreme. > >That's why I believe in multi-stakeholderism. > > Nice formulation, Olivier. But suppose we called it "popular > sovereignty" and "individual rights" instead of > "multistakeholderism" - would that not allow individuals, in > various aggregations, to produce the appropriate mix of law, order, > economy and conscience? Is not the division into three estates (with > millions of individuals overlapping and participating in two or more > at the same time) artificial? > > --MM____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > -- > ____________________ > Bertrand de La Chapelle > Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the > Information Society > Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of > Foreign and European Affairs > Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 > > "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de > Saint Exupéry > ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") > -- 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 bdelachapelle at gmail.com Tue Mar 2 13:44:11 2010 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 19:44:11 +0100 Subject: [governance] Parminder's exchange with Bertrand In-Reply-To: <954259bd1003021011qb6d95e0gd3926e1fdda38d19@mail.gmail.com> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6CCE@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4B85046E.6080509@wzb.eu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C7AB3897@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4B8997DD.4030103@gih.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6D07@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <954259bd1003021011qb6d95e0gd3926e1fdda38d19@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <954259bd1003021044m22d1f71fl4dc011f12c445e5a@mail.gmail.com> Milton, Just an interesting quote on that concept of personal or individual sovereignty : *State sovereignty, in its most basic sense, is being redefined—not least by the forces of globalisation and international co-operation. States are now widely understood to be instruments at the service of their peoples, and not vice versa. At the same time individual sovereignty—by which I mean the fundamental freedom of each individual, enshrined in the charter of the **UN ** and subsequent international treaties—has been enhanced by a renewed and spreading consciousness of individual rights. When we read the charter today, we are more than ever conscious that its aim is to protect individual human beings, not to protect those who abuse them.* This paragraph is by none other than Kofi Annan in a 1999 article in the Economist titled : *Two concepts of sovereignty*. Accessible here : http://www.un.org/News/ossg/sg/stories/kaecon.html The article was written about military interventions, in the wake of the Kosovo situation. It's interesting to read it now, in light of what has happened in the first few years of the XXIst century. Many quesstions K. Annan raised are still incredibly accurate. But another quote from the same article resonates with something we exchanged earlier in this thread : A new, broader definition of national interest is needed in the new century, which would induce states to find greater unity in the pursuit of common goals and values. In the context of many of the challenges facing humanity today, the collective interest *is* the national interest. Best Bertrand On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 7:11 PM, Bertrand de La Chapelle < bdelachapelle at gmail.com> wrote: > Milton, > > Do you actually mean a sort of "personal sovereignty" principle, that would > enable individuals to gather in numerous human groupings, including nations, > but also business and non-profit entities ? so that the unifying governance > unit becomes stakeholders of various sizes but with equal status instead of > three (or four) separate and siloed stakeholder groups ? > > B. > > > On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 9:30 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > >> >> ________________________________________ >> From: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond [ocl at gih.com] >> >> > - governments: law and order >> > - business: economy and money >> >- civil society: conscience >> > >> >Any social ecosystem requires all three to work. Take one out and either >> >the system will fail, tear itself apart, or reach an untenable extreme. >> >That's why I believe in multi-stakeholderism. >> >> Nice formulation, Olivier. But suppose we called it "popular sovereignty" >> and "individual rights" instead of "multistakeholderism" - would that not >> allow individuals, in various aggregations, to produce the appropriate mix >> of law, order, economy and conscience? Is not the division into three >> estates (with millions of individuals overlapping and participating in two >> or more at the same time) artificial? >> >> --MM____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > > > -- > ____________________ > > Bertrand de La Chapelle > Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the > Information Society > Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of > Foreign and European Affairs > Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 > > "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint > Exupéry > ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") > -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the Information Society Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Mar 2 23:42:15 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2010 10:12:15 +0530 Subject: [governance] Parminder's exchange with Bertrand In-Reply-To: <954259bd1003021011qb6d95e0gd3926e1fdda38d19@mail.gmail.com> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6CCE@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4B85046E.6080509@wzb.eu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C7AB3897@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4B8997DD.4030103@gih.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6D07@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <954259bd1003021011qb6d95e0gd3926e1fdda38d19@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4B8DE8A7.5080306@itforchange.net> Milton: But suppose we called it "popular sovereignty" and "individual rights" instead of "multistakeholderism" - would that not allow individuals, in various aggregations, to produce the appropriate mix of law, order, economy and conscience? Is not the division into three estates (with millions of individuals overlapping and participating in two or more at the same time) artificial? Parminder: I agree with Milton's doubts whether the MS framework contributes anything new (in a positive sense) for organising our political systems. What does the term stakeholder groups bring in beyond what we already know as 'interest groups', a basic and a widely used concept of representative democracy. Unless those arguing for MS-ism as the basic new governance form clearly articulate a response to this question, it is difficult to go any further in this discussion. Bertrand (in response to Milton): Do you actually mean a sort of "personal sovereignty" principle, that would enable individuals to gather in numerous human groupings, including nations, but also business and non-profit entities ? Parminder: This brings me to the gorilla-in-the-room question of MS-ism - the role and legitimacy of big business in political structures. It is important to discuss how, at a theoretical level, organization into a business unit is very different from political interest based collectives - governments, or non-gov bodies. Again, this is a principal issue that needs to be clarified by Ms-ists. The conflation of 'interests' and structures of business organization - especially of the trans-global share capital based kind - with human organisations and collectives with shared 'lifeworld' (a world that subjects may experience together) based interests is very problematic, and requires clarification. I had proposed a thorough analysis of the term 'stake' and stakeholder in each context before we hurry to confer legitimate political power in hands of any MS system. Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > Milton, > > Do you actually mean a sort of "personal sovereignty" principle, that > would enable individuals to gather in numerous human groupings, > including nations, but also business and non-profit entities ? so that > the unifying governance unit becomes stakeholders of various sizes but > with equal status instead of three (or four) separate and siloed > stakeholder groups ? > > B. > > On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 9:30 AM, Milton L Mueller > wrote: > > > ________________________________________ > From: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond [ocl at gih.com ] > > > - governments: law and order > > - business: economy and money > >- civil society: conscience > > > >Any social ecosystem requires all three to work. Take one out and > either > >the system will fail, tear itself apart, or reach an untenable > extreme. > >That's why I believe in multi-stakeholderism. > > Nice formulation, Olivier. But suppose we called it "popular > sovereignty" and "individual rights" instead of > "multistakeholderism" - would that not allow individuals, in > various aggregations, to produce the appropriate mix of law, > order, economy and conscience? Is not the division into three > estates (with millions of individuals overlapping and > participating in two or more at the same time) artificial? > > --MM____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > -- > ____________________ > Bertrand de La Chapelle > Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for > the Information Society > Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of > Foreign and European Affairs > Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 > > "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de > Saint Exupéry > ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at psg.com Wed Mar 3 00:57:18 2010 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 00:57:18 -0500 Subject: [governance] Parminder's exchange with Bertrand In-Reply-To: <4B8DE8A7.5080306@itforchange.net> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6CCE@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4B85046E.6080509@wzb.eu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C7AB3897@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4B8997DD.4030103@gih.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6D07@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <954259bd1003021011qb6d95e0gd3926e1fdda38d19@mail.gmail.com> <4B8DE8A7.5080306@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <90B17D59-DFD8-42B0-BEA3-97BD5E78E8B0@psg.com> On 2 Mar 2010, at 23:42, Parminder wrote: > Unless those arguing for MS-ism as the basic new governance form clearly articulate a response to this question, it is difficult to go any further in this discussion. I would argue for it, but it does not seem worth doing so in this antagonistic atmosphere. When I find a nice calm situation where I can spend several months working out a clear articulation that would withstand the aggressive squeeze play attack of Milton & Parminder, I will get back to you. For now I will declare that for me, it is a pragmatic matter of realizing it is the only game in town. I repeat myself when i say that I think you risk the only chance civil society has of having any real participation in Internet governance if you and Milton succeed in muddying the waters on multistakeholder Internet governance. a. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Mar 3 01:48:48 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2010 12:18:48 +0530 Subject: [governance] Parminder's exchange with Bertrand In-Reply-To: <90B17D59-DFD8-42B0-BEA3-97BD5E78E8B0@psg.com> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6CCE@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4B85046E.6080509@wzb.eu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C7AB3897@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4B8997DD.4030103@gih.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6D07@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <954259bd1003021011qb6d95e0gd3926e1fdda38d19@mail.gmail.com> <4B8DE8A7.5080306@itforchange.net> <90B17D59-DFD8-42B0-BEA3-97BD5E78E8B0@psg.com> Message-ID: <4B8E0650.7020704@itforchange.net> Avri Doria wrote: > On 2 Mar 2010, at 23:42, Parminder wrote: > > >> Unless those arguing for MS-ism as the basic new governance form clearly articulate a response to this question, it is difficult to go any further in this discussion. >> > > > I would argue for it, but it does not seem worth doing so in this antagonistic atmosphere. When I find a nice calm situation where I can spend several months working out a clear articulation that would withstand the aggressive squeeze play attack of Milton & Parminder, I will get back to you. For now I will declare that for me, it is a pragmatic matter of realizing it is the only game in town. > I repeat myself when i say that I think you risk the only chance civil society has of having any real participation in Internet governance if you and Milton succeed in muddying the waters on multistakeholder Internet governance. > Avri, I am all for pragmatism. It is obvious in the fact that I have strongly supported IGF as a multistakeholder institution, and MS processes that opened up the WSIS system. I also know that civil society got the place in these spaces only because the business sector and the technical community had to be accommodated. So we can indeed stick together in pragmatism of going along with MS-ism in the present situation. The problem however starts when even in internal dialogs silences take over when key questions of new forms of domination supplanting public interest, and dangers of co-option of civil society to them, are presented. For instance, when we habitability become muted on US hegemony, which is going from strength to strength, and is worse than anything before in the digital technologies/ Internet's realm, and become insensitive to anyone taking up issues about very dangerous monopolies of digital mega-companies, which again are beyond anything we have ever known and dealt with. Parminder > a. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Wed Mar 3 02:13:44 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 15:13:44 +0800 Subject: [governance] Parminder's exchange with Bertrand In-Reply-To: <4B8DE8A7.5080306@itforchange.net> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6CCE@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4B85046E.6080509@wzb.eu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C7AB3897@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4B8997DD.4030103@gih.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6D07@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <954259bd1003021011qb6d95e0gd3926e1fdda38d19@mail.gmail.com> <4B8DE8A7.5080306@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <6DA2DCE5-CF10-4775-8C41-F72D80FE4A3E@ciroap.org> On 03/03/2010, at 12:42 PM, Parminder wrote: > I agree with Milton's doubts whether the MS framework contributes anything new (in a positive sense) for organising our political systems. What does the term stakeholder groups bring in beyond what we already know as 'interest groups', a basic and a widely used concept of representative democracy. Unless those arguing for MS-ism as the basic new governance form clearly articulate a response to this question, it is difficult to go any further in this discussion. It can be justified on the basis that each of the stakeholder groups draws its legitimacy from a different source. For governments, it is their democratic representation of their citizens; for the private sector, it is that free markets offer superior efficiency in the distribution of goods and services; and civil society promotes substantive values for their own sake, including transnational values for which governments can claim no democratic mandate. But at the end of the day I agree with Avri that largely it is largely a pragmatic thing, because the three (arguably more) stakeholder groups were formally recognised at WSIS, so why not let's run with that while it helps us, without assuming it is either a panacea or a fundamentally new paradigm of governance. -- Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 CI is 50 Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010. Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer rights around the world. http://www.consumersinternational.org/50 Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Mar 3 02:56:14 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2010 13:26:14 +0530 Subject: [governance] Parminder's exchange with Bertrand In-Reply-To: <6DA2DCE5-CF10-4775-8C41-F72D80FE4A3E@ciroap.org> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6CCE@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4B85046E.6080509@wzb.eu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C7AB3897@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4B8997DD.4030103@gih.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6D07@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <954259bd1003021011qb6d95e0gd3926e1fdda38d19@mail.gmail.com> <4B8DE8A7.5080306@itforchange.net> <6DA2DCE5-CF10-4775-8C41-F72D80FE4A3E@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <4B8E161E.5050907@itforchange.net> Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 03/03/2010, at 12:42 PM, Parminder wrote: > >> I agree with Milton's doubts whether the MS framework contributes >> anything new (in a positive sense) for organising our political >> systems. What does the term stakeholder groups bring in beyond what >> we already know as 'interest groups', a basic and a widely used >> concept of representative democracy. Unless those arguing for >> MS-ism as the basic new governance form clearly articulate a response >> to this question, it is difficult to go any further in this discussion. > > It can be justified on the basis that each of the stakeholder groups > draws its legitimacy from a different source. For governments, it is > their democratic representation of their citizens; for the private > sector, it is that free markets offer superior efficiency in the > distribution of goods and services; and civil society promotes > substantive values for their own sake, including transnational values > for which governments can claim no democratic mandate. Jeremy Only (real) people's interests are sources of political legitimacy, not ideas and beliefs like 'real markets offer superior efficiency in the distribution of goods and services'. Ideas and beliefs do however get enshrined in constitutions etc but that is a different level of political authority. For this reason, only entities like governments, who are elected, and civil society bodies that represent interests of different groups of (real) people, have political legitimacy. Now, even if for the sake of argument if we agree that abstract ideas like 'markets offer superior efficiency in the distribution of goods and services' should have people representing them at policy tables, two problems come up. (1) There are counter different ideas, even in the economic field while many many more outside. One can never be sure which one should be represented, and by whom and how much. There could be the idea that centrally planned systems offer best resource allocation, or mixed systems do that best (you would know that upto 50 percent of GDP of developed countries is spent by governments, in creation of public goods as well as in redistribution). Should all of them be given equal (?) space on the policy table. If so, how? Also, arent these different ideas/ ideologies already represented in different kinds of governments, political parties (from right to left), and also civil society groups? (2) Perhaps even more importantly, it is a wrong belief that reps of big business represent interests of 'free markets'. Faster we disabuse ourselves of this notion the better. They represent shareholder value - simple and clear, and would be as happy to get it through non-free monopolistic markets, as most big business often do, more so in digital arena, as from free markets. Therefore the notion that big business should be present, in the huge mass and force that they are present in MS bodies, because they represents the ideal of 'free markets' is patently untenable. > > But at the end of the day I agree with Avri that largely it is largely > a pragmatic thing, because the three (arguably more) stakeholder > groups were formally recognised at WSIS, so why not let's run with > that while it helps us, without assuming it is either a panacea or a > fundamentally new paradigm of governance. To that pragmatism I too agree and subscribe. But that should not preclude engaged social analysis of what MS systems in their actual operation often do. Also, I am quite sure that MS-ism has often been presented on this list with the presumptuousness of it being 'a fundamentally new paradigm of governance'. Parminder > > -- > > *Jeremy Malcolm > Project Coordinator* > Consumers International > Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > *CI is 50* > Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement > in 2010. > Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect > consumer rights around the world. > _http://www.consumersinternational.org/50_ > > Read our email confidentiality notice > . > Don't print this email unless necessary. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Wed Mar 3 04:28:01 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 17:28:01 +0800 Subject: [governance] Parminder's exchange with Bertrand In-Reply-To: <4B8E161E.5050907@itforchange.net> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6CCE@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4B85046E.6080509@wzb.eu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C7AB3897@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4B8997DD.4030103@gih.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6D07@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <954259bd1003021011qb6d95e0gd3926e1fdda38d19@mail.gmail.com> <4B8DE8A7.5080306@itforchange.net> <6DA2DCE5-CF10-4775-8C41-F72D80FE4A3E@ciroap.org> <4B8E161E.5050907@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <391C7C55-B181-4959-AE3B-F6347AC071AD@ciroap.org> On 03/03/2010, at 3:56 PM, Parminder wrote: > (2) Perhaps even more importantly, it is a wrong belief that reps of big business represent interests of 'free markets'. Faster we disabuse ourselves of this notion the better. They represent shareholder value - simple and clear, and would be as happy to get it through non-free monopolistic markets, as most big business often do, more so in digital arena, as from free markets. > > Therefore the notion that big business should be present, in the huge mass and force that they are present in MS bodies, because they represents the ideal of 'free markets' is patently untenable. This much is very true, and a good argument as to why civil society must be empowered to participate equally in multi-stakeholder processes. WIPO is a case in point, where most of the NGOs in consultative status are not NGOs at all, but trade associations. > To that pragmatism I too agree and subscribe. But that should not preclude engaged social analysis of what MS systems in their actual operation often do. Also, I am quite sure that MS-ism has often been presented on this list with the presumptuousness of it being 'a fundamentally new paradigm of governance'. I don't disagree with you at all Parminder. -- Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 CI is 50 Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010. Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer rights around the world. http://www.consumersinternational.org/50 Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeanette at wzb.eu Wed Mar 3 04:44:43 2010 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2010 09:44:43 +0000 Subject: [governance] Parminder's exchange with Bertrand In-Reply-To: <90B17D59-DFD8-42B0-BEA3-97BD5E78E8B0@psg.com> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6CCE@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4B85046E.6080509@wzb.eu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C7AB3897@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4B8997DD.4030103@gih.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6D07@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <954259bd1003021011qb6d95e0gd3926e1fdda38d19@mail.gmail.com> <4B8DE8A7.5080306@itforchange.net> <90B17D59-DFD8-42B0-BEA3-97BD5E78E8B0@psg.com> Message-ID: <4B8E2F8B.9090506@wzb.eu> Avri Doria wrote: > On 2 Mar 2010, at 23:42, Parminder wrote: > >> Unless those arguing for MS-ism as the basic new governance form >> clearly articulate a response to this question, it is difficult to >> go any further in this discussion. > > > I would argue for it, but it does not seem worth doing so in this > antagonistic atmosphere. I whole-heartedly agree. I stopped participating in this discussion when the question as to whether global governance should be based on an individual or collective notion was derailed towards WW2. jeanette When I find a nice calm situation where I > can spend several months working out a clear articulation that would > withstand the aggressive squeeze play attack of Milton & Parminder, I > will get back to you. For now I will declare that for me, it is a > pragmatic matter of realizing it is the only game in town. > > I repeat myself when i say that I think you risk the only chance > civil society has of having any real participation in Internet > governance if you and Milton succeed in muddying the waters on > multistakeholder Internet governance. > > a. > > ____________________________________________________________ You > received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any > message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jlfullsack at orange.fr Wed Mar 3 04:57:40 2010 From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK) Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 10:57:40 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] Parminder's exchange with Bertrand In-Reply-To: <391C7C55-B181-4959-AE3B-F6347AC071AD@ciroap.org> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6CCE@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4B85046E.6080509@wzb.eu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C7AB3897@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4B8997DD.4030103@gih.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6D07@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <954259bd1003021011qb6d95e0gd3926e1fdda38d19@mail.gmail.com> <4B8DE8A7.5080306@itforchange.net> <6DA2DCE5-CF10-4775-8C41-F72D80FE4A3E@ciroap.org> <4B8E161E.5050907@itforchange.net> <391C7C55-B181-4959-AE3B-F6347AC071AD@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <25934915.24795.1267610260516.JavaMail.www@wwinf1k01> Dear Jeremy and Parminder Jeremy wrote < I don't disagree with you at all Parminder Nor do I ! IMHO you are both converging on the idea that MS-ism has to be considered objectively and not with the pseudo-aura some of our colleagues credit it with. Not to mention the "new governance paradigm" that MS-ism is supposed to be for some of our colleagues, who try  to intrumentalize the whole CS since the WSIS process, with the support of groups of interest ranging in a more or less "grey zone" between CS and business entities. Therefore, I do firmly support your vision and thank you for mentioning it regularly on our list Best regards  Jean-Louis Fullsack > Message du 03/03/10 10:28 > De : "Jeremy Malcolm" > A : "Parminder" > Copie à : governance at lists.cpsr.org > Objet : Re: [governance] Parminder's exchange with Bertrand > > On 03/03/2010, at 3:56 PM, Parminder wrote: (2) Perhaps even more importantly, it is a wrong belief that reps of big business represent interests of 'free markets'. Faster we disabuse ourselves of this notion the better. They represent shareholder value - simple and clear, and would be as happy to get it through non-free monopolistic markets, as most big business often do, more so in digital arena, as from free markets. > > Therefore the notion that big business should be present, in the huge mass and force that they are present in MS bodies, because they represents the ideal of 'free markets' is patently untenable. > > This much is very true, and a good argument as to why civil society must be empowered to participate equally in multi-stakeholder processes.  WIPO is a case in point, where most of the NGOs in consultative status are not NGOs at all, but trade associations. > To that pragmatism I too agree and subscribe. But that should not preclude engaged social analysis of what MS systems in their actual operation often do. Also, I am quite sure that MS-ism has often been  presented on this list with the presumptuousness of it being 'a fundamentally new paradigm of governance'. > > I don't disagree with you at all Parminder. > -- 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 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.> > > > [ message-footer.txt (0.4 Ko) ] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jlfullsack at orange.fr Wed Mar 3 05:55:40 2010 From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK) Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 11:55:40 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] Parminder's exchange with Bertrand In-Reply-To: <6DA2DCE5-CF10-4775-8C41-F72D80FE4A3E@ciroap.org> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6CCE@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4B85046E.6080509@wzb.eu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C7AB3897@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4B8997DD.4030103@gih.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6D07@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <954259bd1003021011qb6d95e0gd3926e1fdda38d19@mail.gmail.com> <4B8DE8A7.5080306@itforchange.net> <6DA2DCE5-CF10-4775-8C41-F72D80FE4A3E@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <2965698.9553.1267613740020.JavaMail.www@wwinf1k32> Dear Jeremy You wrote < for the private sector, it is that free markets offer superior efficiency in the distribution of goods and services;> If your statement is right I still wonder WHO within the four "stakeholders" was at the origin of the severe financial and economic crisis ? Maybe you didn't have any time left for reading again your mail ... Best Jean-Louis Fullsack > Message du 03/03/10 08:14 > De : "Jeremy Malcolm" > A : governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Parminder" > Copie à : > Objet : Re: [governance] Parminder's exchange with Bertrand > > On 03/03/2010, at 12:42 PM, Parminder wrote: I agree with Milton's doubts whether the MS framework contributes anything new (in a positive sense) for organising our political systems. What does the term stakeholder groups bring in beyond what we already know as 'interest groups', a basic and a widely used concept  of  representative democracy. Unless those arguing for MS-ism as the basic new governance form clearly articulate a response to this question, it is difficult to go any further in this discussion. > > It can be justified on the basis that each of the stakeholder groups draws its legitimacy from a different source.  For governments, it is their democratic representation of their citizens; for the private sector, it is that free markets offer superior efficiency in the distribution of goods and services; and civil society promotes substantive values for their own sake, including transnational values for which governments can claim no democratic mandate. > But at the end of the day I agree with Avri that largely it is largely a pragmatic thing, because the three (arguably more) stakeholder groups were formally recognised at WSIS, so why not let's run with that while it helps us, without assuming it is either a panacea or a fundamentally new paradigm of governance. > -- 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 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.> > > > [ message-footer.txt (0.4 Ko) ] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Wed Mar 3 07:31:32 2010 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2010 09:31:32 -0300 Subject: [governance] Parminder's exchange with Bertrand In-Reply-To: <90B17D59-DFD8-42B0-BEA3-97BD5E78E8B0@psg.com> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6CCE@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4B85046E.6080509@wzb.eu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C7AB3897@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4B8997DD.4030103@gih.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6D07@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <954259bd1003021011qb6d95e0gd3926e1fdda38d19@mail.gmail.com> <4B8DE8A7.5080306@itforchange.net> <90B17D59-DFD8-42B0-BEA3-97BD5E78E8B0@psg.com> Message-ID: <4B8E56A4.2040704@cafonso.ca> Why not replace the horrible word "multistakeholderism" with "pluralism"? We would always complement it with (or contrapose it to) "multilateralism", and there are one-word translations in most languages, I guess. An anglicism which is also a neologism in English, and on top of it is an horrible word, frankly... where are the Germans, the French, sacré bleu? --c.a. Avri Doria wrote: > On 2 Mar 2010, at 23:42, Parminder wrote: > >> Unless those arguing for MS-ism as the basic new governance form clearly articulate a response to this question, it is difficult to go any further in this discussion. > > > I would argue for it, but it does not seem worth doing so in this antagonistic atmosphere. When I find a nice calm situation where I can spend several months working out a clear articulation that would withstand the aggressive squeeze play attack of Milton & Parminder, I will get back to you. For now I will declare that for me, it is a pragmatic matter of realizing it is the only game in town. > > I repeat myself when i say that I think you risk the only chance civil society has of having any real participation in Internet governance if you and Milton succeed in muddying the waters on multistakeholder Internet governance. > > a. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- Carlos A. Afonso CGI.br (www.cgi.br) Nupef (www.nupef.org.br) ==================================== new/nuevo/novo e-mail: ca at cafonso.ca ==================================== ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Wed Mar 3 08:18:45 2010 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 09:18:45 -0400 Subject: [governance] Parminder's exchange with Bertrand In-Reply-To: <4B8E56A4.2040704@cafonso.ca> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6CCE@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4B85046E.6080509@wzb.eu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C7AB3897@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4B8997DD.4030103@gih.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6D07@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <954259bd1003021011qb6d95e0gd3926e1fdda38d19@mail.gmail.com> <4B8DE8A7.5080306@itforchange.net> <90B17D59-DFD8-42B0-BEA3-97BD5E78E8B0@psg.com> <4B8E56A4.2040704@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: Horrible and mis-leading. The "stakeholder" by definition does not in fact "have a stake in" something but is the disinterested outsider who holds the stake - as a trustee - until the matter is resolved. "Multi-stakeholder" appears to be attempting to label all of those who have a stake (interest) in the "something" in this case the Internet and its governance. If the term is deconstructed are there many of us, or, individually, do we have many "stakes" or interests? A very confusing term, and doomed to be lost in translation. Deirdre On 3 March 2010 08:31, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Why not replace the horrible word "multistakeholderism" with > "pluralism"? We would always complement it with (or contrapose it to) > "multilateralism", and there are one-word translations in most > languages, I guess. > > An anglicism which is also a neologism in English, and on top of it is > an horrible word, frankly... where are the Germans, the French, sacré bleu? > > --c.a. > > Avri Doria wrote: > > On 2 Mar 2010, at 23:42, Parminder wrote: > > > >> Unless those arguing for MS-ism as the basic new governance form clearly > articulate a response to this question, it is difficult to go any further in > this discussion. > > > > > > I would argue for it, but it does not seem worth doing so in this > antagonistic atmosphere. When I find a nice calm situation where I can > spend several months working out a clear articulation that would withstand > the aggressive squeeze play attack of Milton & Parminder, I will get back to > you. For now I will declare that for me, it is a pragmatic matter of > realizing it is the only game in town. > > > > I repeat myself when i say that I think you risk the only chance civil > society has of having any real participation in Internet governance if you > and Milton succeed in muddying the waters on multistakeholder Internet > governance. > > > > a. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- > > Carlos A. Afonso > CGI.br (www.cgi.br) > Nupef (www.nupef.org.br) > ==================================== > new/nuevo/novo e-mail: ca at cafonso.ca > ==================================== > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Wed Mar 3 08:24:30 2010 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 08:24:30 -0500 Subject: [governance] Data retention, Privacy & Kudos to the German high court Message-ID: <55B4CECF-4B30-4C68-8E2D-BDC320834319@acm.org> http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2010/03/germany-high-court-overturns-data.php?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+pitt/vLdl+(JURIST+-+Paper+Chase+[full]) and other sources ( i read it in the FT), but this is the first reference i found on line when i did a search. " Germany's Federal Constitutional Court [official website, in German] on Tuesday overturned a law requiring telecommunications providers to store information on telephone calls, e-mails, and Internet use for six months for use in possible terrorism investigations, citing privacy issues. The court found [press release, in German] that Section 113 of the Telecommunications Act violates the privacy of German citizens and that the law lacks the controls to ensure the data is secure and properly utilized. The court also ruled that all stored data must be immediately deleted. The law was passed in response to a 2006 European Union (EU) directive requiring the retention of telephone and e-mail records for use in terrorism investigations. The court, however, stated that the German lawexceeded the requirements [Spiegel report] put forth by the EU. The law has been widely criticized in Germany, with nearly 35,000 Germans filing complaints regarding the law with the court. "____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Mar 3 09:07:57 2010 From: b.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin SCHOMBE) Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 15:07:57 +0100 Subject: [governance] Parminder's exchange with Bertrand In-Reply-To: <4B8E56A4.2040704@cafonso.ca> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6CCE@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4B85046E.6080509@wzb.eu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C7AB3897@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4B8997DD.4030103@gih.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6D07@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <954259bd1003021011qb6d95e0gd3926e1fdda38d19@mail.gmail.com> <4B8DE8A7.5080306@itforchange.net> <90B17D59-DFD8-42B0-BEA3-97BD5E78E8B0@psg.com> <4B8E56A4.2040704@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: Multistakehoderism: can mean process in several level pluralism: can mean diversity of racial or religious or ethnic or cultural groups is tolerated multilateralism is a term in international relations that refers to multiple countries working in concert on a given issue. what is the better termonilogy to use? 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. 2010/3/3 Carlos A. Afonso > Why not replace the horrible word "multistakeholderism" with > "pluralism"? We would always complement it with (or contrapose it to) > "multilateralism", and there are one-word translations in most > languages, I guess. > > An anglicism which is also a neologism in English, and on top of it is > an horrible word, frankly... where are the Germans, the French, sacré bleu? > > --c.a. > > Avri Doria wrote: > > On 2 Mar 2010, at 23:42, Parminder wrote: > > > >> Unless those arguing for MS-ism as the basic new governance form clearly > articulate a response to this question, it is difficult to go any further in > this discussion. > > > > > > I would argue for it, but it does not seem worth doing so in this > antagonistic atmosphere. When I find a nice calm situation where I can > spend several months working out a clear articulation that would withstand > the aggressive squeeze play attack of Milton & Parminder, I will get back to > you. For now I will declare that for me, it is a pragmatic matter of > realizing it is the only game in town. > > > > I repeat myself when i say that I think you risk the only chance civil > society has of having any real participation in Internet governance if you > and Milton succeed in muddying the waters on multistakeholder Internet > governance. > > > > a. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- > > Carlos A. Afonso > CGI.br (www.cgi.br) > Nupef (www.nupef.org.br) > ==================================== > new/nuevo/novo e-mail: ca at cafonso.ca > ==================================== > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Wed Mar 3 11:41:32 2010 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 11:41:32 -0500 Subject: [governance] Strangeness in the IGF programme In-Reply-To: <4B8D04B2.3060406@cafonso.ca> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6D09@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>,<4B8D04B2.3060406@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6D16@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> > Gone are the days [snip] Now the MAG is basically reduced to > concluding phrases generic enough [snip] Even the > sometimes lively discussions in the igf-members list (an opportunity to > deepen the issues) are history. deep sigh.... >One of the promising "collateral effects" of the IGF is the several >national/regional IGFs (which might continue even if this UN thing >disappears) -- but in the last MAG the UN made sure that there will be >little time for regional meetings to report back The UN? Who do you mean by that? And why would they not want other IGFs to report?? >However, let us recall that in the IGF Sharm-el-Sheik >nearly one full day was consumed in local >government's rituals... Thank you, Carlos, for your depressing assessment. >Grande Milton, you would not stand one day in a regular, closed MAG >session -- your blood pressure would raise to exploding levels :) Combustion can be controlled. The world of transport now runs on the internal combustion engine. Perhaps the MAG needs a few explosions to power its activities____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeanette at wzb.eu Wed Mar 3 11:51:25 2010 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2010 16:51:25 +0000 Subject: [governance] Strangeness in the IGF programme In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6D16@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6D09@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>,<4B8D04B2.3060406@cafonso.ca> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6D16@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4B8E938D.7060708@wzb.eu> Milton L Mueller wrote: >> Gone are the days [snip] Now the MAG is basically reduced to >> concluding phrases generic enough [snip] Even the >> sometimes lively discussions in the igf-members list (an opportunity to >> deepen the issues) are history. This is not true. Right now, we do have quite a lively and important discussion on the MAG list, and it would be good if more people participated in it. jeanette > > deep sigh.... > >> One of the promising "collateral effects" of the IGF is the several >> national/regional IGFs (which might continue even if this UN thing >> disappears) -- but in the last MAG the UN made sure that there will be >> little time for regional meetings to report back > > The UN? Who do you mean by that? And why would they not want other IGFs to report?? > >> However, let us recall that in the IGF Sharm-el-Sheik >> nearly one full day was consumed in local >> government's rituals... > > Thank you, Carlos, for your depressing assessment. > >> Grande Milton, you would not stand one day in a regular, closed MAG >> session -- your blood pressure would raise to exploding levels :) > > Combustion can be controlled. The world of transport now runs on the internal combustion engine. Perhaps the MAG needs a few explosions to power its activities____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Mar 3 11:59:20 2010 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 11:59:20 -0500 Subject: [governance] Strangeness in the IGF programme In-Reply-To: <701af9f71003020607x61cd7718xbaa8a818d60568d3@mail.gmail.com> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6D09@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>,<701af9f71003020607x61cd7718xbaa8a818d60568d3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6D18@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Fouad: Based on your discussion below, I conclude that the "Mobile telephony and internet security" theme is simply badly phrased. You are talking about "mobile networks (telecoms)" and internet security, not telephony per se. More comments below >Most of my interaction in the lists comes through my accessing the >Internet through my meagre Nokia cell phone (without touch-screen or >qwerty keyboard features) because most of the time I don't have >electricity due to the prevailing energy crisis in Pakistan. I am in >an urban setting of Lahore and it is much worse are the conditions for >our rural regions that comprises 66% of national population of over >180 million citizens and sometimes have power for less than a few >single digit hours. Definitely interesting and important access issues here, but not a security issue - or even an internet governance issue - per se. >I also pay a much higher cost to connect through a mobile network to >the Internet as opposed to my ADSL provider. For 1MB on my cell, I pay >Rs.150 per MB almost equivalent to approx. USD $2.00 whereas I pay Rs. >1200 equivalent to approx. USD $14 for my ADSL per/month with a 20 GB >cap. When you compare this, I am paying 8 times more for access on my >cell as opposed to the direct Internet connectivity with similar >usage. This is one way of looking at it. This is a well-known economic regulatory issue; in developed markets, mobile internet has gone from being an expensive, pay per bit walled garden to a pretty good approximation of the fixed internet, both in terms of interface and in terms of access to services. The driver of this has been, almost entirely, competition. I would guess that market conditions in Pakistan are less competitive. However, with mobile bandwidth being mroe constrained than fixed, the pricing may also reflect significant cost differences. If there is competition and some good regulatory decisions regarding spectrum access then over time that difference may reduce or disappear. >When I connect to the Internet over the cell phone network, I am >exposed to the issues of another carrier/network medium so that's two >layers of connectivity on a mobile/cellular network. With the issues >of connecting to the Internet over the mobile networks, the issue of >Internet Security can also be looked at that what are the layers of >Internet Security in interplay with the mobile networks and I think >everyone present wanted to have a look at Internet Security issues >with relevance to Internet Connectivity through cellular networks. I still don't quite get this. By definition, the internet is a network of networks that involves multiple layers of connectivity. You may be going through cellular nets, WiFi, fixed copper, satellite, co-axial cable, fiber at any given time. Is there some specific security issue assocaited with internet access via "cellular" (by which I assume you mean 2G and 3G CDMA and GSM networks, or GPRS, or 3.5 HSPA, or 4G LTE standards???) that people are concerned about? >Trust me most of the topics included in the program paper have no >conspiracy theory attached to them and were suggestions with a bit of I reject entirely the language of "conspiracy" but I do believe that things happen for a reason and we can analyze and reconstruct what happened in order to understand it better. I would suggest that a specific person or group proposed a specific topic and gave it a specific construction for a reason, a reason that reflected their own agenda. I also believe that in committees working under time pressure words, concepts and phrases can become garbled beyond all recognition. Even then, it helps to reconstruct what compromises and deals were made to arrive at the awkward result. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Mar 3 11:59:36 2010 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 11:59:36 -0500 Subject: [governance] Strangeness in the IGF programme In-Reply-To: References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6D09@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>, Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6D19@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> >>"Maintaining Internet services in situations of disaster and crisis" >> - a good topic for network operators but what's the CIR angle and >>how is global governance involved? > >There's a whole world out there that calls itself "Critical [National] >Infrastructure" and is all about governments having enough levers to >pull in a time a time of natural (or un-natural) disaster to instruct >operators to do things "in the National Interest" that they would not >normally feel obliged to - as a result of contractual or other >considerations. Yes, indeed there is. Linking IG to nationalistic conceptions of critical infrastructure is all about assertions of control by states. You have just demonstrated the value of inquiring into what kind of thinking went into these topical categories. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From katitza at datos-personales.org Wed Mar 3 12:23:56 2010 From: katitza at datos-personales.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 12:23:56 -0500 Subject: [governance] Strangeness in the IGF programme In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6D19@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6D09@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>, <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6D19@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <3291D3BA-4F00-49F8-85D3-314D0AD17EC7@datos-personales.org> As far as I remember this discussion was focus on examples like the one in haiti. Not sure which is the link with IG. On Mar 3, 2010, at 11:59 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >>> "Maintaining Internet services in situations of disaster and crisis" >>> - a good topic for network operators but what's the CIR angle and >>> how is global governance involved? >> >> There's a whole world out there that calls itself "Critical >> [National] >> Infrastructure" and is all about governments having enough levers to >> pull in a time a time of natural (or un-natural) disaster to instruct >> operators to do things "in the National Interest" that they would not >> normally feel obliged to - as a result of contractual or other >> considerations. > > Yes, indeed there is. Linking IG to nationalistic conceptions of > critical infrastructure is all about assertions of control by > states. You have just demonstrated the value of inquiring into what > kind of thinking went into these topical categories. > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeanette at wzb.eu Wed Mar 3 12:36:22 2010 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2010 17:36:22 +0000 Subject: [governance] Strangeness in the IGF programme In-Reply-To: <3291D3BA-4F00-49F8-85D3-314D0AD17EC7@datos-personales.org> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6D09@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>, <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6D19@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <3291D3BA-4F00-49F8-85D3-314D0AD17EC7@datos-personales.org> Message-ID: <4B8E9E16.8080104@wzb.eu> The point made was that there are various options in recreating a destroyed infrastructure and that the choice made has strong regulatory implications. The example was Haiti. Others said that, despite all good intensions, not enough precautions are taken to limit the dammage of catastrophes. In some countries, it is against the law to store copies of vital data outside the country, which may prevent useful precautions. These were some of the points made to support this topic. jeanette Katitza Rodriguez wrote: > As far as I remember this discussion was focus on examples like the one > in haiti. Not sure which is the link with IG. > > > On Mar 3, 2010, at 11:59 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > >>>> "Maintaining Internet services in situations of disaster and crisis" >>>> - a good topic for network operators but what's the CIR angle and >>>> how is global governance involved? >>> >>> There's a whole world out there that calls itself "Critical [National] >>> Infrastructure" and is all about governments having enough levers to >>> pull in a time a time of natural (or un-natural) disaster to instruct >>> operators to do things "in the National Interest" that they would not >>> normally feel obliged to - as a result of contractual or other >>> considerations. >> >> Yes, indeed there is. Linking IG to nationalistic conceptions of >> critical infrastructure is all about assertions of control by states. >> You have just demonstrated the value of inquiring into what kind of >> thinking went into these topical categories. >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Mar 3 12:36:12 2010 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 12:36:12 -0500 Subject: [governance] Parminder's exchange with Bertrand In-Reply-To: <4B8DE8A7.5080306@itforchange.net> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6CCE@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4B85046E.6080509@wzb.eu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C7AB3897@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4B8997DD.4030103@gih.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6D07@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <954259bd1003021011qb6d95e0gd3926e1fdda38d19@mail.gmail.com>,<4B8DE8A7.5080306@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6D1B@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> >Parminder: >I agree with Milton's doubts whether the MS framework contributes anything new >(in a positive sense) for organising our political systems. What does the term >stakeholder groups bring in beyond what we already know as 'interest groups', >a basic and a widely used concept of representative democracy. Unless those >arguing for MS-ism as the basic new governance form clearly articulate a >response to this question, it is difficult to go any further in this discussion. To repeat myself, I do see a value in the MS concept as a transitional principle that opens up and slightly democratizes inter-governmental organizations. Other than that, you are exactly correct, in a fundamental political science sense, that we are dealing with interest groups. And that raises some very important issues, which i superficially discuss below. >Bertrand (in response to Milton): >Do you actually mean a sort of "personal sovereignty" principle, that would enable individuals to gather in >numerous human groupings, including nations, but also business and non-profit entities ? My answer: Yes, exactly, and the quotation from Kofi Annan cited was a good expression of my view, which sparked such a negative reaction, about governance institutions being servants of the individual rather than the other way around. >Parminder: >This brings me to the gorilla-in-the-room question of MS-ism - the role > and legitimacy of big business in political structures. As I will try to explain below, I don't think this question is restricted to MS-ism advocates. It is a question that permeates discussions about the validity and legitimacy of all democratic, open forms of government. >It is important to discuss how, at a theoretical level, organization >into a business unit is very different from political interest based >collectives - governments, or non-gov bodies. Again, this is a >principal issue that needs to be clarified by Ms-ists. The conflation >of 'interests' and structures of business organization - especially of >the trans-global share capital based kind - with human organisations >and collectives with shared 'lifeworld' (a world that subjects may >experience together) based interests is very problematic, and >requires clarification. As a realist and student of historical processes, I cannot accept the implied rigid distinction between economic and political humanity, or between a nice, human collective lifeworld and an impersonal, evil, inherently exploitative economic world. It's all part of humanity. Most obviously, the ability to share, organize and pool wealth to produce the things humans want and need is an inescapable part of society. The corporation is a form of collective organization; share capital is a way of broadening and - yes - democratizing the ownership and benefits of economic production. Labor unions are also a form of collective economic organization. Given too much power, both a corp or a union can become abusive and gain harmful forms of economic restraint on the rest of us. The problem is that once you set up a form of government that is representative of the interests, desires and visions of the people you also allow them to organize in ways that further or defend their economic (as well as social, political, cultural, etc.) interests. I don't see any way to detach the two. Go back to your specific example of Microsoft and its participation in Indian ICT education programs. I don't know the specifics so forgive any factual errors. OK, so sure, it would be relatively easy (well, not easy in practice, but easy in theory) to identify and avoid some simple forms of corruption: Microsoft pays local board of ed administrator a bribe, suddenly the schools all go Windows and lock themselves into a specific vendor's product. Obviously we don't want to allow that. But how would you feasibly and productively lock anything or anyone associated with _all_ corporations in the ICT industry from a public dialogue of that sort? sooner or later the school district is going to purchase some products. public monies are going to be allocated and spent. Expertise which is concentrated in business (for a good reason - the expertise is valuable) will ahve to be tapped. The people - both in the government and outside the government, both in corporations and as final consumers - all have some kind of an "economic" interest in that money, not just corporations. The government bureaucrat may have an "interest" in expanding his share of the public budget; the competitor of Microsoft may have an interest and benefit economically from excluding MS; an individual or end user might have an economic interest in receiving some of that money whether they need it more than someone else or not. If you could "assume away" economic interest and restrict political dialogue to some Olympian grotto where philosopher-kings considered all options in a disinterested way, well, we wouldn't be talking about this species. Democracy would be all too easy if this problem didn't exist. I guess you have to trust the ability of people to make sense of things in an open environment. There's an interesting book about this problem I read back when I started considering these issues. It's called The People's Lobby: Organizational Innovation and the Rise of Interest Group Politics in the United States, 1890-1925. Elisabeth Clemens. Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: Milton, Do you actually mean a sort of "personal sovereignty" principle, that would enable individuals to gather in numerous human groupings, including nations, but also business and non-profit entities ? so that the unifying governance unit becomes stakeholders of various sizes but with equal status instead of three (or four) separate and siloed stakeholder groups ? B. On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 9:30 AM, Milton L Mueller > wrote: ________________________________________ From: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond [ocl at gih.com] > - governments: law and order > - business: economy and money >- civil society: conscience > >Any social ecosystem requires all three to work. Take one out and either >the system will fail, tear itself apart, or reach an untenable extreme. >That's why I believe in multi-stakeholderism. Nice formulation, Olivier. But suppose we called it "popular sovereignty" and "individual rights" instead of "multistakeholderism" - would that not allow individuals, in various aggregations, to produce the appropriate mix of law, order, economy and conscience? Is not the division into three estates (with millions of individuals overlapping and participating in two or more at the same time) artificial? --MM____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the Information Society Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Wed Mar 3 12:43:08 2010 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 12:43:08 -0500 Subject: [governance] Parminder's exchange with Bertrand In-Reply-To: <4B8E56A4.2040704@cafonso.ca> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6CCE@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4B85046E.6080509@wzb.eu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C7AB3897@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4B8997DD.4030103@gih.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6D07@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <954259bd1003021011qb6d95e0gd3926e1fdda38d19@mail.gmail.com> <4B8DE8A7.5080306@itforchange.net> <90B17D59-DFD8-42B0-BEA3-97BD5E78E8B0@psg.com>,<4B8E56A4.2040704@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6D1E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Yes! ________________________________________ Why not replace the horrible word "multistakeholderism" with "pluralism"? ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Mar 3 12:45:13 2010 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 12:45:13 -0500 Subject: [governance] Parminder's exchange with Bertrand In-Reply-To: <4B8E161E.5050907@itforchange.net> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6CCE@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4B85046E.6080509@wzb.eu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C7AB3897@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4B8997DD.4030103@gih.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6D07@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <954259bd1003021011qb6d95e0gd3926e1fdda38d19@mail.gmail.com> <4B8DE8A7.5080306@itforchange.net> <6DA2DCE5-CF10-4775-8C41-F72D80FE4A3E@ciroap.org>,<4B8E161E.5050907@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6D1F@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Jeremy wrote: >[MS] can be justified on the basis that each of the stakeholder groups >draws its legitimacy from a different source. For governments, it is their >democratic representation of their citizens; for the private sector, it is that >free markets offer superior efficiency in the distribution of goods and >services; and civil society promotes substantive values for their own sake, >including transnational values for which governments can claim no >democratic mandate. some questions: 1. how many governments in the UN have democratic representation of their citizens? 2. how many businesses organize for and support free markets? 3. how many CS organizations are nothing but receptacles for money generated either by govt or by business? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Mar 3 13:09:03 2010 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 13:09:03 -0500 Subject: [governance] new phenom: socially conscious spam Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6D23@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> received today. I am obeying.... ________________________________________ From: betty.happy at yandex.com [betty.happy at yandex.com] We must protect our planet. Turn off your computer! Nous devons protéger notre planète. Éteignez votre ordinateur! Debemos proteger nuestro planeta. Apague su ordenador! Musimy chronić naszą planetę. Wyłącz komputer! Мы должны защитить нашу планету. Выключите компьютер!____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Wed Mar 3 13:10:02 2010 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 13:10:02 -0500 Subject: [governance] Strangeness in the IGF programme In-Reply-To: <4B8E9E16.8080104@wzb.eu> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6D09@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>, <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6D19@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <3291D3BA-4F00-49F8-85D3-314D0AD17EC7@datos-personales.org>,<4B8E9E16.8080104@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015463CDAA@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> re global governance and cs angles on emergency comm + IGF 1st re cs: umm you ever notice that when disasters occur a bunch of cs organizations jump in to help? 2nd re global: you ever notice that if eg a Sec State Clinton wanted to drop off comm gear to help Chile - like she did yesterday- it would nice to know the gear would work in Chile, alongside whatever they already have? Maybe that kind of thing would be easier in emergenices with a little more global coordination. I was involved 15 years ago when -gasp- ITU was looking into this. Maybe they figured it all out by now; or not. Great topic for IGF, tangible benefits of discussing in IGF context might be pointed to hopefully before long. If, gasp again - those multistakeholders can get along ; ). Lee ________________________________________ From: Jeanette Hofmann [jeanette at wzb.eu] Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2010 12:36 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Katitza Rodriguez Cc: Milton L Mueller; Roland Perry Subject: Re: [governance] Strangeness in the IGF programme The point made was that there are various options in recreating a destroyed infrastructure and that the choice made has strong regulatory implications. The example was Haiti. Others said that, despite all good intensions, not enough precautions are taken to limit the dammage of catastrophes. In some countries, it is against the law to store copies of vital data outside the country, which may prevent useful precautions. These were some of the points made to support this topic. jeanette Katitza Rodriguez wrote: > As far as I remember this discussion was focus on examples like the one > in haiti. Not sure which is the link with IG. > > > On Mar 3, 2010, at 11:59 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > >>>> "Maintaining Internet services in situations of disaster and crisis" >>>> - a good topic for network operators but what's the CIR angle and >>>> how is global governance involved? >>> >>> There's a whole world out there that calls itself "Critical [National] >>> Infrastructure" and is all about governments having enough levers to >>> pull in a time a time of natural (or un-natural) disaster to instruct >>> operators to do things "in the National Interest" that they would not >>> normally feel obliged to - as a result of contractual or other >>> considerations. >> >> Yes, indeed there is. Linking IG to nationalistic conceptions of >> critical infrastructure is all about assertions of control by states. >> You have just demonstrated the value of inquiring into what kind of >> thinking went into these topical categories. >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Wed Mar 3 13:14:51 2010 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 13:14:51 -0500 Subject: [governance] Strangeness in the IGF programme In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015463CDAA@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6D09@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>, <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6D19@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <3291D3BA-4F00-49F8-85D3-314D0AD17EC7@datos-personales.org>,<4B8E9E16.8080104@wzb.eu>,<93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015463CDAA@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015463CDAB@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> To be clear, topic 15 years ago was also emergency communication across the Internet. I admit we did not figure it all out back then in the dark ages. ________________________________________ From: Lee W McKnight [lmcknigh at syr.edu] Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2010 1:10 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeanette Hofmann; Katitza Rodriguez Cc: Milton L Mueller; Roland Perry Subject: RE: [governance] Strangeness in the IGF programme re global governance and cs angles on emergency comm + IGF 1st re cs: umm you ever notice that when disasters occur a bunch of cs organizations jump in to help? 2nd re global: you ever notice that if eg a Sec State Clinton wanted to drop off comm gear to help Chile - like she did yesterday- it would nice to know the gear would work in Chile, alongside whatever they already have? Maybe that kind of thing would be easier in emergenices with a little more global coordination. I was involved 15 years ago when -gasp- ITU was looking into this. Maybe they figured it all out by now; or not. Great topic for IGF, tangible benefits of discussing in IGF context might be pointed to hopefully before long. If, gasp again - those multistakeholders can get along ; ). Lee ________________________________________ From: Jeanette Hofmann [jeanette at wzb.eu] Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2010 12:36 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Katitza Rodriguez Cc: Milton L Mueller; Roland Perry Subject: Re: [governance] Strangeness in the IGF programme The point made was that there are various options in recreating a destroyed infrastructure and that the choice made has strong regulatory implications. The example was Haiti. Others said that, despite all good intensions, not enough precautions are taken to limit the dammage of catastrophes. In some countries, it is against the law to store copies of vital data outside the country, which may prevent useful precautions. These were some of the points made to support this topic. jeanette Katitza Rodriguez wrote: > As far as I remember this discussion was focus on examples like the one > in haiti. Not sure which is the link with IG. > > > On Mar 3, 2010, at 11:59 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > >>>> "Maintaining Internet services in situations of disaster and crisis" >>>> - a good topic for network operators but what's the CIR angle and >>>> how is global governance involved? >>> >>> There's a whole world out there that calls itself "Critical [National] >>> Infrastructure" and is all about governments having enough levers to >>> pull in a time a time of natural (or un-natural) disaster to instruct >>> operators to do things "in the National Interest" that they would not >>> normally feel obliged to - as a result of contractual or other >>> considerations. >> >> Yes, indeed there is. Linking IG to nationalistic conceptions of >> critical infrastructure is all about assertions of control by states. >> You have just demonstrated the value of inquiring into what kind of >> thinking went into these topical categories. >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Mar 3 14:47:42 2010 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2010 16:47:42 -0300 Subject: [governance] Strangeness in the IGF programme In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6D16@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6D09@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>,<4B8D04B2.3060406@cafonso.ca> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6D16@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4B8EBCDE.30700@cafonso.ca> Milton L Mueller wrote: >> One of the promising "collateral effects" of the IGF is the several >> national/regional IGFs (which might continue even if this UN thing >> disappears) -- but in the last MAG the UN made sure that there will be >> little time for regional meetings to report back By the UN I mean Nitin, of course, who is an executive under orders of the Secretary General. The format in Egypt was that we should have enough time to read the full regional reports and time for debate, but the session had little time for this. So what they did was to make this little time official -- now we will not be able to read the reports in full, just a briefing, and who knows how much time we will have for debate. Recalling here, of course, that the only glimpses of recommendations in the IGF emerged in these reports, and you have a sense of what is going to happen... or not happen. --c.a. -- 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 ca at cafonso.ca Wed Mar 3 14:55:33 2010 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2010 16:55:33 -0300 Subject: [governance] Strangeness in the IGF programme In-Reply-To: <4B8E938D.7060708@wzb.eu> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6D09@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>,<4B8D04B2.3060406@cafonso.ca> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6D16@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4B8E938D.7060708@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <4B8EBEB5.7060008@cafonso.ca> Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > > Milton L Mueller wrote: >>> Gone are the days [snip] Now the MAG is basically reduced to >>> concluding phrases generic enough [snip] Even the >>> sometimes lively discussions in the igf-members list (an opportunity to >>> deepen the issues) are history. > > This is not true. Right now, we do have quite a lively and important > discussion on the MAG list, and it would be good if more people > participated in it. Nothing like in the past... --c.a. -- 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 demartin at polito.it Wed Mar 3 15:11:04 2010 From: demartin at polito.it (J.C. DE MARTIN) Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2010 21:11:04 +0100 Subject: [governance] If web-platforms are "criminally responsible for In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6D06@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <4d976d8e1002240748j67480965n63552c7238d840a1@mail.gmail.com> <488E8B79032F7642949B28142651689CF437AE2243@GVAMAIL.gva.ebu.ch>,<4B8A53CC.7010400@polito.it> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6D06@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4B8EC258.3030507@polito.it> In drawing that distinction I was mainly thinking of the many politicians that in Italy and France (and perhaps elsewhere) claim that the Internet is a lawless place, that "Internet is like the Far West" and that, of course, "we must put an end to such unlawful situation". Hence, the HADOPI law and other enlightened proposals. A reaction to that is to remark that it is simply not true: all the provisions of the civil and criminal code, in fact, apply online as they apply offline. There may be issues with enforcement, but certainly not with lack of laws and rules - at that (national) level. I hope my remarks are now more clear. Best juan carlos Milton L Mueller wrote (on 3/2/10 9:29 AM): > I agree with your comments about not applying old forms of media regulation to the Internet, but I am confused by your distinction between "rules on the Internet" and "Internet governance." > --MM > ________________________________________ > From: J.C. DE MARTIN [demartin at polito.it] > Sent: Sunday, February 28, 2010 6:30 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] If web-platforms are "criminally responsible for > > Dear Giacomo, > > I believe that you are mixing two different levels, namely, > rules on the Internet with Internet Governance. > > On the first level, when you say that currently there is "zero regulation" > or no "basic minimum set of rules" on the Internet, I believe you are plainly wrong: > the full set of provisions of the national civil and criminal codes, in fact, > fully apply to the Internet. Illicit behavior is illicit behavior > whether it happens online or offline. Therefore, there are plenty of rules, > and, in practically all cases I am aware of, no need for new rules, > if not a revision of some old laws, which the Internet is showing to be > strikingly obsolete and illiberal (I am thinking of the Italian press law > or of the Italian broadcasting law, for instance). Therefore, rather than extending > the "heavy regulation" of broadcasting, which ultimately was rooted on the > (often artificial) scarcity of the electromagnetic spectrum, we should be > seizing this historic opportunity to expand freedom of expression > (within the limits of law, e.g., defamation, of course). > > A whole different level, in my view, is the level of Internet Governance. > Which, ultimately, is a matter of discussing power, that is, sovereignty: > who has power on the Internet, why, how, with what limits. > > Best regards, > > juan carlos > > > juan carlos de martin > co-director / nexa center for internet& society > politecnico di torino > http://nexa.polito.it > > > Mazzone, Giacomo wrote (on 2/27/10 7:16 PM): > Dear Max, > In Italy currently there is a very bad atmosphere on civil rights and freedom of expression. I'm sad to say so, but it's exactly what's happening. > In the last months various initiatives have tried to restrict in various forms the Internet freedom. Some of them have been stopped in Parliament, others have gone through, others have been promoted directly by the government, other -like in the case you pinpoint- by singles judges. > When I say that the distance between the world of broadcasting and of the press (heavily regulated) and the world of the Internet (with zero regulation) cannot continue to be like it is Today, I'm really serious. > The need for a basic minimum set of rules become more and more a need also for Internet, in order not to be exposed to the vexations of one country, one community or a single judge. > This fact (like the many others before and the next ones that will inevitably follow) can only reinforce our unanimous belief that there is a real need for a governance of the Internet… > Giacomo > > > From: Max Senges [mailto:maxsenges at gmail.com] > Sent: mercredi, 24. février 2010 16:49 > To: irp; governance; expression > Subject: [governance] If web-platforms are "criminally responsible for content that users upload" "the Web as we know it will cease to exist" > > Hi IRPlers, FoE coalition& IGClers > > I believe many of you have heard about the devestating result of the vividown court-case in Italy, but for those who have not please read the Google policy-blog-post. > > It is important to stress that this is not about Google, but about Freedom of Expression online! Here is a summary: > > A judge in Milan today convicted three Google executives in a case involving a reprehensible video posted to Google Video that we took down within hours of being notified by the Italian police. The video showed an autistic boy being bullied by several classmates. In essence this ruling means that employees of hosting platforms like Google Video are criminally responsible for content that users upload. We will appeal this astonishing decision because the Google employees on trial had nothing to do with the video in question. > > The law in Europe -- as in the U.S. -- specifically gives hosting providers a safe harbor from liability so long as they remove illegal content once they are notified of its existence. These laws are premised on the belief that a notice and takedown regime helps creativity flourish and support free speech while protecting personal privacy. > > If that principle is swept aside and sites like Blogger, YouTube and indeed every social network and any community bulletin board, are held responsible for vetting every single piece of content that is uploaded to them — every piece of text, every photo, every file, every video — then the Web as we know it will cease to exist, and many of the economic, social, political and technological benefits it brings could disappear. > > Below is some additional background on the case. We would of course welcome any public statements you might be willing to make today expressing concern about this ruling. > It would be great if we could agree to speak up on this matter! > > Best > Max > > Some more background articles: > New York Times story on ruling: > http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/25/technology/companies/25google.html?hp > > Leslie Harris/CDT op-ed: Italy's Case Against Google is a Bad Moon Rising > http://www.huffingtonpost.com/leslie-harris/italys-case-against-googl_b_395634.html > > Jeff Jarvis: Italy Endangers the Web > http://www.buzzmachine.com/2010/02/24/italy-endangers-the-web/ > > UK Member of Parliament Tom Watson: “This is the biggest threat to internet freedom we have seen in Europe. The only people who will support this decision are Silvio Berlusconi and the governments of China and Iran. It effectively breaks the internet in Italy.” > http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23809508-google-bosses-convicted-over-abuse-video-of-downs-syndrome-boy.do > > TechCrunch: Can Someone Tell this Italian Judge what YouTube is? > http://eu.techcrunch.com/2010/02/24/can-someone-tell-this-italian-judge-what-youtube-is/ > > > > > -- > > "The future is here. It’s just not widely distributed yet." > —William Gibson > > ........................................................................... > > Max Senges > Berlin > > www.maxsenges.com > > Mobile: 01622122755 > > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Wed Mar 3 16:26:40 2010 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2010 02:26:40 +0500 Subject: [governance] Strangeness in the IGF programme In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6D18@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6D09@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <701af9f71003020607x61cd7718xbaa8a818d60568d3@mail.gmail.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6D18@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <701af9f71003031326y18fb42acj410782326aa3c506@mail.gmail.com> Very valid points to some extent in understanding though we may be at different levels of understanding on similar issues within developing and developed contexts. Things do happen for a reason and we must not forget that there are two other stakeholders from the multistakeholderism in the discussions and if there is one thing suggested by CS, there is a lot of twisting and rephrasing done by the other two groups with their own examples and evidence and at the end of the day the Chair tries to strike a balance that again is a notion accepted by members of the multistakeholderism so only one group doesn't drive the process and it stays mutual. But Milton, these are ideas and not specifically enforced terms like main theme topics. Out of the three mutually decided main theme suggests, IG4D found its way in, rights again went under freedom of expression which again is under a main theme itself and so forth. We can only make progress as many of you have shared with me in the past that the process is a slow one and yes its a very slow one with so many multistakeholders on the table. With the amount of topics being discussed in that time frame of two days, we must accept that the multistakeholderism tries to touch base on as many inputs from the open consultations and their groups as possible and that is what is reflected in the program paper and of course even myself haven't been so happy with the outcome though I have a sense of belief evolving that with the inclusion of IG4D as a main theme, it is a matter of time only that other topics will see the daylight too. Once again, event though I tried to state my problem and you gave a very valid clarification but myself and many people in my part of the world cannot understand these competitive behaviours unless informed stakeholders like your kind self bring these up in the IGF and open consultations. Everyone has a role to play and the programming by the MAG is not perfect but is not final unless it is locked by the secretariat. Maybe from your standpoint I am unable to explain theactual context about Internet Security as part of the Mobile topic but I am pretty much sure that it was shared in the context of developing countries, mobile access to the Internet and then the issues of security with relevance to that and is only a topic suggestion for discussion which will be stimulated by the stakeholders themselves and might not be there in future IGFs (if the mandate is renewed). I don't know if you have noted on the IGF website or not but the MAG is also to decide its future in May if the mandate is renewed so a lot is bound to change and improve so lets stay open for change until and at IGF!!!! On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 9:59 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Fouad: > > Based on your discussion below, I conclude that the "Mobile telephony and internet security" theme is simply badly phrased. You are talking about "mobile networks (telecoms)" and internet security, not telephony per se. > More comments below > >>Most of my interaction in the lists comes through my accessing the >>Internet through my meagre Nokia cell phone (without touch-screen or >>qwerty keyboard features) because most of the time I don't have >>electricity due to the prevailing energy crisis in Pakistan. I am in >>an urban setting of Lahore and it is much worse are the conditions for >>our rural regions that comprises 66% of national population of over >>180 million citizens and sometimes have power for less than a few >>single digit hours. > > Definitely interesting and important access issues here, but not a security issue - or even an internet governance issue - per se. > >>I also pay a much higher cost to connect through a mobile network to >>the Internet as opposed to my ADSL provider. For 1MB on my cell, I pay >>Rs.150 per MB almost equivalent to approx. USD $2.00 whereas I pay Rs. >>1200 equivalent to approx. USD $14 for my ADSL per/month with a 20 GB >>cap. When you compare this, I am paying 8 times more for access on my >>cell as opposed to the  direct Internet connectivity with similar >>usage. This is one way of looking at it. > > This is a well-known economic regulatory issue; in developed markets, mobile internet has gone from being an expensive, pay per bit walled garden to a pretty good approximation of the fixed internet, both in terms of interface and in terms of access to services. The driver of this has been, almost entirely, competition. I would guess that market conditions in Pakistan are less competitive. However, with mobile bandwidth being mroe constrained than fixed, the pricing may also reflect significant cost differences. If there is competition and some good regulatory decisions regarding spectrum access then over time that difference may reduce or disappear. > >>When I connect to the Internet over the cell phone network, I am >>exposed to the issues of another carrier/network medium so that's two >>layers of connectivity on a mobile/cellular network. With the issues >>of connecting to the Internet over the mobile networks, the issue of >>Internet Security can also be looked at that what are the layers of >>Internet Security in interplay with the mobile networks and I think >>everyone present wanted to have a look at Internet Security issues >>with relevance to Internet Connectivity through cellular networks. > > I still don't quite get this. By definition, the internet is a network of networks that involves multiple layers of connectivity. You may be going through cellular nets, WiFi, fixed copper, satellite, co-axial cable, fiber at any given time. Is there some specific security issue assocaited with internet access via "cellular" (by which I assume you mean 2G and 3G CDMA and GSM networks, or GPRS, or 3.5 HSPA, or 4G LTE standards???) that people are concerned about? > >>Trust me most of the topics included in the program paper have no >>conspiracy theory attached to them and were suggestions with a bit of > > I reject entirely the language of "conspiracy" but I do believe that things happen for a reason and we can analyze and reconstruct what happened in order to understand it better. I would suggest that a specific person or group proposed a specific topic and gave it a specific construction for a reason, a reason that reflected their own agenda. I also believe that in committees working under time pressure words, concepts and phrases can become garbled beyond all recognition. Even then, it helps to reconstruct what compromises and deals were made to arrive at the awkward result. -- 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 jeremy at ciroap.org Thu Mar 4 03:23:53 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2010 16:23:53 +0800 Subject: [governance] Parminder's exchange with Bertrand In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6D1F@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6CCE@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4B85046E.6080509@wzb.eu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C7AB3897@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4B8997DD.4030103@gih.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6D07@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <954259bd1003021011qb6d95e0gd3926e1fdda38d19@mail.gmail.com> <4B8DE8A7.5080306@itforchange.net> <6DA2DCE5-CF10-4775-8C41-F72D80FE4A3E@ciroap.org>,<4B8E161E.5050907@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6D1F@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <47589BED-FD7B-414B-AE8E-8D86A794D05C@ciroap.org> On 04/03/2010, at 1:45 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > some questions: > 1. how many governments in the UN have democratic representation of their citizens? A practice has emerged that democratic government is a prerequisite for the recognition of new states by the UN, at least. The existing undemocratic states are, well, a work in progress (UNDEF is one programme promoting democratic processes globally). Of course, very big questions about how representative democratic governments actually are, even in countries like the US. Robert Dahl calls them "polyarchies", which is more accurate. > 2. how many businesses organize for and support free markets? It's not that they support free markets, but that (in the ideal case) they constitute free markets. Thus their ideal role in governance is to help align market mechanisms and policy objectives; either to support those objectives, or to reshape them. For example, either the market must adapt to inadequacies of copyright law in the online environment by producing a more workable business model, or policy makers will be pressured to counteract the market's failure to adapt through enacting stronger enforcement measures (see: ACTA). Another example, either ISPs will implement policies of censorship at the behest of governments, or market forces will subvert this, and policy-makers will have to adapt to this reality (see: Google and China). Participation of the private sector in multi-stakeholder governance lubricates this process of mutual adaptation. > 3. how many CS organizations are nothing but receptacles for money generated either by govt or by business? Almost all of them, I guess. So, we are not as pure as the theory demands. Neither are governments as democratic, nor the private sector as competitive. Does that weaken the claims to legitimacy of multi-stakeholder governance? Sure, just like democratic deficits at a national and (a fortiori) global level weaken the legitimacy (though not the formal authority) of domestic and international law. What do we do about it? We just keep going about making things better. That's why we're here. -- Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 CI is 50 Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010. Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer rights around the world. http://www.consumersinternational.org/50 Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From tapani.tarvainen at effi.org Thu Mar 4 03:40:45 2010 From: tapani.tarvainen at effi.org (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2010 10:40:45 +0200 Subject: [governance] Parminder's exchange with Bertrand In-Reply-To: <47589BED-FD7B-414B-AE8E-8D86A794D05C@ciroap.org> References: <4B85046E.6080509@wzb.eu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C7AB3897@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4B8997DD.4030103@gih.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6D07@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <954259bd1003021011qb6d95e0gd3926e1fdda38d19@mail.gmail.com> <4B8DE8A7.5080306@itforchange.net> <6DA2DCE5-CF10-4775-8C41-F72D80FE4A3E@ciroap.org> <4B8E161E.5050907@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6D1F@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <47589BED-FD7B-414B-AE8E-8D86A794D05C@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <20100304084045.GB20444@hamsu.tarvainen.info> On Thu, Mar 04, 2010 at 04:23:53PM +0800, Jeremy Malcolm (jeremy at ciroap.org) wr > On 04/03/2010, at 1:45 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > 3. how many CS organizations are nothing but receptacles for money > > generated either by govt or by business? > Almost all of them, I guess. But only almost! I can claim Effi as an exception, as we receive money from neither government nor businesses. (Our funding comes from membership fees, individual donations and T-shirt sales. I don't claim we'd unconditionally reject donations from businesses should it come to that, but so far none has been offered nor have we solicited any. As for the government, money flows to the opposite direction as we pay taxes for our meagre T-shirt sales.) -- Tapani Tarvainen ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jlfullsack at orange.fr Thu Mar 4 04:56:50 2010 From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK) Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2010 10:56:50 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] Parminder's exchange with Bertrand In-Reply-To: <20100304084045.GB20444@hamsu.tarvainen.info> References: <4B85046E.6080509@wzb.eu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C7AB3897@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4B8997DD.4030103@gih.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6D07@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <954259bd1003021011qb6d95e0gd3926e1fdda38d19@mail.gmail.com> <4B8DE8A7.5080306@itforchange.net> <6DA2DCE5-CF10-4775-8C41-F72D80FE4A3E@ciroap.org> <4B8E161E.5050907@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6D1F@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <47589BED-FD7B-414B-AE8E-8D86A794D05C@ciroap.org> <20100304084045.GB20444@hamsu.tarvainen.info> Message-ID: <21662951.56821.1267696610313.JavaMail.www@wwinf1f28> On Thu, Mar 04, 2010 at 04:23:53PM +0800, Jeremy Malcolm (jeremy at ciroap.org) wr > On 04/03/2010, at 1:45 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > 3. how many CS organizations are nothing but receptacles for money > > generated either by govt or by business? > Almost all of them, I guess. And Tapani added :   and T-shirt sales. So do ours. Exclusively ! As a consequence, we are not able to participate directly in meetings "out of reach" (outer the center of Europe). But that is the "cost" of our independance and our freedom of speech ... and writing ! Best regards Jean-Louis Fullsack director, CSDPTT (www.csdptt.org) > Message du 04/03/10 09:41 > De : "Tapani Tarvainen" > A : governance at lists.cpsr.org > Copie à : > Objet : Re: [governance] Parminder's exchange with Bertrand > > > On Thu, Mar 04, 2010 at 04:23:53PM +0800, Jeremy Malcolm (jeremy at ciroap.org) wr > > On 04/03/2010, at 1:45 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > > > 3. how many CS organizations are nothing but receptacles for money > > > generated either by govt or by business? > > > Almost all of them, I guess. > > But only almost! I can claim Effi as an exception, as we > receive money from neither government nor businesses. > > (Our funding comes from membership fees, individual donations > and T-shirt sales. I don't claim we'd unconditionally reject > donations from businesses should it come to that, but so > far none has been offered nor have we solicited any. > As for the government, money flows to the opposite > direction as we pay taxes for our meagre T-shirt sales.) > > -- > Tapani Tarvainen > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Thu Mar 4 05:13:54 2010 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2010 10:13:54 +0000 Subject: [governance] If web-platforms are "criminally responsible for In-Reply-To: <4B8EC258.3030507@polito.it> References: <4d976d8e1002240748j67480965n63552c7238d840a1@mail.gmail.com> <488E8B79032F7642949B28142651689CF437AE2243@GVAMAIL.gva.ebu.ch> <4B8A53CC.7010400@polito.it> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6D06@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4B8EC258.3030507@polito.it> Message-ID: <3oRdDdpif4jLFAap@perry.co.uk> In message <4B8EC258.3030507 at polito.it>, at 21:11:04 on Wed, 3 Mar 2010, J.C. DE MARTIN writes >I was mainly thinking of the many politicians that in Italy and France >(and perhaps elsewhere) claim that the Internet is a lawless place, >that "Internet is like the Far West" and that, of course, "we must put >an end to such unlawful situation". Hence, the HADOPI law and other >enlightened proposals. > >A reaction to that is to remark that it is simply not true: all the >provisions of the civil and criminal code, in fact, apply online as >they apply offline. There may be issues with enforcement, but certainly >not with lack of laws and rules - at that (national) level. While I agree that "normal" laws also apply to the Internet, these often prove to be worthless when victim, perpetrator and service provider are in three different jurisdictions - which is more serious than a simple problem with "cross border enforcement", because sometimes the law itself differs in these three places. There are also significant issues of interpretation, eg when local laws ban things such as "advertisements" (perhaps for tobacco or child-adoption) and although advertisements in newspapers and on TV are usually clear cut, online there is quite some debate about it (even for example saying that a domain name could be an advertisement): www.adopt-a-child-here.com [Please let us not discuss the merits of such bans and interpretations, but they do exist]. And some issues don't seem to be well covered by existing laws - I heard about one today, where 'hackers' have attacked a gaming site and "stolen" virtual items such as extra weapons and personas that the gamers had bought from the hosting company. Good luck in getting anyone to easily determine responsibility for a remedy in this case. In the face of all this doubt and uncertainty, it's little wonder that legislators try to dream up new laws; although they rarely pause to think whether laws are very successful in changing behaviour. -- 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 f.cortiana at provincia.milano.it Thu Mar 4 06:44:59 2010 From: f.cortiana at provincia.milano.it (Fiorello Cortiana) Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2010 12:44:59 +0100 Subject: R: [governance] If web-platforms are "criminally responsible for In-Reply-To: <3oRdDdpif4jLFAap@perry.co.uk> References: <4d976d8e1002240748j67480965n63552c7238d840a1@mail.gmail.com><488E8B79032F7642949B28142651689CF437AE2243@GVAMAIL.gva.ebu.ch><4B8A53CC.7010400@polito.it><75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6D06@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu><4B8EC258.3030507@polito.it> <3oRdDdpif4jLFAap@perry.co.uk> Message-ID: <95227A668FFBB141A238AE53582A8E11E2E173@VEXNODE2.man.provincia.mi.it> I think we need an "Internet Bill of Roghts" adopted with a multilevel and multistakeholder process capable to harmonize the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the different Constitutions and the self codes adopted by companies Fiorello Cortiana -----Messaggio originale----- Da: Roland Perry [mailto:roland at internetpolicyagency.com] Inviato: giovedì 4 marzo 2010 11.14 A: governance at lists.cpsr.org Oggetto: Re: [governance] If web-platforms are "criminally responsible for In message <4B8EC258.3030507 at polito.it>, at 21:11:04 on Wed, 3 Mar 2010, J.C. DE MARTIN writes >I was mainly thinking of the many politicians that in Italy and France >(and perhaps elsewhere) claim that the Internet is a lawless place, >that "Internet is like the Far West" and that, of course, "we must put >an end to such unlawful situation". Hence, the HADOPI law and other >enlightened proposals. > >A reaction to that is to remark that it is simply not true: all the >provisions of the civil and criminal code, in fact, apply online as >they apply offline. There may be issues with enforcement, but certainly >not with lack of laws and rules - at that (national) level. While I agree that "normal" laws also apply to the Internet, these often prove to be worthless when victim, perpetrator and service provider are in three different jurisdictions - which is more serious than a simple problem with "cross border enforcement", because sometimes the law itself differs in these three places. There are also significant issues of interpretation, eg when local laws ban things such as "advertisements" (perhaps for tobacco or child-adoption) and although advertisements in newspapers and on TV are usually clear cut, online there is quite some debate about it (even for example saying that a domain name could be an advertisement): www.adopt-a-child-here.com [Please let us not discuss the merits of such bans and interpretations, but they do exist]. And some issues don't seem to be well covered by existing laws - I heard about one today, where 'hackers' have attacked a gaming site and "stolen" virtual items such as extra weapons and personas that the gamers had bought from the hosting company. Good luck in getting anyone to easily determine responsibility for a remedy in this case. In the face of all this doubt and uncertainty, it's little wonder that legislators try to dream up new laws; although they rarely pause to think whether laws are very successful in changing behaviour. -- 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 jeanette at wzb.eu Thu Mar 4 06:53:15 2010 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2010 11:53:15 +0000 Subject: [governance] Strangeness in the IGF programme In-Reply-To: <4B8EBEB5.7060008@cafonso.ca> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6D09@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>,<4B8D04B2.3060406@cafonso.ca> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6D16@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4B8E938D.7060708@wzb.eu> <4B8EBEB5.7060008@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <4B8F9F2B.10708@wzb.eu> Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >> >> Milton L Mueller wrote: >>>> Gone are the days [snip] Now the MAG is basically reduced to >>>> concluding phrases generic enough [snip] Even the >>>> sometimes lively discussions in the igf-members list (an opportunity to >>>> deepen the issues) are history. >> This is not true. Right now, we do have quite a lively and important >> discussion on the MAG list, and it would be good if more people >> participated in it. > > Nothing like in the past... I beg to differ, Carlos, I think the MAG has one its most important debates ever at the moment. The debate concerns one paragraph of the first draft of the programme paper: "There were calls for tangible outcomes involving the issuing of messages from the IGF. The Chairman’s Report of the Sharm El Sheikh meeting points in that direction. It refers to a message addressing the needs of people with disabilities which, at the Session Chair’s request, was endorsed by acclamation. Similar outcomes could be envisaged also in future meetings. It was suggested that such messages should come out of each of the sessions. For this purpose, a set of rapporteurs could be appointed to publish, in their own names, the key messages from sessions. These could then be put on line in a page that allowed other participants to comment on the key messages." The MAG discusses the concept and the term of "key messages": Is it feasible to summarize meetings in the form of messages (all of them, just main sessions or just workshops) ? Is the term "key" appropriate or not? Is it appropriate for the MAG to suggest a response to these issues? Is it appropriate not to address this issue? Etc, etc. This debate is very important because it concerns the political authority and weight of multistakeholder processes both on the national and the transnational level: Are structures such as the IGF allowed to evolve and experiment (ah, that word again...) with various forms of consensus building or are they tolerated only within the confines of exchanging opinions in a non-committal manner? The relevance of this debate trancends the draft of the programme paper. Pity that there might not be much time left to see this debate bear fruits! jeanette > > --c.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 avri at psg.com Thu Mar 4 07:04:11 2010 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2010 07:04:11 -0500 Subject: [governance] Parminder's exchange with Bertrand In-Reply-To: <47589BED-FD7B-414B-AE8E-8D86A794D05C@ciroap.org> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6CCE@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4B85046E.6080509@wzb.eu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C7AB3897@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4B8997DD.4030103@gih.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6D07@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <954259bd1003021011qb6d95e0gd3926e1fdda38d19@mail.gmail.com> <4B8DE8A7.5080306@itforchange.net> <6DA2DCE5-CF10-4775-8C41-F72D80FE4A3E@ciroap.org>,<4B8E161E.5050907@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6D1F@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <47589BED-FD7B-414B-AE8E-8D86A794D05C@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <8B83EA9A-3BE0-4851-93D3-8447B609BF15@psg.com> Hi, Well said. a. On 4 Mar 2010, at 03:23, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 04/03/2010, at 1:45 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > >> some questions: >> 1. how many governments in the UN have democratic representation of their citizens? > > A practice has emerged that democratic government is a prerequisite for the recognition of new states by the UN, at least. The existing undemocratic states are, well, a work in progress (UNDEF is one programme promoting democratic processes globally). Of course, very big questions about how representative democratic governments actually are, even in countries like the US. Robert Dahl calls them "polyarchies", which is more accurate. > >> 2. how many businesses organize for and support free markets? > > It's not that they support free markets, but that (in the ideal case) they constitute free markets. Thus their ideal role in governance is to help align market mechanisms and policy objectives; either to support those objectives, or to reshape them. For example, either the market must adapt to inadequacies of copyright law in the online environment by producing a more workable business model, or policy makers will be pressured to counteract the market's failure to adapt through enacting stronger enforcement measures (see: ACTA). Another example, either ISPs will implement policies of censorship at the behest of governments, or market forces will subvert this, and policy-makers will have to adapt to this reality (see: Google and China). Participation of the private sector in multi-stakeholder governance lubricates this process of mutual adaptation. > >> 3. how many CS organizations are nothing but receptacles for money generated either by govt or by business? > > Almost all of them, I guess. So, we are not as pure as the theory demands. Neither are governments as democratic, nor the private sector as competitive. Does that weaken the claims to legitimacy of multi-stakeholder governance? Sure, just like democratic deficits at a national and (a fortiori) global level weaken the legitimacy (though not the formal authority) of domestic and international law. What do we do about it? We just keep going about making things better. That's why we're here. > > -- > Jeremy Malcolm > Project Coordinator > Consumers International > Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > CI is 50 > Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010. > Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer rights around the world. > http://www.consumersinternational.org/50 > > Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Mar 4 07:48:16 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2010 18:18:16 +0530 Subject: [governance] Parminder's exchange with Bertrand In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6D1B@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6CCE@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4B85046E.6080509@wzb.eu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C7AB3897@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4B8997DD.4030103@gih.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6D07@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <954259bd1003021011qb6d95e0gd3926e1fdda38d19@mail.gmail.com>,<4B8DE8A7.5080306@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6D1B@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4B8FAC10.4090901@itforchange.net> Milton There is no effort to artificially separate the economic aspects of our lives from social, political and cultural. They are thoroughly enmeshed. The point is whether we agree or not that large scale global share capital is structurally organized to be insulated as much as possible from human qualities. (Do you deny that global capital and financial systems systematically follow this logic as resulting in higher and higher efficiency of capital organization and movement - and increasingly so, of which the recent financial meltdown was one result, making it necessary for the world community to sit up and take notice. The corrective measures were in the form of greater 'political' controls/ regulations - which denotes real human quality checks on increasing disconnection of finance/ capital from human systems.) If this is so, how would you say that such global share capital should have a political say or STAKE, as part of MS political systems, which need to be dealing with real human (ok, individual if you want!) issues and human situations. >But how would you feasibly and productively lock anything or anyone associated with _all_ corporations in the ICT >industry from a public dialogue of that sort? One intends to lock no one away from public dialogs, but only from exercising political role as parts of proposed MS structures. This back and forth and confusion between right to be part of a public dialogue and having political legitimacy in an MS structure is one of the most important confusions in MS discussions. sooner or later the school district is going to purchase some >products. public monies are going to be allocated and spent. Expertise which is concentrated in business (for a >good reason - the expertise is valuable) will ahve to be tapped. This is the second most significant confusions in MS discussions (partly because this model id often seen to come from a background of technical governance) when ' a source of expertise' is confused with a party with real/ live political interest/ stake and thus probably political legitimacy. I expect you to agree that having expertise on a subject, which can and should always be tapped for decision making, does not translate in any way to a political stake. I also saw references to this confusion in Bertrand's MS formulation - 'anyone who has something to contribute should be let in' kind of. Also goes against Ostrom's principle 1 of common resources management concerning definition of real stakes of a party in a governance issue. Parminder Milton L Mueller wrote: > > >Parminder: > >I agree with Milton's doubts whether the MS framework contributes > anything new > >(in a positive sense) for organising our political systems. What does > the term > >stakeholder groups bring in beyond what we already know as 'interest > groups', > >a basic and a widely used concept of representative democracy. > Unless those > >arguing for MS-ism as the basic new governance form clearly articulate a > >response to this question, it is difficult to go any further in this > discussion. > > > > To repeat myself, I do see a value in the MS concept as a transitional > principle that opens up and slightly democratizes inter-governmental > organizations. Other than that, you are exactly correct, in a > fundamental political science sense, that we are dealing with interest > groups. And that raises some very important issues, which i > superficially discuss below. > > > >Bertrand (in response to Milton): > >Do you actually mean a sort of "personal sovereignty" principle, that > would enable individuals to gather in >numerous human groupings, > including nations, but also business and non-profit entities ? > > > > My answer: Yes, exactly, and the quotation from Kofi Annan cited was a > good expression of my view, which sparked such a negative reaction, > about governance institutions being servants of the individual rather > than the other way around. > > > >Parminder: > >This brings me to the gorilla-in-the-room question of MS-ism - the role > > and legitimacy of big business in political structures. > > > > As I will try to explain below, I don't think this question is > restricted to MS-ism advocates. It is a question that permeates > discussions about the validity and legitimacy of all democratic, open > forms of government. > > > >It is important to discuss how, at a theoretical level, organization > >into a business unit is very different from political interest based > >collectives - governments, or non-gov bodies. Again, this is a > >principal issue that needs to be clarified by Ms-ists. The conflation > >of 'interests' and structures of business organization - especially of > >the trans-global share capital based kind - with human organisations > >and collectives with shared 'lifeworld' (a world that subjects may > >experience together) based interests is very problematic, and > >requires clarification. > > > > As a realist and student of historical processes, I cannot accept the > implied rigid distinction between economic and political humanity, or > between a nice, human collective lifeworld and an impersonal, evil, > inherently exploitative economic world. It's all part of humanity. > Most obviously, the ability to share, organize and pool wealth to > produce the things humans want and need is an inescapable part of > society. The corporation is a form of collective organization; share > capital is a way of broadening and - yes - democratizing the ownership > and benefits of economic production. Labor unions are also a form of > collective economic organization. Given too much power, both a corp or > a union can become abusive and gain harmful forms of economic > restraint on the rest of us. The problem is that once you set up a > form of government that is representative of the interests, desires > and visions of the people you also allow them to organize in ways that > further or defend their economic (as well as social, political, > cultural, etc.) interests. I don't see any way to detach the two. > > > > Go back to your specific example of Microsoft and its participation in > Indian ICT education programs. I don't know the specifics so forgive > any factual errors. OK, so sure, it would be relatively easy (well, > not easy in practice, but easy in theory) to identify and avoid some > simple forms of corruption: Microsoft pays local board of ed > administrator a bribe, suddenly the schools all go Windows and lock > themselves into a specific vendor's product. Obviously we don't want > to allow that. But how would you feasibly and productively lock > anything or anyone associated with _all_ corporations in the ICT > industry from a public dialogue of that sort? sooner or later the > school district is going to purchase some products. public monies are > going to be allocated and spent. Expertise which is concentrated in > business (for a good reason - the expertise is valuable) will ahve to > be tapped. The people - both in the government and outside the > government, both in corporations and as final consumers - all have > some kind of an "economic" interest in that money, not just > corporations. The government bureaucrat may have an "interest" in > expanding his share of the public budget; the competitor of Microsoft > may have an interest and benefit economically from excluding MS; an > individual or end user might have an economic interest in receiving > some of that money whether they need it more than someone else or not. > > > > If you could "assume away" economic interest and restrict political > dialogue to some Olympian grotto where philosopher-kings considered > all options in a disinterested way, well, we wouldn't be talking about > this species. > > > > Democracy would be all too easy if this problem didn't exist. I guess > you have to trust the ability of people to make sense of things in an > open environment. > > > > There's an interesting book about this problem I read back when I > started considering these issues. It's called The People's Lobby: > Organizational Innovation and the Rise of Interest Group Politics in > the United States, 1890-1925. Elisabeth Clemens. > > > > > > > Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: >> Milton, >> >> Do you actually mean a sort of "personal sovereignty" principle, that >> would enable individuals to gather in numerous human groupings, >> including nations, but also business and non-profit entities ? so >> that the unifying governance unit becomes stakeholders of various >> sizes but with equal status instead of three (or four) separate and >> siloed stakeholder groups ? >> >> B. >> >> On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 9:30 AM, Milton L Mueller > > wrote: >> >> >> ________________________________________ >> From: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond [ocl at gih.com ] >> >> > - governments: law and order >> > - business: economy and money >> >- civil society: conscience >> > >> >Any social ecosystem requires all three to work. Take one out >> and either >> >the system will fail, tear itself apart, or reach an untenable >> extreme. >> >That's why I believe in multi-stakeholderism. >> >> Nice formulation, Olivier. But suppose we called it "popular >> sovereignty" and "individual rights" instead of >> "multistakeholderism" - would that not allow individuals, in >> various aggregations, to produce the appropriate mix of law, >> order, economy and conscience? Is not the division into three >> estates (with millions of individuals overlapping and >> participating in two or more at the same time) artificial? >> >> --MM____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> >> -- >> ____________________ >> Bertrand de La Chapelle >> Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for >> the Information Society >> Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of >> Foreign and European Affairs >> Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 >> >> "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de >> Saint Exupéry >> ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Thu Mar 4 13:14:22 2010 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2010 15:14:22 -0300 Subject: [governance] Secretary-General's recommendations on the continuation In-Reply-To: <12148B1B-96BC-405E-BE71-DDF29A0AD105@ciroap.org> References: <12148B1B-96BC-405E-BE71-DDF29A0AD105@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <4B8FF87E.8000201@cafonso.ca> Jeremy, I am trying to cope with the tsunami of messages (Jeannette is right -- we now have again a lively and looong discussion on issues in the igf-members and the governance lists, real hard to follow for volunteers who have so much else to do), and it seems that in the tsunami your msg below was ignored (unless title has changed -- I am far behind in reading them). I definitely think we should have a strong position in favor of keeping CSTD in. frt rgds --c.a. Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > Those who were at the recent open consultation meeting, or have subsequently read the transcript, may recall the disagreement between UNDESA and the CSTD over where the UN Secretary-General's recommendations on the continuation of the IGF should be delivered, prior to the UN General Assembly receiving it to make a final decision. > > UNDESA, which administered the consultations for input to the Secretary-General, proposed to deliver the recommendations directly to ECOSOC. The CSTD, which is actually an expert committee of ECOSOC, thought that it should receive those recommendations first, for consideration at its upcoming May meeting. > > The relevance of this to us is that the CSTD is open to a broader range of civil society and private sector observers than ECOSOC, including all those entities that were accredited at WSIS. So for civil society, if we wish to give comment on the Secretary-General's recommendations, it is better that they go to the CSTD first. > > Does anyone think we should make a statement on this? > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Thu Mar 4 13:17:11 2010 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2010 15:17:11 -0300 Subject: [governance] IGF, ECOSOC and WSIS III In-Reply-To: <4B7944F6.6030304@itforchange.net> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0687D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <701af9f71002141145l7b85cec8n48eb4dc8e33f02b7@mail.gmail.com> <4B7944F6.6030304@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4B8FF927.4090406@cafonso.ca> Wow, right... I definitely missed the rich ensuing discussion. --c.a. Parminder wrote: > Hi All > > I agree that we should call for IGF review to be taken up at CSTD level > onwards, which in any case then goes to the ECOSOC and then to the UN's > general assembly, which as per the TA would make the final resolution on > the issue. We should develop a statement on this issue addressed to UN > Secretary General's offce and of Under Secretary Sha's office. > > I do not see any justification for the the report from formal > consultations with IGF participants not to be shared with CSTD. There > looks to be elements of avoidable intrigue in it. Lets see what happens > since CSTD chairman and some government reps asked for this report to be > tabled with CSTD, which is in charge of WSIS follow-up. > > Separately, it may be pertinent to note in this regard that even without > the UN under-secretary general's report CSTD can make observation on > review of IGF, and on the need of its continuation or not. > > Two other things come to my mind which connect to the present debate. > > One; it is perhaps ironical that when CSTD was developing its own > mandate on WSIS follow up, developed countries opposed IGF's inclusion > in definition of WSIS follow up that CSTD was to address. It were a few > developing countries and a few CS reps from developing countries who > weighed on the side of including IGF in CSTD's remit, whereby IGF was > included in CSTD's remit of review and follow up. Where would we be at > present if the views of developed countries were accepted at that time? > > The above underscores the need to ensure enough institutional > mechanisms, and institutional depth, around spaces concerned with public > policies. Fouad is very much on the point to relate this issue to that > of continuation or not of MAG, or even of weakening or strengthening the > MAG, which is the second point I wanted to make. > > Do those who advocate either dispensing with MAG (the multistakeholder > space we got) or weakening it not realize that any such thing will only > shift more decision making power to the UN's bureaucracy? How do they > defend their formulations on MAG with the present call for seeking CSTD > review of IGF before the deeper and more obscure UN system takes > cognizance of it? > > Parminder > > Fouad Bajwa wrote: >> I feel that Wolfgang's and Yrjö's comments are of great concern as >> well as valid and seem to confirm my assumptions that I have been >> carrying since last year but always felt the idea to be too immature >> to be shared. I can share these thoughts through two things, one >> incident form last year and one from this year in Geneva. >> >> First, I was invited by UNCTAD as a CS member from a developing region >> to present on the second day of the 12th Session of the UN CSTD in >> 2009 to present on a panel about Mobile Technology, Social Networks >> and Convergence. While having the opportunity to participate through >> the duration of the CSTD, we encountered some interesting things when >> we desired to participate in resolutions concerning IG and sat in the >> Internet related resolution drafting meetings where a representative >> (I would like to keep her name and country private as a matter of >> their privacy) objected to the presence of CS members in the room and >> stating clearly that CS members have no role in the drafting process >> as they are outsiders. The moderator/chair of the drafting activity >> somehow managed to cool her objections allowing only observer status >> to CS members to be present in that meeting. The government >> stakeholders didn't like our presence but a developing country >> government stakeholder managed to cool down things and keep us sitting >> in observer status. >> >> Within the main sessions, when comments were invited, I had my name >> card display for allowance to speak being a participant in the >> audience only to find out that I could not speak despite being >> officially invited to be present that really confused me. Maybe I was >> only perceived to be an observer or guest while formally presenting to >> the main session and receiving a thank you letter from New York office >> for stimulating important discussions during the session. Okay, I also >> believe since the the handful few CS organizations that were allowed >> to take the floor could only share S&T/ICT/Internet related examples >> and had no possible say within the resolution drafting processes >> however this may only be my humble observation. >> >> Now coming to the second point about the Open Consultation, again >> keeping the sources private for privacy purposes, there is a >> definitive indication of fear amongst certain stakeholder groups other >> than the IGC that IGF may be transformed into a complete >> Intergovernmental process while being transferred to New York. This >> wasn't news for me as I had heard a similar comment from a high UN >> official that IGF may be leading towards becoming an intergovernmental >> process and thus speculations from last year and the statement by >> ECOSOC during the OC makes it considerably true. There is a great >> tension amongst a stakeholder group but is stuck in the tug of war >> between certain governments. This has turned into an intergovernmental >> political conflict to be precise and yes it is actually happening to >> some degree. >> >> Within our recent statement we can feel that somehow, it lacked to >> stress the importance of keeping the IGF in Geneva "and I mean precise >> mentioning of the phrase - in Geneva", we left out the regional >> specifics and therefore it is necessary to release an official >> statement from IGC to once again re-assert our group's interests in >> keeping the IGF under the current process in Geneva. >> >> This is also an important aspect of why most MAG members were >> concerned that why the experimentation or innovation. I personally >> feel that If the political management process is lost with the >> elimination of the MAG and no need for a MAG is proven then the >> process is open for accumulation by an intergovernmental process >> similar to the CSTD or the process that you see displayed by the ITU. >> Somehow we overlooked this in our statement drafting activity as well >> as our discussions over the MAG and MAG+ meetings issue. I still feel >> a bit immature to be discussing the political aspects of MAG's >> existence but feel that the MAG is Civil Society's advantage in the >> IGF multistakeholder process that may have witnessed some manipulation >> in the past few weeks that led to some of this uncertainty to surface. >> As a member of CS from a developing country, I am now feeling very >> concerned! >> >> We have to be very clear here and I am still not sure if I am >> interpreting this in the proper language phrasing and am requesting a >> humble apology beforehand. My question is that does the IGC or certain >> factors affecting us want us to lose our group's political strength in >> the IGF in the form of MAG and let the process be turned over to the >> Intergovernmental process in New York or do we want to stand our >> ground and protect our political standing by strengthening our MAG >> position and as IGC forward both our concerns and assert the >> stakeholder's interest to keep IGF under Geneva? >> >> My other evident concern is that if this becomes an Intergovernmental >> process as being feared by the various stakeholders, what will the >> face of IGF be like? Your thoughts are required please? >> >> >> > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Thu Mar 4 13:55:11 2010 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2010 15:55:11 -0300 Subject: [governance] Strangeness in the IGF programme In-Reply-To: <4B8F9F2B.10708@wzb.eu> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6D09@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>,<4B8D04B2.3060406@cafonso.ca> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6D16@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4B8E938D.7060708@wzb.eu> <4B8EBEB5.7060008@cafonso.ca> <4B8F9F2B.10708@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <4B90020F.1010503@cafonso.ca> Hi Jean, this message is helping me a lot to get in synch with the discussion, which I tried to follow in the last few weeks and could not. I think what your wrap-up of the debate so far should as well be posted in the igf-members list. --c.a. Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > > Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >> Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >>> >>> Milton L Mueller wrote: >>>>> Gone are the days [snip] Now the MAG is basically reduced to >>>>> concluding phrases generic enough [snip] Even the >>>>> sometimes lively discussions in the igf-members list (an >>>>> opportunity to >>>>> deepen the issues) are history. >>> This is not true. Right now, we do have quite a lively and important >>> discussion on the MAG list, and it would be good if more people >>> participated in it. >> >> Nothing like in the past... > > I beg to differ, Carlos, I think the MAG has one its most important > debates ever at the moment. > > The debate concerns one paragraph of the first draft of the programme > paper: > > "There were calls for tangible outcomes involving the issuing of > messages from the IGF. The Chairman’s Report of the Sharm El Sheikh > meeting points in that direction. It refers to a message addressing the > needs of people with disabilities which, at the Session Chair’s request, > was endorsed by acclamation. Similar outcomes could be envisaged also in > future meetings. It was suggested that such messages should come out of > each of the sessions. For this purpose, a set of rapporteurs could be > appointed to publish, in their own names, the key messages from > sessions. These could then be put on line in a page that allowed other > participants to comment on the key messages." > > The MAG discusses the concept and the term of "key messages": Is it > feasible to summarize meetings in the form of messages (all of them, > just main sessions or just workshops) ? Is the term "key" appropriate or > not? Is it appropriate for the MAG to suggest a response to these > issues? Is it appropriate not to address this issue? Etc, etc. > > This debate is very important because it concerns the political > authority and weight of multistakeholder processes both on the national > and the transnational level: Are structures such as the IGF allowed to > evolve and experiment (ah, that word again...) with various forms of > consensus building or are they tolerated only within the confines of > exchanging opinions in a non-committal manner? > > The relevance of this debate trancends the draft of the programme paper. > Pity that there might not be much time left to see this debate bear fruits! > > jeanette >> >> --c.a. >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Thu Mar 4 14:55:43 2010 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2010 19:55:43 +0000 Subject: R: [governance] If web-platforms are "criminally responsible for In-Reply-To: <95227A668FFBB141A238AE53582A8E11E2E173@VEXNODE2.man.provincia.mi.it> References: <4d976d8e1002240748j67480965n63552c7238d840a1@mail.gmail.com> <488E8B79032F7642949B28142651689CF437AE2243@GVAMAIL.gva.ebu.ch> <4B8A53CC.7010400@polito.it> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6D06@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4B8EC258.3030507@polito.it> <3oRdDdpif4jLFAap@perry.co.uk> <95227A668FFBB141A238AE53582A8E11E2E173@VEXNODE2.man.provincia.mi.it> Message-ID: <5JxOLZI$ABkLFAQX@perry.co.uk> In message <95227A668FFBB141A238AE53582A8E11E2E173 at VEXNODE2.man.provincia.mi.it>, at 12:44:59 on Thu, 4 Mar 2010, Fiorello Cortiana writes >I think we need an "Internet Bill of Roghts" adopted with a multilevel >and multistakeholder process capable to harmonize the Universal >Declaration of Human Rights, the different Constitutions and the self >codes adopted by companies Would such a "Bill of Rights" include the concept that people have a right to be safe on the Internet, and therefore the authorities (whatever that implies) need the tools to rid us of criminals and purveyors of anti-social behaviour? Or would it embrace the idea that everyone has a right to do whatever they please - even if someone perceives a harm to others? Perhaps something in between... but where do we draw that line in the sand? Especially when different societies (and different people within the same societies) have different ideas about what constitutes harm. -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Thu Mar 4 21:17:33 2010 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2010 18:17:33 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Strangeness in the IGF programme In-Reply-To: <4B90020F.1010503@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <888848.14302.qm@web83910.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> The fruit is in the debate itself. Intellectual discourse must again reach a point of respect to be honored in and of itself. It is not just about "publish or perish".  The value must be seen as the discourse and not a result.   I know you did not mean to suggest that only something that produces a paper that is a feather in a cap is important, I just take this opportunity to remind that societal evolution is a process not a conclusion.   I very much like Jeanette's wrap also and would like to see more contribute in this fashion as it helps us to put in perspective and double check that we were reading it right.   I thank all who contribute, on a personal level it makes my experience much richer.     From: Carlos A. Afonso ca at cafonso.ca Hi Jean, this message is helping me a lot to get in synch with the discussion, which I tried to follow in the last few weeks and could not. I think what your wrap-up of the debate so far should as well be posted in the igf-members list. Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > >          This is not true. Right now, we do have quite a lively and important >>> discussion on the MAG list, and it would be good if more people >>> participated in it. >> >> Nothing like in the past... > > I beg to differ, Carlos, I think the MAG has one its most important debates ever at the moment. > > > > The relevance of this debate trancends the draft of the programme paper. Pity that there might not be much time left to see this debate bear fruits! > > jeanette >> >> --c.a. >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Thu Mar 4 21:32:52 2010 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2010 18:32:52 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] If web-platforms are "criminally responsible for In-Reply-To: <3oRdDdpif4jLFAap@perry.co.uk> Message-ID: <426747.15873.qm@web83909.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Gentlefolks,   It must always be held at the forefront that there is a masterful difference between the theory of law - which is generally the law itself,,,, and the enforcement. Enforcement takes a practical approach and generally the incentives keep the criminals a few steps ahead of the techniques of "Law Enforcement Agencies" LEAs. Drug interdiction and prevention and enforcement and ingenuity keeping ahead is just the same as the net.  Hysterical political comments are meant to produce political capital not reach solutions.   Some would say Wyatt Earp was wrong. Others that he is right. (that would be the "wild" West rather than far. --- On Thu, 3/4/10, Roland Perry wrote: From: Roland Perry Subject: Re: [governance] If web-platforms are "criminally responsible for To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Date: Thursday, March 4, 2010, 10:13 AM In message <4B8EC258.3030507 at polito.it>, at 21:11:04 on Wed, 3 Mar 2010, J.C. DE MARTIN writes > I was mainly thinking of the many politicians that in Italy and France (and perhaps elsewhere) claim that the Internet is a lawless place, that "Internet is like the Far West" and that, of course, "we must put an end to such unlawful situation". Hence, the HADOPI law and other enlightened proposals. > > A reaction to that is to remark that it is simply not true: all the provisions of the civil and criminal code, in fact, apply online as they apply offline. There may be issues with enforcement, but certainly not with lack of laws and rules - at that (national) level. While I agree that "normal" laws also apply to the Internet, these often prove to be worthless when victim, perpetrator and service provider are in three different jurisdictions - which is more serious than a simple problem with "cross border enforcement", because sometimes the law itself differs in these three places. There are also significant issues of interpretation, eg when local laws ban things such as "advertisements" (perhaps for tobacco or child-adoption) and although advertisements in newspapers and on TV are usually clear cut, online there is quite some debate about it (even for example saying that a domain name could be an advertisement): www.adopt-a-child-here.com [Please let us not discuss the merits of such bans and interpretations, but they do exist]. And some issues don't seem to be well covered by existing laws - I heard about one today, where 'hackers' have attacked a gaming site and "stolen" virtual items such as extra weapons and personas that the gamers had bought from the hosting company. Good luck in getting anyone to easily determine responsibility for a remedy in this case. In the face of all this doubt and uncertainty, it's little wonder that legislators try to dream up new laws; although they rarely pause to think whether laws are very successful in changing behaviour. -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Thu Mar 4 21:43:24 2010 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2010 18:43:24 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Parminder's exchange with Bertrand In-Reply-To: <4B8FAC10.4090901@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <168341.77427.qm@web83903.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> I think this is only partially true. I think the, at least, attempts to seperate Church and State and Arts and politics and Love and taxes and to try hard to mesh science and philosophy are indicators that there are not such emeshments.   Perhaps if you just focus on artificial attempts it may be more clear. But I hope as for most humans we have a pretty good seperation between logic and emotion.  Mozart clearly artfully enmeshed but Pol Pot did not.   People on a global scale are trying very hard to let their pocketbooks influence environmental concerns. And I see signs of this working. Whereas the political legal aspect does not seem capable of enmeshing the cultural aspect of stewardship with the economic reality. --- On Thu, 3/4/10, Parminder wrote: Milton There is no effort to artificially separate the economic aspects of our lives from social, political and cultural. They are thoroughly enmeshed.   -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Mar 5 00:16:07 2010 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2010 21:16:07 -0800 (PST) Subject: R: [governance] If web-platforms are "criminally responsible for In-Reply-To: <5JxOLZI$ABkLFAQX@perry.co.uk> Message-ID: <968805.77319.qm@web83905.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Roland,   We should not strive to rid our selves of people.  But of bad acts.  So the Rights are for people and the laws are for activity. We do not outlaw criminals and perverts we outlaw certain actions. That is why a nation is judged not by how it treats the upperclass but how it treats its most disadvantaged citizenry. This is also why it is the criminal that needs the rights not the advantaged law abider.   If it were not for the above then innocence would play second fiddle to expedience and efficiency would trump caring. Before you ask "should victims have rights?" you should realize that all must have rights, hence catholic and universal. So it is merely baiting the speaker when you ask such things and and probably leads to nowhere. --- On Thu, 3/4/10, Roland Perry wrote: From: Roland Perry Subject: Re: R: [governance] If web-platforms are "criminally responsible for To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Date: Thursday, March 4, 2010, 7:55 PM In message <95227A668FFBB141A238AE53582A8E11E2E173 at VEXNODE2.man.provincia.mi.it>, at 12:44:59 on Thu, 4 Mar 2010, Fiorello Cortiana writes > I think we need an "Internet Bill of Roghts" adopted with a multilevel > and multistakeholder process capable to harmonize the Universal > Declaration of Human Rights, the different Constitutions and the self > codes adopted by  companies Would such a "Bill of Rights" include the concept that people have a right to be safe on the Internet, and therefore the authorities (whatever that implies) need the tools to rid us of criminals and purveyors of anti-social behaviour? Or would it embrace the idea that everyone has a right to do whatever they please - even if someone perceives a harm to others? Perhaps something in between... but where do we draw that line in the sand? Especially when different societies (and different people within the same societies) have different ideas about what constitutes harm. -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeanette at wzb.eu Fri Mar 5 03:58:28 2010 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2010 08:58:28 +0000 Subject: [governance] Strangeness in the IGF programme In-Reply-To: <4B90020F.1010503@cafonso.ca> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6D09@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>,<4B8D04B2.3060406@cafonso.ca> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6D16@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4B8E938D.7060708@wzb.eu> <4B8EBEB5.7060008@cafonso.ca> <4B8F9F2B.10708@wzb.eu> <4B90020F.1010503@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <4B90C7B4.5000102@wzb.eu> Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Hi Jean, this message is helping me a lot to get in synch with the > discussion, which I tried to follow in the last few weeks and could not. > I think what your wrap-up of the debate so far should as well be posted > in the igf-members list. > > --c.a. Hi Carl, thanks, this is encouraging. Here some more impressions of the debate around key messages. In the beginning I thought this was merely a symbolic controversy since "messages" as such won't change the rules and resources that constitute Internet governance in its present form. "Key messages" might be one of these "discursive objects" that allow people to gather behind a position, differentiate themselves from people with different positions, and feel good about siding with the right people. But there is more to it this debate. It also concerns the questions of how and in which form we create "output" from IGF meetings. Would it be in the form of condensed summaries which reflect various positions? Or would such messages rather focus on the common ground between those in the room? Another important point concerns unwanted side-effects. Some of those who are sceptical about this idea argue that messages may change the whole character of IGF meetings because open debates could be transformed into negotiation exercises. The example of the UK IGF was brought up. It seems the participants of the UK meeting spent a lot if not most of the time arguing about the correct message. While I am in favor of using messages of whatever sort as a step towards more tangible outcomes, I see the risk of such unwanted side-effects. jeanette The debate > > Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >> >> >> Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >>> Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >>>> >>>> Milton L Mueller wrote: >>>>>> Gone are the days [snip] Now the MAG is basically reduced to >>>>>> concluding phrases generic enough [snip] Even the >>>>>> sometimes lively discussions in the igf-members list (an >>>>>> opportunity to >>>>>> deepen the issues) are history. >>>> This is not true. Right now, we do have quite a lively and important >>>> discussion on the MAG list, and it would be good if more people >>>> participated in it. >>> >>> Nothing like in the past... >> >> I beg to differ, Carlos, I think the MAG has one its most important >> debates ever at the moment. >> >> The debate concerns one paragraph of the first draft of the programme >> paper: >> >> "There were calls for tangible outcomes involving the issuing of >> messages from the IGF. The Chairman’s Report of the Sharm El Sheikh >> meeting points in that direction. It refers to a message addressing >> the needs of people with disabilities which, at the Session Chair’s >> request, was endorsed by acclamation. Similar outcomes could be >> envisaged also in future meetings. It was suggested that such messages >> should come out of each of the sessions. For this purpose, a set of >> rapporteurs could be appointed to publish, in their own names, the key >> messages from sessions. These could then be put on line in a page >> that allowed other participants to comment on the key messages." >> >> The MAG discusses the concept and the term of "key messages": Is it >> feasible to summarize meetings in the form of messages (all of them, >> just main sessions or just workshops) ? Is the term "key" appropriate >> or not? Is it appropriate for the MAG to suggest a response to these >> issues? Is it appropriate not to address this issue? Etc, etc. >> >> This debate is very important because it concerns the political >> authority and weight of multistakeholder processes both on the >> national and the transnational level: Are structures such as the IGF >> allowed to evolve and experiment (ah, that word again...) with various >> forms of consensus building or are they tolerated only within the >> confines of exchanging opinions in a non-committal manner? >> >> The relevance of this debate trancends the draft of the programme >> paper. Pity that there might not be much time left to see this debate >> bear fruits! >> >> jeanette >>> >>> --c.a. >>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Mar 5 04:42:33 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2010 15:12:33 +0530 Subject: [governance] Strangeness in the IGF programme In-Reply-To: <4B90C7B4.5000102@wzb.eu> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6D09@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>,<4B8D04B2.3060406@cafonso.ca> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6D16@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4B8E938D.7060708@wzb.eu> <4B8EBEB5.7060008@cafonso.ca> <4B8F9F2B.10708@wzb.eu> <4B90020F.1010503@cafonso.ca> <4B90C7B4.5000102@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <4B90D209.8010502@itforchange.net> Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > > Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >> Hi Jean, this message is helping me a lot to get in synch with the >> discussion, which I tried to follow in the last few weeks and could >> not. I think what your wrap-up of the debate so far should as well be >> posted in the igf-members list. >> >> --c.a. > > Hi Carl, > > thanks, this is encouraging. > Here some more impressions of the debate around key messages. In the > beginning I thought this was merely a symbolic controversy since > "messages" as such won't change the rules and resources that > constitute Internet governance in its present form. "Key messages" > might be one of these "discursive objects" that allow people to gather > behind a position, differentiate themselves from people with different > positions, and feel good about siding with the right people. > > But there is more to it this debate. It also concerns the questions of > how and in which form we create "output" from IGF meetings. Would it > be in the form of condensed summaries which reflect various positions? > Or would such messages rather focus on the common ground between those > in the room? > > Another important point concerns unwanted side-effects. Some of those > who are sceptical about this idea argue that messages may change the > whole character of IGF meetings because open debates could be > transformed into negotiation exercises. The example of the UK IGF was > brought up. It seems the participants of the UK meeting spent a lot if > not most of the time arguing about the correct message. On the other hand, there is the very successful example of EuroDIG, whose 'messages from Geneva' ( see http://www.guarder.net/kleinwaechter/images/eurodig/2009/messages_from_geneva.pdf ) is a document worth reading. Especially see page 12 onwards where messages from plenary sessions are described. One of the persons associated with organizing EuroDIG clearly noted that the fact that 'messages' were being distilled from the discussions had no effect whatsoever on how the debates went, meaning they did not get hijacked by a 'messages agenda'. EuroDIG also seems to have a followed a very sound process in developing these messages. I agree with Jeanette that this debate is about the 'political authority and weight of a multistakeholder process', and thus of great importance. Parminder > > While I am in favor of using messages of whatever sort as a step > towards more tangible outcomes, I see the risk of such unwanted > side-effects. > > jeanette > > The debate >> >> Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >>> >>> >>> Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >>>> Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Milton L Mueller wrote: >>>>>>> Gone are the days [snip] Now the MAG is basically reduced to >>>>>>> concluding phrases generic enough [snip] Even the >>>>>>> sometimes lively discussions in the igf-members list (an >>>>>>> opportunity to >>>>>>> deepen the issues) are history. >>>>> This is not true. Right now, we do have quite a lively and important >>>>> discussion on the MAG list, and it would be good if more people >>>>> participated in it. >>>> >>>> Nothing like in the past... >>> >>> I beg to differ, Carlos, I think the MAG has one its most important >>> debates ever at the moment. >>> >>> The debate concerns one paragraph of the first draft of the >>> programme paper: >>> >>> "There were calls for tangible outcomes involving the issuing of >>> messages from the IGF. The Chairman’s Report of the Sharm El Sheikh >>> meeting points in that direction. It refers to a message addressing >>> the needs of people with disabilities which, at the Session Chair’s >>> request, was endorsed by acclamation. Similar outcomes could be >>> envisaged also in future meetings. It was suggested that such >>> messages should come out of each of the sessions. For this purpose, >>> a set of rapporteurs could be appointed to publish, in their own >>> names, the key messages from sessions. These could then be put on >>> line in a page that allowed other participants to comment on the key >>> messages." >>> >>> The MAG discusses the concept and the term of "key messages": Is it >>> feasible to summarize meetings in the form of messages (all of them, >>> just main sessions or just workshops) ? Is the term "key" >>> appropriate or not? Is it appropriate for the MAG to suggest a >>> response to these issues? Is it appropriate not to address this >>> issue? Etc, etc. >>> >>> This debate is very important because it concerns the political >>> authority and weight of multistakeholder processes both on the >>> national and the transnational level: Are structures such as the IGF >>> allowed to evolve and experiment (ah, that word again...) with >>> various forms of consensus building or are they tolerated only >>> within the confines of exchanging opinions in a non-committal manner? >>> >>> The relevance of this debate trancends the draft of the programme >>> paper. Pity that there might not be much time left to see this >>> debate bear fruits! >>> >>> jeanette >>>> >>>> --c.a. >>>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Fri Mar 5 06:26:38 2010 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 16:26:38 +0500 Subject: [governance] Strangeness in the IGF programme In-Reply-To: <4B90D209.8010502@itforchange.net> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6D09@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4B8D04B2.3060406@cafonso.ca> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6D16@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4B8E938D.7060708@wzb.eu> <4B8EBEB5.7060008@cafonso.ca> <4B8F9F2B.10708@wzb.eu> <4B90020F.1010503@cafonso.ca> <4B90C7B4.5000102@wzb.eu> <4B90D209.8010502@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <701af9f71003050326w777101aer9a3aedef7d622e6c@mail.gmail.com> Dear Colleagues, We can definitely see that substantial input is now being made on the MAG list from pro-key message process supporters and if we can keep this support going, I see the possibility to atleast explore this process in light of the EuroDIG achievement? The same participants of EuroDIG are also actively participating in the IGF and that is a very important message itself for supporting this. -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 2:42 PM, Parminder wrote: > > > Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >> >> >> Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >>> >>> Hi Jean, this message is helping me a lot to get in synch with the >>> discussion, which I tried to follow in the last few weeks and could not. I >>> think what your wrap-up of the debate so far should as well be posted in the >>> igf-members list. >>> >>> --c.a. >> >> Hi Carl, >> >> thanks, this is encouraging. >> Here some more impressions of the debate around key messages. In the >> beginning I thought this was merely a symbolic controversy since "messages" >> as such won't change the rules and resources that constitute Internet >> governance in its present form. "Key messages" might be one of these >> "discursive objects" that allow people to gather behind a position, >> differentiate themselves from people with different positions, and feel good >> about siding with the right people. >> >> But there is more to it this debate. It also concerns the questions of how >> and in which form we create "output" from IGF meetings. Would it be in the >> form of condensed summaries which reflect various positions? Or would such >> messages rather focus on the common ground between those in the room? >> >> Another important point concerns unwanted side-effects. Some of those who >> are sceptical about this idea argue that messages may change the whole >> character of IGF meetings because open debates could be transformed into >> negotiation exercises. The example of the UK IGF was brought up. It seems >> the participants of the UK meeting spent a lot if not most of the time >> arguing about the correct message. > > On the other hand, there is the very successful example of EuroDIG, whose > 'messages from Geneva' ( see > http://www.guarder.net/kleinwaechter/images/eurodig/2009/messages_from_geneva.pdf > ) is a document worth reading. Especially see page 12 onwards where messages > from plenary sessions are described. > > One of the persons associated with organizing EuroDIG clearly noted that the > fact that 'messages' were being distilled from the discussions had no effect > whatsoever on how the debates went, meaning they did not get hijacked by a > 'messages agenda'. > > EuroDIG also seems to have a followed a very sound process in developing > these messages. > > I agree with Jeanette that this debate is about the 'political authority and > weight of a multistakeholder process', and thus of great importance. > > Parminder >> >> While I am in favor of using messages of whatever sort as a step towards >> more tangible outcomes, I see the risk of such unwanted side-effects. >> >> jeanette >> >> The debate >>> >>> Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Milton L Mueller wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Gone are the days [snip] Now the MAG is basically reduced to >>>>>>>> concluding phrases generic enough [snip] Even the >>>>>>>> sometimes lively discussions in the igf-members list (an opportunity >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>> deepen the issues) are history. >>>>>> >>>>>> This is not true. Right now, we do have quite a lively and important >>>>>> discussion on the MAG list, and it would be good if more people >>>>>> participated in it. >>>>> >>>>> Nothing like in the past... >>>> >>>> I beg to differ, Carlos, I think the MAG has one its most important >>>> debates ever at the moment. >>>> >>>> The debate concerns one paragraph of the first draft of the programme >>>> paper: >>>> >>>> "There were calls for tangible outcomes involving the issuing of >>>> messages from the IGF. The Chairman’s Report of the Sharm El Sheikh meeting >>>> points in that direction.  It refers to a message addressing the needs of >>>> people with disabilities which, at the Session Chair’s request, was endorsed >>>> by acclamation. Similar outcomes could be envisaged also in future meetings. >>>> It was suggested that such messages should come out of each of the sessions. >>>>  For this purpose, a set of rapporteurs could be appointed to publish, in >>>> their own names, the key messages from sessions.  These could then be put on >>>> line in a page that allowed other participants to comment on the key >>>> messages." >>>> >>>> The MAG discusses the concept and the term of "key messages": Is it >>>> feasible to summarize meetings in the form of messages (all of them, just >>>> main sessions or just workshops) ? Is the term "key" appropriate or not? Is >>>> it appropriate for the MAG to suggest a response to these issues? Is it >>>> appropriate not to address this issue? Etc, etc. >>>> >>>> This debate is very important because it concerns the political >>>> authority and weight of multistakeholder processes both on the national and >>>> the transnational level: Are structures such as the IGF allowed to evolve >>>> and experiment (ah, that word again...) with various forms of consensus >>>> building or are they tolerated only within the confines of exchanging >>>> opinions in a non-committal manner? >>>> >>>> The relevance of this debate trancends the draft of the programme paper. >>>> Pity that there might not be much time left to see this debate bear fruits! >>>> >>>> jeanette >>>>> >>>>> --c.a. >>>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>    governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>>    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>> >>>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>    governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >    governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Fri Mar 5 07:30:52 2010 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 12:30:52 +0000 Subject: R: [governance] If web-platforms are "criminally responsible for In-Reply-To: <968805.77319.qm@web83905.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> References: <5JxOLZI$ABkLFAQX@perry.co.uk> <968805.77319.qm@web83905.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: In message <968805.77319.qm at web83905.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>, at 21:16:07 on Thu, 4 Mar 2010, Eric Dierker writes >Roland, >  >We should not strive to rid our selves of people.  But of bad acts.  I agree. There's no need to deny criminals their rightful access to resources, as long as it's not part of their criminal activity (for example, we still allow dentists to cure the toothache of bank robbers). So when I say "rid [the Internet] of criminals", I do indeed mean "rid the Internet of their criminal acts". >Before you ask "should victims have rights?" you should realize that >all must have rights, Different rights. The criminals have a right to dentistry, but not a right to rob people via the Internet. Although I have heard people saying that criminals should be denied the benefits of "modern communications", as part of their punishment. And I think we do try to avoid people in jail having access to mobile phones. -- 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 jeanette at wzb.eu Fri Mar 5 07:45:35 2010 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2010 12:45:35 +0000 Subject: [governance] Strangeness in the IGF programme In-Reply-To: <4B90D209.8010502@itforchange.net> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6D09@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>,<4B8D04B2.3060406@cafonso.ca> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6D16@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4B8E938D.7060708@wzb.eu> <4B8EBEB5.7060008@cafonso.ca> <4B8F9F2B.10708@wzb.eu> <4B90020F.1010503@cafonso.ca> <4B90C7B4.5000102@wzb.eu> <4B90D209.8010502@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4B90FCEF.5060209@wzb.eu> Hi Parminder, this is correct and I guess I should have mentioned the example of EuroDIG as well. My focus was on potential unwanted side-effects and I thought we should keep this in mind and not get too much carried away in our enthusiasm for outputs. While outputs in the form of messages may increase the relevance of events at the IGF, we should be sensitive to the risk that they might alter the dynamics of the discussions. I just mean to say that the skeptics may have a point. jeanette Parminder wrote: > On the other hand, there is the very successful example of EuroDIG, > whose 'messages from Geneva' ( see > http://www.guarder.net/kleinwaechter/images/eurodig/2009/messages_from_geneva.pdf > ) is a document worth reading. Especially see page 12 onwards where > messages from plenary sessions are described. > > One of the persons associated with organizing EuroDIG clearly noted that > the fact that 'messages' were being distilled from the discussions had > no effect whatsoever on how the debates went, meaning they did not get > hijacked by a 'messages agenda'. > > EuroDIG also seems to have a followed a very sound process in developing > these messages. > > I agree with Jeanette that this debate is about the 'political authority > and weight of a multistakeholder process', and thus of great importance. > > Parminder >> >> While I am in favor of using messages of whatever sort as a step >> towards more tangible outcomes, I see the risk of such unwanted >> side-effects. >> >> jeanette >> >> The debate >>> >>> Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >>>>> Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Milton L Mueller wrote: >>>>>>>> Gone are the days [snip] Now the MAG is basically reduced to >>>>>>>> concluding phrases generic enough [snip] Even the >>>>>>>> sometimes lively discussions in the igf-members list (an >>>>>>>> opportunity to >>>>>>>> deepen the issues) are history. >>>>>> This is not true. Right now, we do have quite a lively and important >>>>>> discussion on the MAG list, and it would be good if more people >>>>>> participated in it. >>>>> >>>>> Nothing like in the past... >>>> >>>> I beg to differ, Carlos, I think the MAG has one its most important >>>> debates ever at the moment. >>>> >>>> The debate concerns one paragraph of the first draft of the >>>> programme paper: >>>> >>>> "There were calls for tangible outcomes involving the issuing of >>>> messages from the IGF. The Chairman’s Report of the Sharm El Sheikh >>>> meeting points in that direction. It refers to a message addressing >>>> the needs of people with disabilities which, at the Session Chair’s >>>> request, was endorsed by acclamation. Similar outcomes could be >>>> envisaged also in future meetings. It was suggested that such >>>> messages should come out of each of the sessions. For this purpose, >>>> a set of rapporteurs could be appointed to publish, in their own >>>> names, the key messages from sessions. These could then be put on >>>> line in a page that allowed other participants to comment on the key >>>> messages." >>>> >>>> The MAG discusses the concept and the term of "key messages": Is it >>>> feasible to summarize meetings in the form of messages (all of them, >>>> just main sessions or just workshops) ? Is the term "key" >>>> appropriate or not? Is it appropriate for the MAG to suggest a >>>> response to these issues? Is it appropriate not to address this >>>> issue? Etc, etc. >>>> >>>> This debate is very important because it concerns the political >>>> authority and weight of multistakeholder processes both on the >>>> national and the transnational level: Are structures such as the IGF >>>> allowed to evolve and experiment (ah, that word again...) with >>>> various forms of consensus building or are they tolerated only >>>> within the confines of exchanging opinions in a non-committal manner? >>>> >>>> The relevance of this debate trancends the draft of the programme >>>> paper. Pity that there might not be much time left to see this >>>> debate bear fruits! >>>> >>>> jeanette >>>>> >>>>> --c.a. >>>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>> >>>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Mar 5 13:15:20 2010 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 10:15:20 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Multi-stakeholders and the outcasts' Rights In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <880963.17965.qm@web83911.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Right on Roland,   So in the current debate I have not seen any person stand up for the notion that even the least among us is entitled to Internet Rights -- as in participation.  Looking at the UN charter human rights one finds many references to a right to participate.  Why not here?   Again your point is well laid out here -- convicted felons usually lose at least some of their rights to participate - and that seems a model in keeping with your concerns.   I note with some chagrin that the great debate of stakeholder participation is once again slithering toward "publish or perish". --- On Fri, 3/5/10, Roland Perry wrote: From: Roland Perry Subject: Re: R: [governance] If web-platforms are "criminally responsible for To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Date: Friday, March 5, 2010, 12:30 PM In message <968805.77319.qm at web83905.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>, at 21:16:07 on Thu, 4 Mar 2010, Eric Dierker writes > Roland, >   > We should not strive to rid our selves of people.  But of bad acts.  I agree. There's no need to deny criminals their rightful access to resources, as long as it's not part of their criminal activity (for example, we still allow dentists to cure the toothache of bank robbers). So when I say "rid [the Internet] of criminals", I do indeed mean "rid the Internet of their criminal acts". > Before you ask "should victims have rights?" you should realize that all must have rights, Different rights. The criminals have a right to dentistry, but not a right to rob people via the Internet. Although I have heard people saying that criminals should be denied the benefits of "modern communications", as part of their punishment. And I think we do try to avoid people in jail having access to mobile phones. -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Fri Mar 5 14:13:45 2010 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 11:13:45 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Strangeness in the IGF programme In-Reply-To: <4B8D04B2.3060406@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <492439.15795.qm@web83908.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Carlos,   All is not lost or gone. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P89PlNkk0eY&NR=1   The MAG and the IGF are idea based and issue oriented. I have been told that many gov. types in fact read this malarkey. So I think less should be worried about agendas and results of meetings.  Many a social scientist will tell you -- high blood pressure is a direct result of having your own agenda and not getting your way,,,, easy remedy is get with THE agenda and not your own.   The top officials anywhere that have an ounce of intelligence are not concerned with what we tell them to do -- period, end of story.  But if we help to understand issues and present salient plausible solutions we do in fact contribute -- we just don't get the Awards type of recognition. --- On Tue, 3/2/10, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: Gone are the days of the struggle to make sure crucial issues such as logical infrastructure's governance should be included as main themes (with the resulting fits-anything "Critical Internet Resources" being inserted in the IGF Rio meeting). Now the MAG is basically reduced to concluding phrases generic enough to, for one, satisfy the Chinese, and go through the filter of the well-organized business front. Even the sometimes lively discussions in the igf-members list (an opportunity to deepen the issues) are history. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Fri Mar 5 18:25:27 2010 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 23:25:27 +0000 Subject: [governance] Re: Multi-stakeholders and the outcasts' Rights In-Reply-To: <880963.17965.qm@web83911.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> References: <880963.17965.qm@web83911.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: In message <880963.17965.qm at web83911.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>, at 10:15:20 on Fri, 5 Mar 2010, Eric Dierker writes >Right on Roland, >  >So in the current debate I have not seen any person stand up for the >notion that even the least among us is entitled to Internet Rights -- >as in participation.  Thank you - someone prepared to put some ideas on the table regarding what kind of "Rights" we might be talking about here. > Looking at the UN charter human rights one finds many references to a >right to participate.  That's participate in the political process. So are you referring to a right that everyone might have to use the Internet in order to properly participate in traditional governmental politics, and/or a right for everyone to participate in Internet politics? The interesting feature of the latter is that even in enlightened countries, it's not possible for the ordinary citizen to easily participate in every vertical market's politics. But the Internet's politics are probably more accessible than most (I see more discussion like this, blogs and websites, discussing how and why the Internet is run the way it is than, say, equivalent discussion about the politics of running one of the biggest industries in many countries ie the Healthcare System). >Why not here? Here on this list, you mean? With rights come responsibilities, and as far as I'm aware anyone prepared to take those responsibilities seriously is allowed to participate. -- 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 mueller at syr.edu Fri Mar 5 19:15:33 2010 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 19:15:33 -0500 Subject: [governance] IGF, ECOSOC and WSIS III In-Reply-To: <4B8FF927.4090406@cafonso.ca> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0687D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <701af9f71002141145l7b85cec8n48eb4dc8e33f02b7@mail.gmail.com> <4B7944F6.6030304@itforchange.net>,<4B8FF927.4090406@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6D38@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> ________________________________________ > > Do those who advocate either dispensing with MAG (the multistakeholder > space we got) or weakening it not realize that any such thing will only > shift more decision making power to the UN's bureaucracy? How do they > defend their formulations on MAG with the present call for seeking CSTD > review of IGF before the deeper and more obscure UN system takes > cognizance of it? Thanks for making this point, Parminder. You have transformed me into a MAG supporter. Two cheers for the MAG...! --MM____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Fri Mar 5 19:18:40 2010 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 19:18:40 -0500 Subject: [governance] Parminder's exchange with Bertrand In-Reply-To: <20100304084045.GB20444@hamsu.tarvainen.info> References: <4B85046E.6080509@wzb.eu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C7AB3897@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4B8997DD.4030103@gih.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6D07@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <954259bd1003021011qb6d95e0gd3926e1fdda38d19@mail.gmail.com> <4B8DE8A7.5080306@itforchange.net> <6DA2DCE5-CF10-4775-8C41-F72D80FE4A3E@ciroap.org> <4B8E161E.5050907@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6D1F@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <47589BED-FD7B-414B-AE8E-8D86A794D05C@ciroap.org>,<20100304084045.GB20444@hamsu.tarvainen.info> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6D3A@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> I hope no one thinks I was asserting that ALL CS organizations are "nothing but....." SOME (even many) governments are more or less democratic; some businesses more or less support free(r) markets; some CS organizations are based on conscience I was mainly arguing against a simple division of the entire world into those three categories. ________________________________________ From: Tapani Tarvainen [tapani.tarvainen at effi.org] Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2010 3:40 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] Parminder's exchange with Bertrand On Thu, Mar 04, 2010 at 04:23:53PM +0800, Jeremy Malcolm (jeremy at ciroap.org) wr > On 04/03/2010, at 1:45 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > 3. how many CS organizations are nothing but receptacles for money > > generated either by govt or by business? > Almost all of them, I guess. But only almost! I can claim Effi as an exception, as we receive money from neither government nor businesses. (Our funding comes from membership fees, individual donations and T-shirt sales. I don't claim we'd unconditionally reject donations from businesses should it come to that, but so far none has been offered nor have we solicited any. As for the government, money flows to the opposite direction as we pay taxes for our meagre T-shirt sales.) -- Tapani Tarvainen ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Mar 5 19:45:52 2010 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 19:45:52 -0500 Subject: [governance] Strangeness in the IGF programme In-Reply-To: <4B90FCEF.5060209@wzb.eu> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6D09@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>,<4B8D04B2.3060406@cafonso.ca> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6D16@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4B8E938D.7060708@wzb.eu> <4B8EBEB5.7060008@cafonso.ca> <4B8F9F2B.10708@wzb.eu> <4B90020F.1010503@cafonso.ca> <4B90C7B4.5000102@wzb.eu> <4B90D209.8010502@itforchange.net>,<4B90FCEF.5060209@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6D3B@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Kudos to our MAG members for coalescing around the "key messages" theme. I understand that CS and governments have been working together on this. Jeanette's caution about making the entire IGF into a strenuous competition to get your pet "key message" adopted is a real concern. But in response to her observation... >whiile outputs in the form of messages may increase the relevance of >events at the IGF, we should be sensitive to the risk that they might >alter the dynamics of the discussions. ...I was thinking back on my experience with various IGF main sessions, and there have been very few discussions there that had _any_ dynamics, much less positive ones. Too many main sessions discussions, and even many workshop discussions, are flaccid, static presentations, with little focused engagement among the s-s-s-stakeholders (there, I said it. yak), they move in an unfocused manner from one issue to another. I suspect that the possibility (or threat?) of something morphing into a "key message" would concentrate people's minds. My fear is that key messages will end up being fluffy teddy-bear messages that no one can disagree with. But the effort to strive for meaningful ones could be interesting. --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 lmcknigh at syr.edu Fri Mar 5 23:17:38 2010 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 23:17:38 -0500 Subject: [governance] Strangeness in the IGF programme In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6D3B@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6D09@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>,<4B8D04B2.3060406@cafonso.ca> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6D16@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4B8E938D.7060708@wzb.eu> <4B8EBEB5.7060008@cafonso.ca> <4B8F9F2B.10708@wzb.eu> <4B90020F.1010503@cafonso.ca> <4B90C7B4.5000102@wzb.eu> <4B90D209.8010502@itforchange.net>,<4B90FCEF.5060209@wzb.eu>,<75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6D3B@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015463CDD6@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> If I may draw upon the experience of the Caribbean Internet Forum - remember it's the grandaddy of regional Internet governance fora, established in 2002 (athough it has always mixed ig + regional ict4d): Some years there may be a need to draft a message/(and horrors, even a full text) and which may even have a planned path to be passed up the chain to specific political leaders and other institutions awaiting the message. And other years not at all, and definitely not for every single thing discussed. Lesson for IGF: we definitely don't want to turn into an ad bureau only crafting messages; but sometimes there is something to say and a message can be delivered in one or another form. Lee Sent: Friday, March 05, 2010 7:45 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeanette Hofmann; Parminder Cc: Carlos A. Afonso Subject: RE: [governance] Strangeness in the IGF programme Kudos to our MAG members for coalescing around the "key messages" theme. I understand that CS and governments have been working together on this. Jeanette's caution about making the entire IGF into a strenuous competition to get your pet "key message" adopted is a real concern. But in response to her observation... >whiile outputs in the form of messages may increase the relevance of >events at the IGF, we should be sensitive to the risk that they might >alter the dynamics of the discussions. ...I was thinking back on my experience with various IGF main sessions, and there have been very few discussions there that had _any_ dynamics, much less positive ones. Too many main sessions discussions, and even many workshop discussions, are flaccid, static presentations, with little focused engagement among the s-s-s-stakeholders (there, I said it. yak), they move in an unfocused manner from one issue to another. I suspect that the possibility (or threat?) of something morphing into a "key message" would concentrate people's minds. My fear is that key messages will end up being fluffy teddy-bear messages that no one can disagree with. But the effort to strive for meaningful ones could be interesting. --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 jeanette at wzb.eu Sat Mar 6 04:37:13 2010 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Sat, 06 Mar 2010 09:37:13 +0000 Subject: [governance] Strangeness in the IGF programme In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015463CDD6@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6D09@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>,<4B8D04B2.3060406@cafonso.ca> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6D16@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4B8E938D.7060708@wzb.eu> <4B8EBEB5.7060008@cafonso.ca> <4B8F9F2B.10708@wzb.eu> <4B90020F.1010503@cafonso.ca> <4B90C7B4.5000102@wzb.eu> <4B90D209.8010502@itforchange.net>,<4B90FCEF.5060209@wzb.eu>,<75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6D3B@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015463CDD6@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4B922249.6090204@wzb.eu> I fully agree with Lee. Messages are not an end in itself. If we interpret messages as a summary of meetings (the Eurodig model?), there is the danger that they turn into routines without much political substance. On the other hand, we should not forget that the chairman's report, which sums up issues that have been brought up, has been the only form of consensual outcome so far. The option would be to aim for messages which reflect rough consensus on a controversial issue so that messages would imply real achievements. More often than not we would probably end without any messages. I sympathize with this second option but don't find it a likely path. jeanette Lee W McKnight wrote: > If I may draw upon the experience of the Caribbean Internet Forum - remember it's the grandaddy of regional Internet governance fora, established in 2002 (athough it has always mixed ig + regional ict4d): > > Some years there may be a need to draft a message/(and horrors, even a full text) and which may even have a planned path to be passed up the chain to specific political leaders and other institutions awaiting the message. > > And other years not at all, and definitely not for every single thing discussed. > > Lesson for IGF: we definitely don't want to turn into an ad bureau only crafting messages; but sometimes there is something to say and a message can be delivered in one or another form. > > Lee > > > Sent: Friday, March 05, 2010 7:45 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeanette Hofmann; Parminder > Cc: Carlos A. Afonso > Subject: RE: [governance] Strangeness in the IGF programme > > Kudos to our MAG members for coalescing around the "key messages" theme. I understand that CS and governments have been working together on this. > Jeanette's caution about making the entire IGF into a strenuous competition to get your pet "key message" adopted is a real concern. But in response to her observation... > >> whiile outputs in the form of messages may increase the relevance of >> events at the IGF, we should be sensitive to the risk that they might >> alter the dynamics of the discussions. > > ...I was thinking back on my experience with various IGF main sessions, and there have been very few discussions there that had _any_ dynamics, much less positive ones. > > Too many main sessions discussions, and even many workshop discussions, are flaccid, static presentations, with little focused engagement among the s-s-s-stakeholders (there, I said it. yak), they move in an unfocused manner from one issue to another. I suspect that the possibility (or threat?) of something morphing into a "key message" would concentrate people's minds. > > My fear is that key messages will end up being fluffy teddy-bear messages that no one can disagree with. But the effort to strive for meaningful ones could be interesting. > --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 email at hakik.org Sat Mar 6 05:23:45 2010 From: email at hakik.org (Hakikur Rahman) Date: Sat, 06 Mar 2010 10:23:45 +0000 Subject: [governance] Strangeness in the IGF programme In-Reply-To: <4B922249.6090204@wzb.eu> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6D09@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4B8D04B2.3060406@cafonso.ca> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6D16@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4B8E938D.7060708@wzb.eu> <4B8EBEB5.7060008@cafonso.ca> <4B8F9F2B.10708@wzb.eu> <4B90020F.1010503@cafonso.ca> <4B90C7B4.5000102@wzb.eu> <4B90D209.8010502@itforchange.net> <4B90FCEF.5060209@wzb.eu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6D3B@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015463CDD6@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4B922249.6090204@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <20100306102416.006AB9163B@npogroups.org> At 09:37 06-03-2010, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >The option would be to aim for messages which reflect rough >consensus on a controversial issue so that messages would imply real >achievements. Sometimes not even controversial issues, but predominantly agreed issues lack proper attention from the hierarchies in many countries, despite the clarity and necessity of the message to be adopted in policy issues. >More often than not we would probably end without any messages. I >sympathize with this second option but don't find it a likely path. Not unlikely. Perhaps, frequently held local events (regional ones) could establish platforms in creating them. Best regards, Hakik >jeanette > >Lee W McKnight wrote: >>If I may draw upon the experience of the Caribbean Internet Forum - >>remember it's the grandaddy of regional Internet governance fora, >>established in 2002 (athough it has always mixed ig + regional ict4d): >>Some years there may be a need to draft a message/(and horrors, >>even a full text) and which may even have a planned path to be >>passed up the chain to specific political leaders and other >>institutions awaiting the message. >>And other years not at all, and definitely not for every single >>thing discussed. >>Lesson for IGF: we definitely don't want to turn into an ad bureau >>only crafting messages; but sometimes there is something to say and >>a message can be delivered in one or another form. >>Lee >> >>Sent: Friday, March 05, 2010 7:45 PM >>To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeanette Hofmann; Parminder >>Cc: Carlos A. Afonso >>Subject: RE: [governance] Strangeness in the IGF programme >>Kudos to our MAG members for coalescing around the "key messages" >>theme. I understand that CS and governments have been working together on this. >>Jeanette's caution about making the entire IGF into a strenuous >>competition to get your pet "key message" adopted is a real >>concern. But in response to her observation... >> >>>whiile outputs in the form of messages may increase the relevance of >>>events at the IGF, we should be sensitive to the risk that they might >>>alter the dynamics of the discussions. >>...I was thinking back on my experience with various IGF main >>sessions, and there have been very few discussions there that had >>_any_ dynamics, much less positive ones. >>Too many main sessions discussions, and even many workshop >>discussions, are flaccid, static presentations, with little focused >>engagement among the s-s-s-stakeholders (there, I said it. yak), >>they move in an unfocused manner from one issue to another. I >>suspect that the possibility (or threat?) of something morphing >>into a "key message" would concentrate people's minds. >>My fear is that key messages will end up being fluffy teddy-bear >>messages that no one can disagree with. But the effort to strive >>for meaningful ones could be interesting. >>--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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Sat Mar 6 10:21:05 2010 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2010 10:21:05 -0500 Subject: [governance] Strangeness in the IGF programme In-Reply-To: <201003061023.o26ANo6v005549@mx1.syr.edu> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6D09@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4B8D04B2.3060406@cafonso.ca> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6D16@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4B8E938D.7060708@wzb.eu> <4B8EBEB5.7060008@cafonso.ca> <4B8F9F2B.10708@wzb.eu> <4B90020F.1010503@cafonso.ca> <4B90C7B4.5000102@wzb.eu> <4B90D209.8010502@itforchange.net> <4B90FCEF.5060209@wzb.eu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6D3B@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015463CDD6@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4B922249.6090204@wzb.eu>,<201003061023.o26ANo6v005549@mx1.syr.edu> Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015463CDD8@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> To elaborate further, with permission of the Caribbean Internet Forum Chair, Courtney Jackson's attached remarks excerpted from the forthcoming report on the 7th CIF, summarize its history and accomplishments. These include drafting text on regional IG in 2006/7 essentially at request/on behalf of national political leaders and regional institutions. To cite one specific example. Another time the message was initiated from the private sector - re a looming bandwidth collapse as undersea fibers neared their expiration date - and spurred regulators to streamline processes so new investors would feel welcome to lay fiber in the region. Of course scale of Caribbean vs whole world makes IGF challenges in crafting messages different. But maintaining flexibility in form and process is key for ensuring messages may have practical impact. Lee ________________________________________ From: Hakikur Rahman [email at hakik.org] Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2010 5:23 AM, To: Jeanette Hofmann; Lee W McKnight Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton L Mueller; Parminder; Carlos A. Afonso Subject: Re: [governance] Strangeness in the IGF programme At 09:37 06-03-2010, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >The option would be to aim for messages which reflect rough >consensus on a controversial issue so that messages would imply real >achievements. Sometimes not even controversial issues, but predominantly agreed issues lack proper attention from the hierarchies in many countries, despite the clarity and necessity of the message to be adopted in policy issues. >More often than not we would probably end without any messages. I >sympathize with this second option but don't find it a likely path. Not unlikely. Perhaps, frequently held local events (regional ones) could establish platforms in creating them. Best regards, Hakik >jeanette > >Lee W McKnight wrote: >>If I may draw upon the experience of the Caribbean Internet Forum - >>remember it's the grandaddy of regional Internet governance fora, >>established in 2002 (athough it has always mixed ig + regional ict4d): >>Some years there may be a need to draft a message/(and horrors, >>even a full text) and which may even have a planned path to be >>passed up the chain to specific political leaders and other >>institutions awaiting the message. >>And other years not at all, and definitely not for every single >>thing discussed. >>Lesson for IGF: we definitely don't want to turn into an ad bureau >>only crafting messages; but sometimes there is something to say and >>a message can be delivered in one or another form. >>Lee >> >>Sent: Friday, March 05, 2010 7:45 PM >>To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeanette Hofmann; Parminder >>Cc: Carlos A. Afonso >>Subject: RE: [governance] Strangeness in the IGF programme >>Kudos to our MAG members for coalescing around the "key messages" >>theme. I understand that CS and governments have been working together on this. >>Jeanette's caution about making the entire IGF into a strenuous >>competition to get your pet "key message" adopted is a real >>concern. But in response to her observation... >> >>>whiile outputs in the form of messages may increase the relevance of >>>events at the IGF, we should be sensitive to the risk that they might >>>alter the dynamics of the discussions. >>...I was thinking back on my experience with various IGF main >>sessions, and there have been very few discussions there that had >>_any_ dynamics, much less positive ones. >>Too many main sessions discussions, and even many workshop >>discussions, are flaccid, static presentations, with little focused >>engagement among the s-s-s-stakeholders (there, I said it. yak), >>they move in an unfocused manner from one issue to another. I >>suspect that the possibility (or threat?) of something morphing >>into a "key message" would concentrate people's minds. >>My fear is that key messages will end up being fluffy teddy-bear >>messages that no one can disagree with. But the effort to strive >>for meaningful ones could be interesting. >>--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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: CIF7_2009_Chairmans_Opening_Remarks.doc Type: application/msword Size: 314368 bytes Desc: CIF7_2009_Chairmans_Opening_Remarks.doc URL: From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Sun Mar 7 05:48:32 2010 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Sun, 7 Mar 2010 15:48:32 +0500 Subject: [governance] Strangeness in the IGF programme In-Reply-To: <4B922249.6090204@wzb.eu> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6D09@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4B8EBEB5.7060008@cafonso.ca> <4B8F9F2B.10708@wzb.eu> <4B90020F.1010503@cafonso.ca> <4B90C7B4.5000102@wzb.eu> <4B90D209.8010502@itforchange.net> <4B90FCEF.5060209@wzb.eu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6D3B@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015463CDD6@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4B922249.6090204@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <701af9f71003070248ib16da8dw80b264ccd5b4dc76@mail.gmail.com> Hi, I think this is more of a preassumption to something that hasn't been actually fully implemented within the IGF process. If we look at the enormous amount of work and papers from various bodies and people across the world on IGF process and issues, they do tend to reference the proceedings of IGF, its transcript etc so this gives us a clear idea that IGF is part of main stream research, critic, knowledge development activities about the area of IG and IGF thus key messages will be picked up by the Internet community and help support idea development and implementations across the world. Partnerships and idea development/sharing happen in the workshops and the tea places all over the IGF space so why are we so worried about these messages when reports are coming from workshops and main sessions. On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 2:37 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > I fully agree with Lee. Messages are not an end in itself. > If we interpret messages as a summary of meetings (the Eurodig model?), > there is the danger that they turn into routines without much political > substance. On the other hand, we should not forget that the chairman's > report, which sums up issues that have been brought up, has been the only > form of consensual outcome so far. > > The option would be to aim for messages which reflect rough consensus on a > controversial issue so that messages would imply real achievements. More > often than not we would probably end without any messages. I sympathize with > this second option but don't find it a likely path. > > jeanette > > Lee W McKnight wrote: >> >> If I may draw upon the experience of the Caribbean Internet Forum - >> remember it's the grandaddy of regional Internet governance fora, >> established in 2002 (athough it has always mixed ig + regional ict4d): >> >> Some years there may be a need to draft a message/(and horrors, even a >> full text) and which may even have a planned path to be passed up the chain >> to specific political leaders and other institutions awaiting the message. >> >> And other years not at all, and definitely not for every single thing >> discussed. >> >> Lesson for IGF: we definitely don't want to turn into an ad bureau only >> crafting messages; but sometimes there is something to say and a message can >> be delivered in one or another form. >> >> Lee >> >> >> Sent: Friday, March 05, 2010 7:45 PM >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeanette Hofmann; Parminder >> Cc: Carlos A. Afonso >> Subject: RE: [governance] Strangeness in the IGF programme >> >> Kudos to our MAG members for coalescing around the "key messages" theme. I >> understand that CS and governments have been working together on this. >> Jeanette's caution about making the entire IGF into a strenuous >> competition to get your pet "key message" adopted is a real concern. But in >> response to her observation... >> >>> whiile outputs in the form of messages may increase the relevance of >>> events at the IGF, we should be sensitive to the risk that they might >>> alter the dynamics of the discussions. >> >> ...I was thinking back on my experience with various IGF main sessions, >> and there have been very few discussions there that had _any_ dynamics, much >> less positive ones. >> >> Too many main sessions discussions, and even many workshop discussions, >> are flaccid, static presentations, with little focused engagement among the >> s-s-s-stakeholders (there, I said it. yak), they move in an unfocused manner >> from one issue to another. I suspect that the possibility (or threat?) of >> something morphing into a "key message" would concentrate people's minds. >> >> My fear is that key messages will end up being fluffy teddy-bear messages >> that no one can disagree with. But the effort to strive for meaningful ones >> could be interesting. >> --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 > -- 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 shailam at yahoo.com Mon Mar 8 02:49:25 2010 From: shailam at yahoo.com (shaila mistry) Date: Sun, 7 Mar 2010 23:49:25 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Happy International Women's day to all! from Beijjing +15 In-Reply-To: <9C95B38E-C58F-414C-86C4-B5C9CC3AD17F@mac.com> References: <934298.32801.qm@web59005.mail.re1.yahoo.com> <9C95B38E-C58F-414C-86C4-B5C9CC3AD17F@mac.com> Message-ID: <25330.1056.qm@web55207.mail.re4.yahoo.com> Happy International Women's Day I am just back from the Beijing +15 and the 54 th Commission on Status of Women in New York where we celebrated the International Women s day with the General Secretary Ban Ki, Moon.He gave a very encouraging speech of support and is working to help us with the New Entity for Women affairs. Since 2006, many of us including my self have been working on this Gender Equity Architecture Reform GEAR Campaign and it looks like it is becoming a reality! Women in USA are working hard on achieving gender equity at every level ! We celebrate you in your efforts in your country. warm regards Shaila Rao Mistry International Federation of University Women Jayco MMI President California www.jaycopanels.com Life is too short ....challenge the rules Forgive quickly ... love truly ...and tenderly Laugh constantly.....and never stop dreaming! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Mar 8 11:50:16 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2010 22:20:16 +0530 Subject: [governance] Internet access is 'a fundamental right' In-Reply-To: <701af9f71003070248ib16da8dw80b264ccd5b4dc76@mail.gmail.com> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6D09@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4B8EBEB5.7060008@cafonso.ca> <4B8F9F2B.10708@wzb.eu> <4B90020F.1010503@cafonso.ca> <4B90C7B4.5000102@wzb.eu> <4B90D209.8010502@itforchange.net> <4B90FCEF.5060209@wzb.eu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6D3B@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015463CDD6@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4B922249.6090204@wzb.eu> <701af9f71003070248ib16da8dw80b264ccd5b4dc76@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4B952AC8.2070507@itforchange.net> *For the rights skeptics, if they believe in people's verdict :)* (also enclosed full report ) Internet access is 'a fundamental right' http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8548190.stm *Almost four in five people around the world believe that access to the internet is a fundamental right, a poll for the BBC World Service suggests.* The survey - of more than 27,000 adults across 26 countries - found strong support for net access on both sides of the digital divide. Countries such as Finland and Estonia have already ruled that access is a human right for their citizens. International bodies such as the UN are also pushing for universal net access. The right to communicate cannot be ignored," Dr Hamadoun Toure, secretary-general of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), told BBC News. "The internet is the most powerful potential source of enlightenment ever created." He said that governments must "regard the internet as basic infrastructure - just like roads, waste and water". "We have entered the knowledge society and everyone must have access to participate." The survey, conducted by GlobeScan for the BBC, also revealed divisions on the question of government oversight of some aspects of the net. Web users questioned in South Korea and Nigeria felt strongly that governments should never be involved in regulation of the internet. However, a majority of those in China and the many European countries disagreed. In the UK, for example, 55% believed that there was a case for some government regulation of the internet. *Rural retreat* The finding comes as the UK government tries to push through its controversial Digital Economy Bill. As well as promising to deliver universal broadband in the UK by 2012, the bill could also see a so-called "three strikes rule" become law. This rule would give regulators new powers to disconnect or slow down the net connections of persistent illegal file-sharers. Other countries, such as France, are also considering similar laws. Recently, the EU adopted an internet freedom provision, stating that any measures taken by member states that may affect citizen's access to or use of the internet "must respect the fundamental rights and freedoms of citizens". In particular, it states that EU citizens are entitled to a "fair and impartial procedure" before any measures can be taken to limit their net access. The EU is also committed to providing universal access to broadband. However, like many areas around the world the region is grappling with how to deliver high-speed net access to rural areas where the market is reluctant to go. Analysts say that is a problem many countries will increasingly have to deal with as citizens demand access to the net. The BBC survey found that 87% of internet users felt internet access should be the "fundamental right of all people". More than 70% of non-users felt that they should have access to the net. Overall, almost 79% of those questioned said they either strongly agreed or somewhat agreed with the description of the internet as a fundamental right - whether they currently had access or not. *Free speech* Countries such as Mexico, Brazil and Turkey most strongly support the idea of net access as a right, the survey found. More than 90% of those surveyed in Turkey, for example, stated that internet access is a fundamental right - more than those in any other European Country. South Korea - the most wired country on Earth - had the greatest majority of people (96%) who believed that net access was a fundamental right. Nearly all of the country's citizens already enjoy high-speed net access. The survey also revealed that the internet is rapidly becoming a vital part of many people's lives in a diverse range of nations. In Japan, Mexico and Russia around three-quarters of respondents said they could not cope without it. Most of those questioned also said that they believed the web had a positive impact, with nearly four in five saying it had brought them greater freedom. However, many web users also expressed concerns. The dangers of fraud, the ease of access to violent and explicit content and worries over privacy were the most concerning aspects for those questioned. A majority of users in Japan, South Korea and Germany felt that they could not express their opinions safely online, although in Nigeria, India and Ghana there was much more confidence about speaking out. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 08_03_10_BBC_internet_poll.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 488482 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Mon Mar 8 11:58:26 2010 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2010 11:58:26 -0500 Subject: [governance] Internet access is 'a fundamental right' In-Reply-To: <4B952AC8.2070507@itforchange.net> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6D09@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4B8EBEB5.7060008@cafonso.ca> <4B8F9F2B.10708@wzb.eu> <4B90020F.1010503@cafonso.ca> <4B90C7B4.5000102@wzb.eu> <4B90D209.8010502@itforchange.net> <4B90FCEF.5060209@wzb.eu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6D3B@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015463CDD6@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4B922249.6090204@wzb.eu> <701af9f71003070248ib16da8dw80b264ccd5b4dc76@mail.gmail.com>,<4B952AC8.2070507@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015463CDE6@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> But Parminder, remember talking about rights and Internet is too controversial for IGF to even contemplate, we mustn't do that ; ) ________________________________________ From: Parminder [parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: Monday, March 08, 2010 11:50 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] Internet access is 'a fundamental right' For the rights skeptics, if they believe in people's verdict :) (also enclosed full report ) Internet access is 'a fundamental right' http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8548190.stm Almost four in five people around the world believe that access to the internet is a fundamental right, a poll for the BBC World Service suggests. The survey - of more than 27,000 adults across 26 countries - found strong support for net access on both sides of the digital divide. Countries such as Finland and Estonia have already ruled that access is a human right for their citizens. International bodies such as the UN are also pushing for universal net access. The right to communicate cannot be ignored," Dr Hamadoun Toure, secretary-general of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), told BBC News. "The internet is the most powerful potential source of enlightenment ever created." He said that governments must "regard the internet as basic infrastructure - just like roads, waste and water". "We have entered the knowledge society and everyone must have access to participate." The survey, conducted by GlobeScan for the BBC, also revealed divisions on the question of government oversight of some aspects of the net. Web users questioned in South Korea and Nigeria felt strongly that governments should never be involved in regulation of the internet. However, a majority of those in China and the many European countries disagreed. In the UK, for example, 55% believed that there was a case for some government regulation of the internet. Rural retreat The finding comes as the UK government tries to push through its controversial Digital Economy Bill. As well as promising to deliver universal broadband in the UK by 2012, the bill could also see a so-called "three strikes rule" become law. This rule would give regulators new powers to disconnect or slow down the net connections of persistent illegal file-sharers. Other countries, such as France, are also considering similar laws. Recently, the EU adopted an internet freedom provision, stating that any measures taken by member states that may affect citizen's access to or use of the internet "must respect the fundamental rights and freedoms of citizens". In particular, it states that EU citizens are entitled to a "fair and impartial procedure" before any measures can be taken to limit their net access. The EU is also committed to providing universal access to broadband. However, like many areas around the world the region is grappling with how to deliver high-speed net access to rural areas where the market is reluctant to go. Analysts say that is a problem many countries will increasingly have to deal with as citizens demand access to the net. The BBC survey found that 87% of internet users felt internet access should be the "fundamental right of all people". More than 70% of non-users felt that they should have access to the net. Overall, almost 79% of those questioned said they either strongly agreed or somewhat agreed with the description of the internet as a fundamental right - whether they currently had access or not. Free speech Countries such as Mexico, Brazil and Turkey most strongly support the idea of net access as a right, the survey found. More than 90% of those surveyed in Turkey, for example, stated that internet access is a fundamental right - more than those in any other European Country. South Korea - the most wired country on Earth - had the greatest majority of people (96%) who believed that net access was a fundamental right. Nearly all of the country's citizens already enjoy high-speed net access. The survey also revealed that the internet is rapidly becoming a vital part of many people's lives in a diverse range of nations. In Japan, Mexico and Russia around three-quarters of respondents said they could not cope without it. Most of those questioned also said that they believed the web had a positive impact, with nearly four in five saying it had brought them greater freedom. However, many web users also expressed concerns. The dangers of fraud, the ease of access to violent and explicit content and worries over privacy were the most concerning aspects for those questioned. A majority of users in Japan, South Korea and Germany felt that they could not express their opinions safely online, although in Nigeria, India and Ghana there was much more confidence about speaking out. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From keerti.nagappa at gmail.com Mon Mar 8 12:37:50 2010 From: keerti.nagappa at gmail.com (Keerti Nagappa) Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2010 09:37:50 -0800 Subject: [governance] Internet access is 'a fundamental right' In-Reply-To: <4B952AC8.2070507@itforchange.net> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6D09@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4B90020F.1010503@cafonso.ca> <4B90C7B4.5000102@wzb.eu> <4B90D209.8010502@itforchange.net> <4B90FCEF.5060209@wzb.eu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6D3B@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015463CDD6@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4B922249.6090204@wzb.eu> <701af9f71003070248ib16da8dw80b264ccd5b4dc76@mail.gmail.com> <4B952AC8.2070507@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Great! Thanks for sharing the report. On 8 March 2010 08:50, Parminder wrote: > *For the rights skeptics, if they believe in people's verdict :)* > (also enclosed full report ) > Internet access is 'a fundamental right' > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8548190.stm > > *Almost four in five people around the world believe that access to the > internet is a fundamental right, a poll for the BBC World Service suggests. > * > > The survey - of more than 27,000 adults across 26 countries - found strong > support for net access on both sides of the digital divide. > > Countries such as Finland and Estonia have already ruled that access is a > human right for their citizens. > > International bodies such as the UN are also pushing for universal net > access. > The right to communicate cannot be ignored," Dr Hamadoun Toure, > secretary-general of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), told > BBC News. > > "The internet is the most powerful potential source of enlightenment ever > created." > > He said that governments must "regard the internet as basic infrastructure > - just like roads, waste and water". > > "We have entered the knowledge society and everyone must have access to > participate." > > The survey, conducted by GlobeScan for the BBC, also revealed divisions on > the question of government oversight of some aspects of the net. > > Web users questioned in South Korea and Nigeria felt strongly that > governments should never be involved in regulation of the internet. However, > a majority of those in China and the many European countries disagreed. > > In the UK, for example, 55% believed that there was a case for some > government regulation of the internet. > > *Rural retreat* > > The finding comes as the UK government tries to push through its > controversial Digital Economy Bill. > > As well as promising to deliver universal broadband in the UK by 2012, the > bill could also see a so-called "three strikes rule" become law. > > This rule would give regulators new powers to disconnect or slow down the > net connections of persistent illegal file-sharers. Other countries, such as > France, are also considering similar laws. > > Recently, the EU adopted an internet freedom provision, stating that any > measures taken by member states that may affect citizen's access to or use > of the internet "must respect the fundamental rights and freedoms of > citizens". > > In particular, it states that EU citizens are entitled to a "fair and > impartial procedure" before any measures can be taken to limit their net > access. > > The EU is also committed to providing universal access to broadband. > However, like many areas around the world the region is grappling with how > to deliver high-speed net access to rural areas where the market is > reluctant to go. > > Analysts say that is a problem many countries will increasingly have to > deal with as citizens demand access to the net. > > The BBC survey found that 87% of internet users felt internet access should > be the "fundamental right of all people". > > More than 70% of non-users felt that they should have access to the net. > > Overall, almost 79% of those questioned said they either strongly agreed or > somewhat agreed with the description of the internet as a fundamental right > - whether they currently had access or not. > > *Free speech* > > Countries such as Mexico, Brazil and Turkey most strongly support the idea > of net access as a right, the survey found. > > More than 90% of those surveyed in Turkey, for example, stated that > internet access is a fundamental right - more than those in any other > European Country. > > South Korea - the most wired country on Earth - had the greatest majority > of people (96%) who believed that net access was a fundamental right. Nearly > all of the country's citizens already enjoy high-speed net access. > > The survey also revealed that the internet is rapidly becoming a vital part > of many people's lives in a diverse range of nations. > > In Japan, Mexico and Russia around three-quarters of respondents said they > could not cope without it. > > Most of those questioned also said that they believed the web had a > positive impact, with nearly four in five saying it had brought them greater > freedom. > > However, many web users also expressed concerns. The dangers of fraud, the > ease of access to violent and explicit content and worries over privacy were > the most concerning aspects for those questioned. > > A majority of users in Japan, South Korea and Germany felt that they could > not express their opinions safely online, although in Nigeria, India and > Ghana there was much more confidence about speaking out. > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jlfullsack at orange.fr Mon Mar 8 16:18:01 2010 From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK) Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2010 22:18:01 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] Internet access is 'a fundamental right' Message-ID: <15962979.12559.1268083081725.JavaMail.www@wwinf1h15> Dear Parminder Please don't tell it to our colleagues : I'm still not much convinced that Internet access is actually "a fundamental right". What I'm quite sure : it isn't an "essential (ethymologically speaking) right". Even ICTs aren't ! That was well proven by the five thematic domains the UN Secretary General assigned to the the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Jo'burg through the acronym WEHAB : Water, Energy,Health, Agriculture and Biodiversity. There isn't the least allusion to ICT ! Only the WSIS carried this tall story of ICT saving the world from any evil ! Listening to the daily news and watching regularly reports from Africa rather strengthen my scepticism about this legend. Let's be realistic and let's try to do our best for making the ICTs the most effective tool for education, for poverty alleviation and for human and economic development. Without no doubt, Internet will have all its place in that struggle, even without "fundamental rights" ! Fiendliest yours Jean-Louis Fullsack CSDPTT > Message du 08/03/10 17:51 > De : "Parminder" > A : governance at lists.cpsr.org > Copie à : > Objet : [governance] Internet access is 'a fundamental right' > > For the rights skeptics, if they believe in people's verdict :) > (also enclosed full report ) > Internet access is 'a fundamental right' http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8548190.stm > Almost four in five people around the world believe that access to the internet is a fundamental right, a poll for the BBC World Service suggests. > The survey - of more than 27,000 adults across 26 countries - found strong support for net access on both sides of the digital divide. > Countries such as Finland and Estonia have already ruled that access is a human right for their citizens. > International bodies such as the UN are also pushing for universal net access. The right to communicate cannot be ignored," Dr Hamadoun Toure, secretary-general of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), told BBC News. > "The internet is the most powerful potential source of enlightenment ever created." > He said that governments must "regard the internet as basic infrastructure - just like roads, waste and water". > "We have entered the knowledge society and everyone must have access to participate." > > The survey, conducted by GlobeScan for the BBC, also revealed divisions on the question of government oversight of some aspects of the net. > Web users questioned in South Korea and Nigeria felt strongly that governments should never be involved in regulation of the internet. However, a majority of those in China and the many European countries disagreed. > In the UK, for example, 55% believed that there was a case for some government regulation of the internet. > Rural retreat > The finding comes as the UK government tries to push through its controversial Digital Economy Bill. > As well as promising to deliver universal broadband in the UK by 2012, the bill could also see a so-called "three strikes rule" become law. > This rule would give regulators new powers to disconnect or slow down the net connections of persistent illegal file-sharers. Other countries, such as France, are also considering similar laws. > > Recently, the EU adopted an internet freedom provision, stating that any measures taken by member states that may affect citizen's access to or use of the internet "must respect the fundamental rights and freedoms of citizens". > In particular, it states that EU citizens are entitled to a "fair and impartial procedure" before any measures can be taken to limit their net access. > The EU is also committed to providing universal access to broadband. However, like many areas around the world the region is grappling with how to deliver high-speed net access to rural areas where the market is reluctant to go. > Analysts say that is a problem many countries will increasingly have to deal with as citizens demand access to the net. > The BBC survey found that 87% of internet users felt internet access should be the "fundamental right of all people". > More than 70% of non-users felt that they should have access to the net. > Overall, almost 79% of those questioned said they either strongly agreed or somewhat agreed with the description of the internet as a fundamental right - whether they currently had access or not. > Free speech > Countries such as Mexico, Brazil and Turkey most strongly support the idea of net access as a right, the survey found. > More than 90% of those surveyed in Turkey, for example, stated that internet access is a fundamental right - more than those in any other European Country. > > South Korea - the most wired country on Earth - had the greatest majority of people (96%) who believed that net access was a fundamental right. Nearly all of the country's citizens already enjoy high-speed net access. > The survey also revealed that the internet is rapidly becoming a vital part of many people's lives in a diverse range of nations. > In Japan, Mexico and Russia around three-quarters of respondents said they could not cope without it. > Most of those questioned also said that they believed the web had a positive impact, with nearly four in five saying it had brought them greater freedom. > However, many web users also expressed concerns. The dangers of fraud, the ease of access to violent and explicit content and worries over privacy were the most concerning aspects for those questioned. > A majority of users in Japan, South Korea and Germany felt that they could not express their opinions safely online, although in Nigeria, India and Ghana there was much more confidence about speaking out. > > > > > > > [ 08_03_10_BBC_internet_poll.pdf (657.2 Ko) ] > [ message-footer.txt (0.4 Ko) ] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Mon Mar 8 16:25:11 2010 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 00:25:11 +0300 Subject: [governance] Internet access is 'a fundamental right' In-Reply-To: <15962979.12559.1268083081725.JavaMail.www@wwinf1h15> References: <15962979.12559.1268083081725.JavaMail.www@wwinf1h15> Message-ID: On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 12:18 AM, Jean-Louis FULLSACK wrote: > Dear Parminder > > Please don't tell it to our colleagues : I'm still not much convinced > that Internet access is actually "a fundamental right". What I'm quite sure > : it isn't an "essential (ethymologically speaking) right". Even ICTs aren't > ! That was well proven by the five thematic domains the UN Secretary General > assigned to the the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Jo'burg > through the acronym WEHAB : Water, Energy,Health, Agriculture and > Biodiversity. There isn't the least allusion to ICT ! Only the WSIS carried > this tall story of ICT saving the world from any evil ! > > Listening to the daily news and watching regularly reports from Africa > rather strengthen my scepticism about this legend. Let's be realistic and > let's try to do our best for making the ICTs the most effective tool for > education, for poverty alleviation and for human and economic development. > Without no doubt, Internet will have all its place in that struggle, even > without "fundamental rights" ! Very well said! My position all along is that this is a sideshow, already covered by the right to communicate. Let's get people connected instead of worrying about granting them a "right" that can't be fulfilled. -- 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 cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Mon Mar 8 20:55:10 2010 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2010 17:55:10 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Focusing intent In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6D3B@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <897817.13156.qm@web83908.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> As hard as it is for Milton to say stakeholders it is for me to say that Milton is right on the money here. I am very pleased to see him throw his substantial intellectual weight behind this focused factor. This concept of going milktoast PC is a concern. But that is what flies in the ointment like me are for doing. --- On Sat, 3/6/10, Milton L Mueller wrote: From: Milton L Mueller Subject: RE: [governance] Strangeness in the IGF programme To: "governance at lists.cpsr.org" , "Jeanette Hofmann" , "Parminder" Cc: "Carlos A. Afonso" Date: Saturday, March 6, 2010, 12:45 AM Kudos to our MAG members for coalescing around the "key messages" theme. I understand that CS and governments have been working together on this. Jeanette's caution about making the entire IGF into a strenuous competition to get your pet "key message" adopted is a real concern. But in response to her observation... >whiile outputs in the form of messages may increase the relevance of >events at the IGF, we should be sensitive to the risk that they might >alter the dynamics of the discussions. ...I was thinking back on my experience with various IGF main sessions, and there have been very few discussions there that had _any_ dynamics, much less positive ones. Too many main sessions discussions, and even many workshop discussions, are flaccid, static presentations, with little focused engagement among the s-s-s-stakeholders (there, I said it. yak), they move in an unfocused manner from one issue to another. I suspect that the possibility (or threat?) of something morphing into a "key message" would concentrate people's minds. My fear is that key messages will end up being fluffy teddy-bear messages that no one can disagree with. But the effort to strive for meaningful ones could be interesting.  --MM ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Mon Mar 8 22:38:29 2010 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2010 19:38:29 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Happy International Women's day to all! from Beijjing +15 In-Reply-To: <25330.1056.qm@web55207.mail.re4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <91511.37455.qm@web83907.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> We all benefit from the devotion and diversity of good honest movements like this one. It is a celebration of the good. We dwell so much on the negative, we must hold in high esteem these fine women that dwell on the positive. --- On Mon, 3/8/10, shaila mistry wrote: From: shaila mistry Subject: [governance] Happy International Women's day to all! from Beijjing +15 To: "governance" Date: Monday, March 8, 2010, 7:49 AM Happy International Women's Day I am just back from the Beijing +15 and the  54 th Commission on Status of Women in New York where we celebrated the International Women s day  with the General Secretary Ban Ki, Moon.He gave a very encouraging speech of support and is working to help us with the New Entity for Women affairs.  Since 2006, many of us including my self have been working on this Gender Equity Architecture Reform GEAR Campaign and it looks like it is becoming a reality! Women in USA are working hard on achieving gender equity at every level ! We celebrate you in your efforts in your country. warm regards Shaila Rao Mistry International Federation of University Women Jayco MMI President California www.jaycopanels.com Life is too short ....challenge the rules Forgive quickly ... love truly ...and tenderly Laugh constantly.....and never stop dreaming!    -----Inline Attachment Follows----- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Mon Mar 8 23:53:43 2010 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2010 20:53:43 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Internet access is 'a fundamental right' In-Reply-To: <15962979.12559.1268083081725.JavaMail.www@wwinf1h15> Message-ID: <713307.32097.qm@web83905.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Jean-Louis,   I wish to dissuade you from limiting your precepts of the Human condition as to rights. I wish to persuade you to believe that access to knowledge is a Universal Human Right.   http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/ 1948  December 10th was a good year for love of ones' fellow.   Art. 4 I believe includes mental slavery Art. 18 includes availability to that which forms our thoughts Art 19 includes meaningful opinions and the right to meaningful expression Art. 26 Mandates education and self taught education is a part thereto which is knowledge and is empty without the vast stores available on line.   Of course when I use the word catholic I mean a universal understanding of our nature and our relation to the universe. It is this notion of holy catholic that is at our core rights. It is only through access to knowledge that we can truly be universal in our acceptance, empathy and symbiotic relation to our fellows. Without this right we are divided and conquered by those who would subjugate us to their way and not a universal right way. --- On Mon, 3/8/10, Jean-Louis FULLSACK wrote: From: Jean-Louis FULLSACK Subject: re: [governance] Internet access is 'a fundamental right' To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Parminder" Date: Monday, March 8, 2010, 9:18 PM Dear Parminder Please don't tell it to our colleagues : I'm still not much convinced that Internet access is actually "a fundamental right". What I'm quite sure : it isn't an "essential (ethymologically speaking) right". Even ICTs aren't ! That was well proven by the five thematic domains the UN Secretary General assigned to the the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Jo'burg through the acronym WEHAB : Water, Energy,Health, Agriculture and Biodiversity. There isn't the least allusion to ICT ! Only the WSIS carried this tall story of ICT saving the world from any evil !  Listening to the daily news and watching regularly reports from Africa rather strengthen my scepticism about this legend. Let's be realistic and let's try to do our best for making the ICTs the most effective tool for education, for poverty alleviation and for human and economic development. Without no doubt, Internet will have all its place in that struggle, even without "fundamental rights" ! Fiendliest yours  Jean-Louis Fullsack CSDPTT   > Message du 08/03/10 17:51 > De : "Parminder" > A : governance at lists.cpsr.org > Copie à : > Objet : [governance] Internet access is 'a fundamental right' > > For the rights skeptics, if they believe in people's verdict :) > (also enclosed full report ) > Internet access is 'a fundamental right' http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8548190.stm > Almost four in five people around the world believe that access to the internet is a fundamental right, a poll for the BBC World Service suggests. > The survey - of more than 27,000 adults across 26 countries - found strong support for net access on both sides of the digital divide. > Countries such as Finland and Estonia have already ruled that access is a human right for their citizens. > International bodies such as the UN are also pushing for universal net access. The right to communicate cannot be ignored," Dr Hamadoun Toure, secretary-general of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), told BBC News. > "The internet is the most powerful potential source of enlightenment ever created." > He said that governments must "regard the internet as basic infrastructure - just like roads, waste and water". > "We have entered the knowledge society and everyone must have access to participate." > > The survey, conducted by GlobeScan for the BBC, also revealed divisions on the question of government oversight of some aspects of the net. > Web users questioned in South Korea and Nigeria felt strongly that governments should never be involved in regulation of the internet. However, a majority of those in China and the many European countries disagreed. > In the UK, for example, 55% believed that there was a case for some government regulation of the internet. > Rural retreat > The finding comes as the UK government tries to push through its controversial Digital Economy Bill. > As well as promising to deliver universal broadband in the UK by 2012, the bill could also see a so-called "three strikes rule" become law. > This rule would give regulators new powers to disconnect or slow down the net connections of persistent illegal file-sharers. Other countries, such as France, are also considering similar laws. > > Recently, the EU adopted an internet freedom provision, stating that any measures taken by member states that may affect citizen's access to or use of the internet "must respect the fundamental rights and freedoms of citizens". > In particular, it states that EU citizens are entitled to a "fair and impartial procedure" before any measures can be taken to limit their net access. > The EU is also committed to providing universal access to broadband. However, like many areas around the world the region is grappling with how to deliver high-speed net access to rural areas where the market is reluctant to go. > Analysts say that is a problem many countries will increasingly have to deal with as citizens demand access to the net. > The BBC survey found that 87% of internet users felt internet access should be the "fundamental right of all people". > More than 70% of non-users felt that they should have access to the net. > Overall, almost 79% of those questioned said they either strongly agreed or somewhat agreed with the description of the internet as a fundamental right - whether they currently had access or not. > Free speech > Countries such as Mexico, Brazil and Turkey most strongly support the idea of net access as a right, the survey found. > More than 90% of those surveyed in Turkey, for example, stated that internet access is a fundamental right - more than those in any other European Country. > > South Korea - the most wired country on Earth - had the greatest majority of people (96%) who believed that net access was a fundamental right. Nearly all of the country's citizens already enjoy high-speed net access. > The survey also revealed that the internet is rapidly becoming a vital part of many people's lives in a diverse range of nations. > In Japan, Mexico and Russia around three-quarters of respondents said they could not cope without it. > Most of those questioned also said that they believed the web had a positive impact, with nearly four in five saying it had brought them greater freedom. > However, many web users also expressed concerns. The dangers of fraud, the ease of access to violent and explicit content and worries over privacy were the most concerning aspects for those questioned. > A majority of users in Japan, South Korea and Germany felt that they could not express their opinions safely online, although in Nigeria, India and Ghana there was much more confidence about speaking out. > > > > > > > [ 08_03_10_BBC_internet_poll.pdf (657.2 Ko) ] > [ message-footer.txt (0.4 Ko) ] -----Inline Attachment Follows----- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anriette at apc.org Tue Mar 9 01:20:14 2010 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2010 08:20:14 +0200 Subject: [governance] Happy International Women's day to all! from In-Reply-To: <91511.37455.qm@web83907.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> References: <91511.37455.qm@web83907.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1268115614.2889.3557.camel@anriette-laptop> For some interesting interviews and reflections on the ICT angle at Beijing +15 and the Commission on the Status of Women meetings (proecued by the APC women's programme team in New York) you can visit: http://www.genderit.org/en/index.shtml?apc=f--e--1&nocache=1 One of these posts makes a link to the importance of the IGF. Best Anriette On Mon, 2010-03-08 at 19:38 -0800, Eric Dierker wrote: > We all benefit from the devotion and diversity of good honest > movements like this one. It is a celebration of the good. We dwell so > much on the negative, we must hold in high esteem these fine women > that dwell on the positive. > > --- On Mon, 3/8/10, shaila mistry wrote: > > From: shaila mistry > Subject: [governance] Happy International Women's day to all! > from Beijjing +15 > To: "governance" > Date: Monday, March 8, 2010, 7:49 AM > > > Happy International Women's Day > > I am just back from the Beijing +15 and the 54 th Commission > on Status of Women in New York where we celebrated the > International Women s day with the General Secretary Ban Ki, > Moon.He gave a very encouraging speech of support and is > working to help us with the New Entity for Women affairs. > Since 2006, many of us including my self have been working on > this Gender Equity Architecture Reform GEAR Campaign and it > looks like it is becoming a reality! > > Women in USA are working hard on achieving gender equity at > every level ! We celebrate you in your efforts in your > country. > warm regards > > Shaila Rao Mistry > International Federation of University Women > > > > Jayco MMI > > > > President > > > > California > > > > www.jaycopanels.com > > > > > > > Life is too short ....challenge the rules > > > Forgive quickly ... love truly ...and tenderly > > > Laugh constantly.....and never stop dreaming! > > > > > > -----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 > plain text document attachment (message-footer.txt) > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ anriette esterhuysen - executive director association for progressive communications p o box 29755 melville - south africa 2109 anriette at apc.org - tel/fax + 27 11 726 1692 http://www.apc.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From shailam at yahoo.com Tue Mar 9 01:51:34 2010 From: shailam at yahoo.com (shaila mistry) Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2010 22:51:34 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Happy International Women's day to all! from In-Reply-To: <1268115614.2889.3557.camel@anriette-laptop> References: <91511.37455.qm@web83907.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> <1268115614.2889.3557.camel@anriette-laptop> Message-ID: <673482.98746.qm@web55201.mail.re4.yahoo.com> Hi Anriette I was not aware that there were any IT events there. I am there every year so I would like to be connected with them for next year shaila rao mistry From: Anriette Esterhuysen To: "governance at lists.cpsr.org" Sent: Mon, March 8, 2010 10:20:14 PMSubject: Re: [governance] Happy International Women's day to all! from For some interesting interviews and reflections on the ICT angle at Beijing +15 and the Commission on the Status of Women meetings (proecued by the APC women's programme team in New York) you can visit: http://www.genderit.org/en/index.shtml?apc=f--e--1&nocache=1 One of these posts makes a link to the importance of the IGF. Best Anriette On Mon, 2010-03-08 at 19:38 -0800, Eric Dierker wrote: > We all benefit from the devotion and diversity of good honest> movements like this one. It is a celebration of the good. We dwell so > much on the negative, we must hold in high esteem these fine women> that dwell on the positive. > > --- On Mon, 3/8/10, shaila mistry wrote: > > From: shaila mistry Subject: [governance] Happy International Women's day to all! from Beijjing +15 > To: "governance" > Date: Monday, March 8, 2010, 7:49 AM > > > Happy International Women's Day > > I am just back from the Beijing +15 and the 54 th Commission > on Status of Women in New York where we celebrated the > International Women s day with the General Secretary Ban Ki, > Moon.He gave a very encouraging speech of support and is > working to help us with the New Entity for Women affairs. > Since 2006, many of us including my self have been working on > this Gender Equity Architecture Reform GEAR Campaign and it > looks like it is becoming a reality! > > Women in USA are working hard on achieving gender equity at > every level ! We celebrate you in your efforts in your > country. > warm regards > > Shaila Rao Mistry > International Federation of University Women > > > > Jayco MMI > > > > President > > > > California > > > > www.jaycopanels.com > > > > > > > Life is too short ....challenge the rules > > > Forgive quickly ... love truly ...and tenderly > > > Laugh constantly.....and never stop dreaming! > > > > > > -----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 > plain text document attachment (message-footer.txt) > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ anriette esterhuysen - executive director association for progressive communications p o box 29755 melville - south africa 2109 anriette at apc.org - tel/fax + 27 11 726 1692 http://www.apc.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anriette at apc.org Tue Mar 9 03:05:35 2010 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2010 10:05:35 +0200 Subject: [governance] Happy International Women's day to all! from In-Reply-To: <673482.98746.qm@web55201.mail.re4.yahoo.com> References: <91511.37455.qm@web83907.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> <1268115614.2889.3557.camel@anriette-laptop> <673482.98746.qm@web55201.mail.re4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1268121935.3107.38.camel@anriette-laptop> Of course you should! I will follow up with you offlist Shaila. There is a very active group of women's organisations who have been in engaging the Beijing process from a and ICT and media perspective. Anriette IOn Mon, 2010-03-08 at 22:51 -0800, shaila mistry wrote: > Hi Anriette > I was not aware that there were any IT events there. I am there every > year so I would like to be connected with them for next year > shaila rao mistry > > > > From: Anriette Esterhuysen To: > "governance at lists.cpsr.org" > Sent: Mon, March 8, 2010 10:20:14 PMSubject: Re: [governance] Happy > International Women's day to all! from > > For some interesting interviews and reflections on the ICT angle at > Beijing +15 and the Commission on the Status of Women meetings > (proecued > by the APC women's programme team in New York) you can visit: > http://www.genderit.org/en/index.shtml?apc=f--e--1&nocache=1 > One of these posts makes a link to the importance of the IGF. > > Best > > Anriette > > On Mon, 2010-03-08 at 19:38 -0800, Eric Dierker wrote: > > We all benefit from the devotion and diversity of good honest > > movements like this one. It is a celebration of the good. We dwell so > > much on the negative, we must hold in high esteem these fine women > > that dwell on the positive. > > > > --- On Mon, 3/8/10, shaila mistry wrote: > > > > From: shaila mistry Subject: [governance] Happy > International Women's day to all! from Beijjing +15 > > To: "governance" > Date: > Monday, March 8, 2010, 7:49 AM > > > > > Happy International Women's Day > > > > I am just back from the Beijing +15 and the 54 th Commission > > on Status of Women in New York where we celebrated the > > International Women s day with the General Secretary Ban Ki, > > Moon.He gave a very encouraging speech of support and is > > working to help us with the New Entity for Women affairs. > > Since 2006, many of us including my self have been working on > > this Gender Equity Architecture Reform GEAR Campaign and it > > looks like it is becoming a reality! > > > > Women in USA are working hard on achieving gender equity at > > every level ! We celebrate you in your efforts in your > > country. > > warm regards > > > > Shaila Rao Mistry > > International Federation of University Women > > > > > > > > Jayco MMI > > > > > > > > President > > > > > > > > California > > > > > > > > www.jaycopanels.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Life is too short ....challenge the rules > > > > > > Forgive quickly ... love truly ...and tenderly > > > > > > Laugh constantly.....and never stop dreaming! > > > > > > > > > > > > -----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 > > plain text document attachment (message-footer.txt) > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -- > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > anriette esterhuysen - executive director > association for progressive communications > p o box 29755 melville - south africa 2109 > anriette at apc.org - tel/fax + 27 11 726 1692 > http://www.apc.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 > > plain text document attachment (message-footer.txt) > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ anriette esterhuysen - executive director association for progressive communications p o box 29755 melville - south africa 2109 anriette at apc.org - tel/fax + 27 11 726 1692 http://www.apc.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Tue Mar 9 09:48:29 2010 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 06:48:29 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Impeding progress In-Reply-To: <1268121935.3107.38.camel@anriette-laptop> Message-ID: <670486.76890.qm@web83916.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Of great importance within this movement is a straight forward declaration of need that is relevant to this IGF. "Currently, there are four separate women's entites within the UN system that are overlapping and compete for resources, impeding their ability to effectively address women’s needs worldwide: " found here: http://sites.google.com/site/wilpfuno/gear   This rather bold statement sums up a serious IGF problem. It is this sort of problem that lends itself to "publish or perish" mentality. It seems that contributors here are targeting sources rather than causes. If the impetus for producing good work is a deadly combination of "offend no one" and "we are championing your cause" then how are we to take ourselves seriously?     --- On Tue, 3/9/10, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: From: Anriette Esterhuysen Subject: Re: [governance] Happy International Women's day to all! from To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Date: Tuesday, March 9, 2010, 8:05 AM Of course you should!  I will follow up with you offlist Shaila. There is a very active group of women's organisations who have been in engaging the Beijing process from a and ICT and media perspective. Anriette IOn Mon, 2010-03-08 at 22:51 -0800, shaila mistry wrote: > Hi Anriette > I was not aware that there were any IT events there. I am there every > year so I would like to be connected with them for next year > shaila rao mistry >  > > > From: Anriette Esterhuysen To: > "governance at lists.cpsr.org" > Sent: Mon, March 8, 2010 10:20:14 PMSubject: Re: [governance] Happy > International Women's day to all! from > > For some interesting interviews and reflections on the ICT angle at > Beijing +15 and the Commission on the Status of Women meetings > (proecued > by the APC women's programme team in New York) you can visit: > http://www.genderit.org/en/index.shtml?apc=f--e--1&nocache=1 > One of these posts makes a link to the importance of the IGF. > > Best > > Anriette > > On Mon, 2010-03-08 at 19:38 -0800, Eric Dierker wrote: > > We all benefit from the devotion and diversity of good honest > > movements like this one. It is a celebration of the good. We dwell so > > much on the negative, we must hold in high esteem these fine women > > that dwell on the positive. > > > > --- On Mon, 3/8/10, shaila mistry wrote: > >        > >        From: shaila mistry  Subject: [governance] Happy > International Women's day to all! from Beijjing +15 > >        To: "governance" >        Date: > Monday, March 8, 2010, 7:49 AM > >        >        > >        Happy International Women's Day > >        > >        I am just back from the Beijing +15 and the  54 th Commission > >        on Status of Women in New York where we celebrated the > >        International Women s day  with the General Secretary Ban Ki, > >        Moon.He gave a very encouraging speech of support and is > >        working to help us with the New Entity for Women affairs. > >        Since 2006, many of us including my self have been working on > >        this Gender Equity Architecture Reform GEAR Campaign and it > >        looks like it is becoming a reality! > >        > >        Women in USA are working hard on achieving gender equity at > >        every level ! We celebrate you in your efforts in your > >        country. > >        warm regards > >        > >        Shaila Rao Mistry > >        International Federation of University Women > >        > >        > >        > >        Jayco MMI > >        > >        > >        > >        President > >        > >        > >        > >        California > >        > >        > >        > >        www.jaycopanels.com > >        > >        > >        > >        > >        > >        > >        Life is too short ....challenge the rules > >        > >        > >        Forgive quickly ... love truly ...and tenderly > >        > >        > >        Laugh constantly.....and never stop dreaming! > >        > >        > >        > >          > >        > >        -----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 > > plain text document attachment (message-footer.txt) > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >      governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > >      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -- > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > anriette esterhuysen - executive director > association for progressive communications > p o box 29755 melville - south africa 2109 > anriette at apc.org - tel/fax + 27 11 726 1692 > http://www.apc.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 > > plain text document attachment (message-footer.txt) > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >      governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ anriette esterhuysen - executive director association for progressive communications p o box 29755 melville - south africa 2109 anriette at apc.org - tel/fax + 27 11 726 1692 http://www.apc.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Tue Mar 9 10:06:55 2010 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 07:06:55 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Internet access is 'a fundamental right' In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <19987.8993.qm@web83907.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> I am quite sure that this is a very wrong approach. It is interesting, it is good to see public opinion, we should all be happy with the results.   But to lower the concepts of Rights to what is popular today is very very dangerous. A slave was not a man, a woman had no right to vote, children can work 24 hours in mines, no bills of attainer, The King can do no Wrong were all quite popular notions even among the disenfranchised. Wether we call them "God" given or Universal or inherint they are not to be voted on or polled for justification.  Here we should be setting standards for much more difficult concepts like, undocumented aliens have a right to access, children, felons and even the RIGHT not to have access.   So hurray that dotcommoners are for this notion of access to knowledge!  But do not give it credence as a reason lest popular opinion once again swings its head against minorities, races, genders, age and accident of birth. --- On Mon, 3/8/10, Keerti Nagappa wrote: From: Keerti Nagappa Subject: Re: [governance] Internet access is 'a fundamental right' To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Parminder" Date: Monday, March 8, 2010, 5:37 PM Great! Thanks for sharing the report.  On 8 March 2010 08:50, Parminder wrote: For the rights skeptics, if they believe in people's verdict :) (also enclosed full report ) Internet access is 'a fundamental right' http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8548190.stm Almost four in five people around the world believe that access to the internet is a fundamental right, a poll for the BBC World Service suggests. The survey - of more than 27,000 adults across 26 countries - found strong support for net access on both sides of the digital divide. Countries such as Finland and Estonia have already ruled that access is a human right for their citizens. International bodies such as the UN are also pushing for universal net access. The right to communicate cannot be ignored," Dr Hamadoun Toure, secretary-general of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), told BBC News. "The internet is the most powerful potential source of enlightenment ever created." He said that governments must "regard the internet as basic infrastructure - just like roads, waste and water". "We have entered the knowledge society and everyone must have access to participate." The survey, conducted by GlobeScan for the BBC, also revealed divisions on the question of government oversight of some aspects of the net. Web users questioned in South Korea and Nigeria felt strongly that governments should never be involved in regulation of the internet. However, a majority of those in China and the many European countries disagreed. In the UK, for example, 55% believed that there was a case for some government regulation of the internet. Rural retreat The finding comes as the UK government tries to push through its controversial Digital Economy Bill. As well as promising to deliver universal broadband in the UK by 2012, the bill could also see a so-called "three strikes rule" become law. This rule would give regulators new powers to disconnect or slow down the net connections of persistent illegal file-sharers. Other countries, such as France, are also considering similar laws. Recently, the EU adopted an internet freedom provision, stating that any measures taken by member states that may affect citizen's access to or use of the internet "must respect the fundamental rights and freedoms of citizens". In particular, it states that EU citizens are entitled to a "fair and impartial procedure" before any measures can be taken to limit their net access. The EU is also committed to providing universal access to broadband. However, like many areas around the world the region is grappling with how to deliver high-speed net access to rural areas where the market is reluctant to go. Analysts say that is a problem many countries will increasingly have to deal with as citizens demand access to the net. The BBC survey found that 87% of internet users felt internet access should be the "fundamental right of all people". More than 70% of non-users felt that they should have access to the net. Overall, almost 79% of those questioned said they either strongly agreed or somewhat agreed with the description of the internet as a fundamental right - whether they currently had access or not. Free speech Countries such as Mexico, Brazil and Turkey most strongly support the idea of net access as a right, the survey found. More than 90% of those surveyed in Turkey, for example, stated that internet access is a fundamental right - more than those in any other European Country. South Korea - the most wired country on Earth - had the greatest majority of people (96%) who believed that net access was a fundamental right. Nearly all of the country's citizens already enjoy high-speed net access. The survey also revealed that the internet is rapidly becoming a vital part of many people's lives in a diverse range of nations. In Japan, Mexico and Russia around three-quarters of respondents said they could not cope without it. Most of those questioned also said that they believed the web had a positive impact, with nearly four in five saying it had brought them greater freedom. However, many web users also expressed concerns. The dangers of fraud, the ease of access to violent and explicit content and worries over privacy were the most concerning aspects for those questioned. A majority of users in Japan, South Korea and Germany felt that they could not express their opinions safely online, although in Nigeria, India and Ghana there was much more confidence about speaking out. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -----Inline Attachment Follows----- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Tue Mar 9 10:14:06 2010 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 07:14:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Internet access is 'a fundamental right' In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <352860.44125.qm@web83912.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Interesting Idea.  There were times and places where a man with a name that included Mc were not given the rights of a full man. Governance is not about empowering Multinational corporations to make money and give access for a price. As you both point out -- that will be done regardless. Governance is curbing the powerful for the rights of the weak. IBM, TelMex, Microsoft and Google really do not need you guys to help them. They seem to do very well without you.   --- On Mon, 3/8/10, McTim wrote: From: McTim Subject: Re: [governance] Internet access is 'a fundamental right' To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Jean-Louis FULLSACK" Cc: "Parminder" Date: Monday, March 8, 2010, 9:25 PM On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 12:18 AM, Jean-Louis FULLSACK wrote: > Dear Parminder > > Please don't tell it to our colleagues : I'm still not much convinced > that Internet access is actually "a fundamental right". What I'm quite sure > : it isn't an "essential (ethymologically speaking) right". Even ICTs aren't > ! That was well proven by the five thematic domains the UN Secretary General > assigned to the the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Jo'burg > through the acronym WEHAB : Water, Energy,Health, Agriculture and > Biodiversity. There isn't the least allusion to ICT ! Only the WSIS carried > this tall story of ICT saving the world from any evil ! > > Listening to the daily news and watching regularly reports from Africa > rather strengthen my scepticism about this legend. Let's be realistic and > let's try to do our best for making the ICTs the most effective tool for > education, for poverty alleviation and for human and economic development. > Without no doubt, Internet will have all its place in that struggle, even > without "fundamental rights" ! Very well said!  My position all along is that this is a sideshow, already covered by the right to communicate. Let's get people connected instead of worrying about granting them a "right" that can't be fulfilled. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nyangkweagien at gmail.com Wed Mar 10 04:34:34 2010 From: nyangkweagien at gmail.com (Nyangkwe Agien Aaron) Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 10:34:34 +0100 Subject: [governance] Who is Incharge of the Web's Future? Message-ID: *Hi all, What you find below is an except from a story carried our by the BBC yesterday. A conundrum?* ** Aaron Who's in charge of the web's future? So far it has grown on principles of openness and mutually agreed standards - but some now fear the emergence of a corporate web where innovation and free expression will be shackled. "There are no guarantees that it will carry on to evolve the way it is now - open, free and with universal standards," says Professor Wendy Hall, Southampton University scientist . "If you lose that or the standards are taken over by a commercial concern, then the web will change dramatically." -- Aaron Agien Nyangkwe Journalist-OutCome Mapper Special Assistant The President ASAFE P.O.Box 5213 Douala-Cameroon Tel. 237 3337 55 31, 3337 50 22 Fax. 237 3342 29 70 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Mar 10 09:40:43 2010 From: voxinternet at gmail.com (Programme de recherche Vox Internet) Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 15:40:43 +0100 Subject: [governance] Rappel : Colloque Vox Internet II , 26 et 27 mars 2010 Message-ID: > >> Fondation Maison des Sciences de l'Homme > École Normale Supérieure Lettres et Sciences Humaines > Centre de Sociologie de l'Innovation-École des Mines de Paris > > > Bonjour à tous, > > Le colloque Vox Internet II « De la gouvernance à la dynamique du > « commun » de l’Internet : questions autour du « droit d’entrée » se tiendra > les *26 et 27 mars prochain* à l’Ecole des Mines, 60 boulevard > Saint-Michel , Paris (6ème). > > Le nombre de place étant limité, n’oubliez pas de vous inscrire à > l’adresse suivante contact at voxinternet.org > > Le programme détaillé et les informations complémentaires sont > disponibles sur notre portail > . > > Cordialement, > > L’équipe Vox Internet -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Wed Mar 10 11:54:41 2010 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 08:54:41 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Who is Incharge of the Web's Future? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <857586.98194.qm@web83911.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> It is you my friend. --- On Wed, 3/10/10, Nyangkwe Agien Aaron wrote: From: Nyangkwe Agien Aaron Subject: [governance] Who is Incharge of the Web's Future? To: "WSIS Internet Governance Caucus" Date: Wednesday, March 10, 2010, 9:34 AM Hi all, What you find below is an except from a story carried our by the BBC yesterday. A conundrum?   Aaron   Who's in charge of the web's future? So far it has grown on principles of openness and mutually agreed standards - but some now fear the emergence of a corporate web where innovation and free expression will be shackled. "There are no guarantees that it will carry on to evolve the way it is now - open, free and with universal standards," says Professor Wendy Hall, Southampton University scientist . "If you lose that or the standards are taken over by a commercial concern, then the web will change dramatically."       -- Aaron Agien Nyangkwe Journalist-OutCome Mapper Special Assistant The President ASAFE P.O.Box 5213 Douala-Cameroon Tel. 237 3337 55 31, 3337 50 22 Fax. 237 3342 29 70 -----Inline Attachment Follows----- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From yehudakatz at mailinator.com Thu Mar 11 18:16:13 2010 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (Yehuda Katz) Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 15:16:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] ICANN No.#37 NAIROBI, Kenya Message-ID: ICANN No.#37 NAIROBI, Kenya Kenya Fri, 12 Mar 2010 http://nbo.icann.org/ - ICANN Presentations & Transcripts (Pages: 1&2) Page 1: http://nbo.icann.org/nbo/documents?tid[]=172&tid[]=354 Page 2: http://nbo.icann.org/nbo/documents?page=1&tid[0]=172&tid[1]=354 - 07:30 - 09:00 Fellowship Morning Breakfast Workshop Batian http://nbo.icann.org/node/9071 08:00 - 09:00 ICANN Board Committee Reports Tsavo A http://nbo.icann.org/node/8949 09:00 - 10:00 SO/AC Chair Reports Tsavo A http://nbo.icann.org/node/9300 10:30 - 14:00 Board Meeting Tsavo A http://nbo.icann.org/node/8948 14:00 - 17:30 ALAC Executive Committee Meeting Batian http://nbo.icann.org/node/8899 --- -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 parminder at itforchange.net Thu Mar 11 23:39:10 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 10:09:10 +0530 Subject: [governance] MS and corporate's 'political' personhood Message-ID: <4B99C56E.7090505@itforchange.net> Hi All Concerning our debates on political status and rights of corporations in connection with multistakeholderism, I think the most important recent development has been the recognition of 'corporate personhood' in a meaning much beyond the narrow legal implication used in company affairs and some civil liabilities by the US Supreme Court, a decision which has been widely criticized, including by Obama. Accepting 'corporate personhood' in the political space is a certain death knell for democratic societies as we have understood and known. I think whether we recognize corporate's 'political' personhood is key to the MS debate. I am afraid, if we do, we are closer to the Nietzschian vision of a higher order world controlled by these super-persons, while ordinary persons carry out their servile duty for the sake of the glory of this higher order. Parminder See quotes form a news item 'The Arrogance of Corporate Power Is Evident in US Supreme Court Decision ' at http://www.ippn.org/ on the recent judgement of US Supreme Court ... On Wednesday, January 21st in Citizens United vs. FEC the Supreme Court let regular people; working class, low income and working poor people down yet again. They sided with the corporate elite when they overturned the flimsy federal campaign finance reform laws afforded by the McCain-Feingold law, freeing up corporations to open the floodgates and buy elections since they can now spend unlimited money in our elections. The Court has legalized corporate bribery of our elected officials. The Court relied on the illegitimate legal doctrine of "Corporate Personhood" in order to justify this profoundly undemocratic decision. Corporate personhood is the notion that a corporation can claim to be a person, and therefore entitled to basic human rights - also described as political and civil rights - and have courts overturn laws. As this decision clearly demonstrates, corporate personhood is not an inconsequential legal technicality. Consider this-- the Supreme Court ruled that a corporation was a "legal person" with 14th Amendment protectionsÿbeforeÿthey granted full personhood to African-Americans, immigrants, natives, and women. And literally hundreds of laws - perhaps thousands - of local, state and federal laws that attempt to protect our environment, our elections, our safety and health, our right to organize have been overturned as a result of this erroneous doctrine. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Fri Mar 12 02:04:23 2010 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 04:04:23 -0300 Subject: [governance] how about this... M$ preaching for world governance of the Internet? Message-ID: <4B99E777.1020407@cafonso.ca> Dear compas, see the sequence of articles in the attached text file. frt rgds --c.a. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: corbett_rising_tide_internet_censorship_20100205.txt URL: From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Sun Mar 14 10:18:34 2010 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2010 07:18:34 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] MS and corporate's 'political' personhood In-Reply-To: <4B99C56E.7090505@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <227430.17210.qm@web83901.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> I often worry and ponder over this notion of a corporate personhood.  I work a great deal with all levels of corporations, generally on the outside trying to get inside for some reason.   The single most trying factor is lack of accountability. This legal reality only reflects the day to day person to person reality.  Huge numbers of people go to work each day happy to shed individual accountability and spend 8 hrs a day without an identity, without true responsibility.  The number one concern of the corporate worker is keeping their job. Not doing their job but keeping it.  (funny that 90% of people complain that is what politicians do -- but a review reveals while they point the finger there are 3 more pointed back to the accuser) If we combine this reality with the reality of the anonymity of the Net we are in for a future of people refusing to do anything for the sake of what is right -- and merely doing what will maintain the status quo. So in time the only measure of what is right is what is. --- On Fri, 3/12/10, Parminder wrote: From: Parminder Subject: [governance] MS and corporate's 'political' personhood To: "'governance at lists.cpsr.org'" Date: Friday, March 12, 2010, 4:39 AM Hi All Concerning our debates on political status and rights of corporations in connection with multistakeholderism, I think the most important recent development has been the recognition of 'corporate personhood' in a meaning much beyond the narrow legal implication used in company affairs and some civil liabilities by the US Supreme Court, a decision which has been widely criticized, including by Obama. Accepting 'corporate personhood' in the political space is a certain death knell for democratic societies as we have understood and known. I think whether we recognize corporate's 'political' personhood is key to the MS debate. I am afraid, if we do, we are closer to the Nietzschian vision of a higher order world controlled by these super-persons, while ordinary persons carry out their servile duty for the sake of the glory of this higher order. Parminder See quotes form a news item 'The Arrogance of Corporate Power Is Evident in US Supreme Court Decision ' at http://www.ippn.org/   on the recent judgement of US Supreme Court ... On Wednesday, January 21st in Citizens United vs. FEC the Supreme Court let regular people; working class, low income and working poor people down yet again. They sided with the corporate elite when they overturned the flimsy federal campaign finance reform laws afforded by the McCain-Feingold law, freeing up corporations to open the floodgates and buy elections since they can now spend unlimited money in our elections. The Court has legalized corporate bribery of our elected officials. The Court relied on the illegitimate legal doctrine of "Corporate Personhood" in order to justify this profoundly undemocratic decision. Corporate personhood is the notion that a corporation can claim to be a person, and therefore entitled to basic human rights - also described as political and civil rights - and have courts overturn laws. As this decision clearly demonstrates, corporate personhood is not an inconsequential legal technicality. Consider this-- the Supreme Court ruled that a corporation was a "legal person" with 14th Amendment protectionsÿbeforeÿthey granted full personhood to African-Americans, immigrants, natives, and women. And literally hundreds of laws - perhaps thousands - of local, state and federal laws that attempt to protect our environment, our elections, our safety and health, our right to organize have been overturned as a result of this erroneous doctrine. -----Inline Attachment Follows----- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Sun Mar 14 14:49:00 2010 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2010 11:49:00 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] how about this... M$ preaching for world governance of the Internet? In-Reply-To: <4B99E777.1020407@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <519091.89393.qm@web83909.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Carlos, (my tiny mind kept bringing me back to the paragraphs below)   This reading took me back to around 2001-3.  ICANN was taking off and grabbing/establishing itself as an influence in international circles and becoming an actual force in governance, protocals and naming.   The General Assembly was a place of much debate and critical writing of the power structure. Karl had been elected on to the Board but another election was a fat chance.   The voices were not quite voices crying out in the wilderness. But they were ragtag and fustrated and reviled.  The leaders were plucked out of the group and given cherries for changing positions more in line with the truth as directed from the BoD top down. Never once was a kudo or recognition to go out to the GA. At every chance powers and bylaws were changed without public input and even the voices there were quelled or ran off to Acadamia or the burdgeoning money making Blogs/Magaizines where advertisement and linkage payed the way.   But to this day the individuals survive and write there and challenge encroachment and lack of transparency and openness. I dubbed such a place "Accountability Headquarters". A double meaning 1. there is no accountablility ergo no headquarters and 2. The only Headquarters in accountability is the Individual who speaks up.   We must seperate the roles we play. We must distinguish between that which we do and say for our personal/financial reasons and that which we do for the good of the Net.  Many are not like myself.  They cannot say what is on their mind because it may negatively effect their livelihood. Again the concepts of Parminders' corporate personhood controls. So it is not so easy a thing to say that it is up to us as individuals but it is danged hard to do.   For all those constricted and restricted from voicing what they believe, I ask that you find a surrogate friend and influence them. Write privately that which you cannot publicly. Be passionate and convince others to carry on the torch. Yes the Idea does not require you, but the idea needs someone.   --- On Fri, 3/12/10, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: Dear compas, see the sequence of articles in the attached text file. Will recent successes in fighting internet controls be enough to stave off tyranny? James Corbett The Corbett Report 5 February, 2010 As with everything related to the Internet, however, the collaborative efforts of concerned citizen in opposing Internet censorship is paying off in positive developments. The newfound awareness of the Internet's power and importance is raising awareness that online liberties are in fact fundamental rights that cannot be taken away. Even China was forced to back down from an Internet licencing scheme (exactly like that proposed at Davos) because of public pressure. A draconian Australian law that would have required all online political comments to be accompanied by the commenters full name and address is likely to be repealed by the Attorney General. Whether or not these individual successes in fighting back the approach of online tyranny will ultimately derail the establishment's agenda remains to be seen. It depends largely on public outcry over the loss of online liberties becoming a genuine grassroots movement. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Mar 14 16:21:13 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2010 15:51:13 -0430 Subject: [governance] IGC activities Message-ID: <4B9D4539.90200@gmail.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IGC letter to UNSG.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 35021 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From b.schombe at gmail.com Mon Mar 15 05:15:44 2010 From: b.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin SCHOMBE) Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 10:15:44 +0100 Subject: [governance] IGC activities In-Reply-To: <4B9D4539.90200@gmail.com> References: <4B9D4539.90200@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi Ginger, please we can contribute in this part below but we request if possible to have french version allowing our local members to make observations. There were suggestions to review parts or all of the IGC charter. Is there a working group willing to take that on? My gentle nudges in that direction have not had concrete results (everyone is very busy), so I open this up to the general list again. 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. 2010/3/14 Ginger Paque > Hi everyone, hopefully you are arriving home safely after ICANN Nairobi > if you traveled, and ready to transfer knowledge if you followed the > proceedings in person or from afar. > > We have some IGC matters pending: > > > - Circulation of our open letter to the UNSG (attached again for your > reference). I think we should be posting this, and publicizing this. Will > you please do so if you can? > - There were suggestions to review parts or all of the IGC charter. Is > there a working group willing to take that on? My gentle nudges in that > direction have not had concrete results (everyone is very busy), so I open > this up to the general list again. > - Recent discussions were quite fruitful. Can people summarize the ones > they were interested/active in, and suggest a course of action for the IGC? > (RE: [governance] Strangeness in the IGF programme; RE: [governance] > Parminder's exchange with Bertrand) > - What plans should we make for the OC in May? > - Jeremy is working on website improvements. > - Anything else? > > Please open a separate thread to deal with any of these topics that > interest you. > > Hope to read you soon. Best, Ginger > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gpaque at gmail.com Mon Mar 15 05:30:59 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 05:00:59 -0430 Subject: [governance] IGC activities: Charter review (by IGC members) In-Reply-To: References: <4B9D4539.90200@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4B9DFE53.6060008@paque.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From b.schombe at gmail.com Mon Mar 15 06:01:48 2010 From: b.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin SCHOMBE) Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 11:01:48 +0100 Subject: [governance] IGC activities: Charter review (by IGC members) In-Reply-To: <4B9DFE53.6060008@paque.net> References: <4B9D4539.90200@gmail.com> <4B9DFE53.6060008@paque.net> Message-ID: I think this initiative can be undertaken by IGC staff to francophone IGC members. 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. 2010/3/15 Ginger Paque > Hi Baudouin, > It would be great if someone can volunteer to translate the IGC Charter > into other languages, since almost all of us deal with English as a second > language. > > For this particular usage, I am a bit puzzled by your use of "we" and "our > local members"--are you referring to the francophone members of the IGC? > Just in case: this is an initiative that should be undertaken by members of > the IGC, not for instance, by the local CAFEC group. > > Thanks! > > Baudouin SCHOMBE wrote: > > Hi Ginger, > > please we can contribute in this part below but we request if possible to > have french version allowing our local members to make observations. > > > There were suggestions to review parts or all of the IGC charter. Is there > a working group willing to take that on? My gentle nudges in that direction > have not had concrete results (everyone is very busy), so I open this up to > the general list again. > > 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. > > > 2010/3/14 Ginger Paque > >> Hi everyone, hopefully you are arriving home safely after ICANN Nairobi if >> you traveled, and ready to transfer knowledge if you followed the >> proceedings in person or from afar. >> >> We have some IGC matters pending: >> >> >> - Circulation of our open letter to the UNSG (attached again for your >> reference). I think we should be posting this, and publicizing this. Will >> you please do so if you can? >> - There were suggestions to review parts or all of the IGC charter. Is >> there a working group willing to take that on? My gentle nudges in that >> direction have not had concrete results (everyone is very busy), so I open >> this up to the general list again. >> - Recent discussions were quite fruitful. Can people summarize the >> ones they were interested/active in, and suggest a course of action for the >> IGC? (RE: [governance] Strangeness in the IGF programme; RE: [governance] >> Parminder's exchange with Bertrand) >> - What plans should we make for the OC in May? >> - Jeremy is working on website improvements. >> - Anything else? >> >> Please open a separate thread to deal with any of these topics that >> interest you. >> >> Hope to read you soon. Best, Ginger >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gpaque at gmail.com Mon Mar 15 06:11:12 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 05:41:12 -0430 Subject: [governance] IGC activities: Charter review (by IGC members) In-Reply-To: References: <4B9D4539.90200@gmail.com> <4B9DFE53.6060008@paque.net> Message-ID: <4B9E07C0.2030305@paque.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From meryem at marzouki.info Mon Mar 15 09:20:36 2010 From: meryem at marzouki.info (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 14:20:36 +0100 Subject: [governance] REMINDER: Deadline 20 March - CFP GigaNet 2010 Workshop, Montreal, 30-31 May 2010 Message-ID: <225E434A-9A92-482F-8E3D-559D59118393@marzouki.info> !!!! REMINDER: 20 March is the deadline to send your submission abstract !!!! [This CFP might be of interest to some of you. Apologies for multiple reception] Dear Colleagues, GigaNet (The Global Internet Governance Academic Network - http:// giga-net.org) is pleased to announce its Third International Workshop on "Global Internet Governance: An Interdisciplinary Research Field in Construction", to be held in Montreal (Quebec), Canada, on 30 and 31 May 2010. This workshop is organized in cooperation with the Canadian Communication Association and Media at McGill. Please find hereafter and attached the workshop preliminary announcement and call for contributions, as well as the workshop poster. Feel free to widely distribute. We look forward to welcoming you in Montreal! Best regards, Meryem Marzouki, on behalf of the Workshop Program and Organizing Committees -- Meryem Marzouki LIP6/PolyTIC - CNRS 104 avenue du Président Kennedy - 75016 Paris http://www-polytic.lip6.fr :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Third International Workshop on Global Internet Governance: An Interdisciplinary Research Field in Construction Montreal (QC), Canada - 30-31 May 2010 Organized by GigaNet, in cooperation with The Canadian Communication Association and Media at McGill Co-sponsored by GigaNet, ACC-CCA, Media at McGill, LIP6/CNRS and UPMC Preliminary Announcement and Call for Contributions The Global Internet Governance Academic Network (GigaNet) invites you to participate in its third scholarly workshop to be held in Montreal (QC), Canada, on 30-31 May 2010. This workshop is organized in cooperation with the Canadian Communication Association and Media at McGill, during the Canadian Federation for the Humanities and Social Sciences (CFHSS) 2010 Congress week in Montreal. Building on the success of its first two editions, respectively in Paris, France in June 2008 and in Brussels, Belgium in May 2009, the purpose of this third GigaNet workshop is twofold: The first day will be dedicated to outreach sessions aimed at increasing the interest in the Global Internet Governance field among both various academic disciplines and the civil society at large, including but not limited to NGOs and civil society groups active in related fields. These outreach sessions will include academic tutorials on Global Internet Governance as well as information and discussion led by experts in the field on current Global Internet Governance debates and their relevance to public policy making. Detailed information on the outreach sessions' program will be distributed closer to the event itself. The second day will feature thematic presentations selected upon submissions made in response to this call for contributions. We invite scholars to present and discuss their work- in-progress in Internet Governance-related research, with the aim to identify emerging research themes and design a research agenda. Rather than featuring academic paper presentations, the workshop aims at providing a survey of current academic activities in the field, in order to share ideas and forge possible collaborations. Submissions are expected to focus on presenting problematics, research designs, preliminary empirical results and conclusions in the aim of stimulating reflection and discussion amongst the audience. Submissions may address, but are not limited to, the following topics: involved actors and their interactions; Internet governance institutions and regimes; legal, socio-economical, behavioral and technical regulation means; Internet governance policy issues. Submissions in view of thematic presentations should be sent by 20 March 2010 to Meryem Marzouki (Meryem.Marzouki at lip6.fr). They should be written in English and include the name, affiliation, e-mail address and short bio of author(s), along with no more than 500 words of research work description. The program committee will notify applicants by 20 April 2010. To encourage knowledge dissemination, relevant submissions will be published on the workshop website. Authors of selected submissions will be invited to present their work in the workshop thematic sessions. Program Committee: Laura DeNardis, Yale U., USA; Meryem Marzouki, CNRS & U. Pierre et Marie Curie, France; Milton Mueller, Syracuse U., USA & Delft Technical U., The Netherlands; Claudia Padovani, Padova U., Italy & McGill U., Canada; Jeremy Shtern, Ryerson U., Canada. Local Organizing Committee: Juliana Dalley, McGill U., Canada; Becky Lentz, McGill U., Canada; Daniel Paré, U. of Ottawa, Canada; Claire Roberge, McGill U., Canada. There is no registration fee for this event. A registration form will be circulated with the program. Workshop website: http://giga-net.org/page/2010-international-workshop GigaNet: giga-net.org - ACC-CCA: www.acc-cca.ca - Media at McGill: media.mcgill.ca To receive further workshop updates, and other GigaNet news, please subscribe to the information dissemination mailing list: info-giganet (http://www-rp.lip6.fr/wws/info/info-giganet) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: GigaNetMontreal2010-CFP.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 55070 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Montreal2010-PosterLowDef.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 343969 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- From email at hakik.org Mon Mar 15 09:54:06 2010 From: email at hakik.org (Hakikur Rahman) Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 13:54:06 +0000 Subject: [governance] IGC activities: Charter review (by IGC In-Reply-To: <4B9DFE53.6060008@paque.net> References: <4B9D4539.90200@gmail.com> <4B9DFE53.6060008@paque.net> Message-ID: <20100315135437.40AA390FDB@npogroups.org> I am not sure, whether it is needed now, but you may add my name as a volunteer to translate it in Bangla. Thanking you, Hakik At 09:30 AM 3/15/2010, Ginger Paque wrote: >Hi Baudouin, >It would be great if someone can volunteer to >translate the IGC Charter into other languages, >since almost all of us deal with English as a second language. > >For this particular usage, I am a bit puzzled by >your use of "we" and "our local members"--are >you referring to the francophone members of the >IGC? Just in case: this is an initiative that >should be undertaken by members of the IGC, not >for instance, by the local CAFEC group. > >Thanks! > >Baudouin SCHOMBE wrote: >>Hi Ginger, >> >>please we can contribute in this part below but >>we request if possible to have french version >>allowing our local members to make observations. >> >> >>There were suggestions to review parts or all >>of the IGC charter. Is there a working group >>willing to take that on? My gentle nudges in >>that direction have not had concrete results >>(everyone is very busy), so I open this up to the general list again. >> >>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. >> >> >>2010/3/14 Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com> >>Hi everyone, hopefully you are arriving home >>safely after ICANN Nairobi if you traveled, and >>ready to transfer knowledge if you followed the >>proceedings in person or from afar. >> >>We have some IGC matters pending: >> >>Circulation of our open letter to the UNSG >>(attached again for your reference). I think we >>should be posting this, and publicizing this. >>Will you please do so if you can? >>There were suggestions to review parts or all >>of the IGC charter. Is there a working group >>willing to take that on? My gentle nudges in >>that direction have not had concrete results >>(everyone is very busy), so I open this up to the general list again. >>Recent discussions were quite fruitful. Can >>people summarize the ones they were >>interested/active in, and suggest a course of >>action for the IGC? (RE: [governance] >>Strangeness in the IGF programme; RE: >>[governance] Parminder's exchange with Bertrand) >>What plans should we make for the OC in May? >>Jeremy is working on website improvements. >>Anything else? >>Please open a separate thread to deal with any >>of these topics that interest you. >> >>Hope to read you soon. Best, Ginger >> >>____________________________________________________________ >>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> >>governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >>For all list information and functions, see: >> >>http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >>Translate this email: >>http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From b.schombe at gmail.com Mon Mar 15 10:02:10 2010 From: b.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin SCHOMBE) Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 15:02:10 +0100 Subject: [governance] IGC activities: Charter review (by IGC members) In-Reply-To: <4B9E07C0.2030305@paque.net> References: <4B9D4539.90200@gmail.com> <4B9DFE53.6060008@paque.net> <4B9E07C0.2030305@paque.net> Message-ID: Ok I will try to do my best and thank for this clarification 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. 2010/3/15 Ginger Paque > Hi again Baudouin, > The IGC has no funding at all, and its volunteer staff consists of Jeremy > and me as co-coordinators, and all of you as member volunteers. > > So... :) as a francophone member of our staff... you are better qualified > than I am, because my French just is not that good! > > Any chance you could do this for us? > > Best, Ginger > > Baudouin SCHOMBE wrote: > > I think this initiative can be undertaken by IGC staff to francophone IGC > members. > > 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. > > > 2010/3/15 Ginger Paque > >> Hi Baudouin, >> It would be great if someone can volunteer to translate the IGC Charter >> into other languages, since almost all of us deal with English as a second >> language. >> >> For this particular usage, I am a bit puzzled by your use of "we" and "our >> local members"--are you referring to the francophone members of the IGC? >> Just in case: this is an initiative that should be undertaken by members of >> the IGC, not for instance, by the local CAFEC group. >> >> Thanks! >> >> Baudouin SCHOMBE wrote: >> >> Hi Ginger, >> >> please we can contribute in this part below but we request if possible to >> have french version allowing our local members to make observations. >> >> >> There were suggestions to review parts or all of the IGC charter. Is there >> a working group willing to take that on? My gentle nudges in that direction >> have not had concrete results (everyone is very busy), so I open this up to >> the general list again. >> >> 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. >> >> >> 2010/3/14 Ginger Paque >> >>> Hi everyone, hopefully you are arriving home safely after ICANN Nairobi >>> if you traveled, and ready to transfer knowledge if you followed the >>> proceedings in person or from afar. >>> >>> We have some IGC matters pending: >>> >>> >>> - Circulation of our open letter to the UNSG (attached again for your >>> reference). I think we should be posting this, and publicizing this. Will >>> you please do so if you can? >>> - There were suggestions to review parts or all of the IGC charter. >>> Is there a working group willing to take that on? My gentle nudges in that >>> direction have not had concrete results (everyone is very busy), so I open >>> this up to the general list again. >>> - Recent discussions were quite fruitful. Can people summarize the >>> ones they were interested/active in, and suggest a course of action for the >>> IGC? (RE: [governance] Strangeness in the IGF programme; RE: [governance] >>> Parminder's exchange with Bertrand) >>> - What plans should we make for the OC in May? >>> - Jeremy is working on website improvements. >>> - Anything else? >>> >>> Please open a separate thread to deal with any of these topics that >>> interest you. >>> >>> Hope to read you soon. Best, Ginger >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Fri Mar 12 02:16:11 2010 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 10:16:11 +0300 Subject: [governance] how about this... M$ preaching for world governance In-Reply-To: <4B99E777.1020407@cafonso.ca> References: <4B99E777.1020407@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: yeah they are not on the side of the angels...they have started what seems to be a multipronged campaign in recent weeks. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 10:04 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Dear compas, see the sequence of articles in the attached text file. > > frt rgds > > --c.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 > http://www.corbettreport.com/articles/20100205_rising_tide_internet_censorship.htm > > The Rising Tide of Internet Censorhsip > Will recent successes in fighting internet controls be enough to stave off > tyranny? > James Corbett > The Corbett Report > 5 February, 2010 > > The focus is back on Internet censorship this week as a pair of articles > from Time Magazine and The New York Times came out almost simultaneously > advocating for licences to operate web sites. These articles were skillfully > skewered by Paul Joseph Watson as lame attempts to shore up a disintegrating > establishment media in the face of a blogosphere that is increasingly > replacing them. > > The articles follow on calls by Craig Mundie—Microsoft's chief research and > strategy officer—for an Internet licencing system. Introducing the idea, he > said "We need a kind of World Health Organization for the Internet." > Evidently unaware of the ongoing investigation into the WHO's role in > manufacturing the H1N1 pandemic hoax to line the pockets of Big Pharma, > Mundie added that an international Internet authority should be given the > same kind of authority that the WHO has in dealing with a pandemic. "When > there is a pandemic, it organizes the quarantine of cases. We are not > allowed to organize the systematic quarantine of machines that are > compromised." These calls are worrying because they represent only the > latest instance of influential figures proposing increasingly tyrannical > controls on free speech on the Internet. > > The Obama presidency has seen an increase in hype over cybersecurity > threats, with the influential CSIS "think tank" having written white papers > proposing cybersecurity as a key issue for the 44th president. As we > reported last July, CSIS argued for "minimium standards for securing > cyberspace" because "voluntary action is not enough." > > Shortly after Obama took office last year, Senator Jay Rockefeller > introduced a Senate bill (S.773) that would give the president the power to > "declare a cybersecurity emergency" and shut down the Internet. The bill > would also require network administrators in the private sector receive > licencing from the federal government after taking a federally-mandated > certificagtion program. During Committee hearings, Rockefeller went so far > as to say that it would have been better if the Internet had never been > invented. > > In November of last year it was reported that an Anti-Counterfeiting Trade > Agreement (ACTA) being negotiated by the world's leading economies would > force ISPs to cut off subscribers who were found to have shared copyrighted > content on more than two occasions. Recent reports indicate that this > proposal was not discussed at an ACTA meeting last month, but the so-called > "three-strikes rule" has already passed in France. > > Earlier this year, it was revealed that Obama's information czar, Cass > Sunstein, has blamed the blogosphere for spreading anti-government > sentiments and advocated that the government actually employ people to > infiltrate online communities and spread information favorable to the > government in an effort to destabilize them. As remarkable as such a > proposal may seem from a high-ranking government official, it is only one > aspect of an official Pentagon strategy to fight the net as if it were an > enemy weapons system. > > All of these proposals and numerous other stories we have reported on the > past (e.g. here and here) represent only the latest attempts to stifle free > speech on the Internet. Although groups like the Electronic Frontier > Foundation have been fighting such moves for a long time, the explosive > power of the online community in derailing the carbon eugenics agenda and > exposing the Federal Reserve has awakened many to the nascent medium's > potential...and its value. The value of the Internet is directly tied to > freedom of speech, a principle that is opposed solely by the establishment > media who thrived for decades in a virtually competition-free era before the > rise of the Internet. As one commenter on the Time Magazine puff piece > calling for Internet licencing notes, "There is NO grass roots movement > anywhere calling for government intervention in the internet. It is not > broken. It works too well, that is a problem for tyrants." > > As with everything related to the Internet, however, the collaborative > efforts of concerned citizen in opposing Internet censorship is paying off > in positive developments. The newfound awareness of the Internet's power and > importance is raising awareness that online liberties are in fact > fundamental rights that cannot be taken away. Even China was forced to back > down from an Internet licencing scheme (exactly like that proposed at Davos) > because of public pressure. A draconian Australian law that would have > required all online political comments to be accompanied by the commenters > full name and address is likely to be repealed by the Attorney General. > > Whether or not these individual successes in fighting back the approach of > online tyranny will ultimately derail the establishment's agenda remains to > be seen. It depends largely on public outcry over the loss of online > liberties becoming a genuine grassroots movement. > > ============================ > > http://curiouscapitalist.blogs.time.com/2010/01/30/drivers-licenses-for-the-internet/ > > Driver's licenses for the Internet > Posted by Barbara Kiviat Saturday, January 30, 2010 at 5:16 am > 70 Comments • Related Topics: technology world economic forum , Craig > Mundie, Davos, Internet security, Microsoft, WEF > > I just went to a panel discussion about Internet security and let me tell > you, it was scar-y. Between individual fraud, organized crime, corporate > espionage and government spying, it's an incredibly dangerous world out > there, which, according to one panelist, is growing exponentially worse. > > These are incredibly complex problems that even the smartest of the smart > admit they don't have a great handle on, although Craig Mundie, Microsoft's > chief research and technology officer, offered up a surprisingly simple > solution that might start us down a path to dealing with them: driver's > licenses for the Internet. > > The thing about the Internet is that it was never intended to be a worldwide > system of mass communication. A handful of guys, all of whom knew each > other, set up the Web. The anonymity that has come to be a core and > cherished characteristic of the Internet didn't exist in the beginning: it > was obvious who was who. > > As the Internet picked up steam and gathered more users, that stopped being > the case, but at no point did anyone change the ways things worked. The Web > started out being a no-authentication space and it continues to be that way > to this day. Anyone can get online and no one has to say who they are. > That's what enables a massive amount of cyber crime: if you're attacked from > a computer, you might be able to figure out where that particular machine is > located, but there's really no way to go back one step further and track the > identity of the computer that hacked into the one that hacked into you. > > What Mundie is proposing is to impose authentication. He draws an analogy to > automobile use. If you want to drive a car, you have to have a license (not > to mention an inspection, insurance, etc). If you do something bad with that > car, like break a law, there is the chance that you will lose your license > and be prevented from driving in the future. In other words, there is a > legal and social process for imposing discipline. Mundie imagines three > tiers of Internet ID: one for people, one for machines and one for programs > (which often act as proxies for the other two). > > Now, there are, of course, a number of obstacles to making such a scheme be > reality. Even here in the mountains of Switzerland I can hear the worldwide > scream go up: "But we're entitled to anonymity on the Internet!" Really? Are > you? Why do you think that? > > Mundie pointed out that in the physical world we are implicitly comfortable > with the notion that there are certain places we're not allowed to go > without identifying ourselves. Are you allowed to walk down the street with > no one knowing who you are? Absolutely. Are you allowed to walk into a bank > vault and still not give your name? Hardly. > > It's easy to envision the same sort of differentiated structure for the > Internet, Mundie said. He didn't get into examples, so here's one of mine. > If you want to go to Time.com and read all about what's going on in the > world, that's fine. No one needs to know who you are. But if you want to set > up a site to accept credit-card donations for earthquake victims in Haiti? > Well, you're going to have to show your ID for that. > > The truth of the matter is, the Internet is still in its Wild West phase. To > a large extent, the law hasn't yet shown up. Yet as more and more people > move to town, that lawlessness is becoming a bigger and bigger problem. As > human societies grow over time they develop more rigid standards for > themselves in order to handle their increased size. There is no reason to > think the Internet shouldn't follow the same pattern. > > Though that's not to say it'll happen anytime soon. Governments certainly > have been talking to each other about this (almost by definition, any > effective efforts will have to be international in nature), but even in > Europe, where there is a cyber security convention in effect, only half of > the Continent's nations have signed up. > > One stumbling block that was mentioned at today's panel discussion: > governments' own intelligence agencies are huge beneficiaries of the > Internet's anonymity. We managed to spy on each other before the Web, but > how much easier it is now that we can cruise around cyberspace without > anyone even knowing we're there. > > So don't expect any changes in the short term. But do know that the people > in charge—as much as anyone can be in charge when it comes to the > Internet—are thinking about it. > > Read more: > http://curiouscapitalist.blogs.time.com/2010/01/30/drivers-licenses-for-the-internet/#ixzz0hkGBvgT4 > > =========================== > > http://ideas.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/03/drivers-licenses-for-the-internet/ > > February 3, 2010, 6:33 am > Driver’s Licenses for the Internet? > > Today’s idea: Let’s have “driver’s licenses” for the Internet to counter > online fraud, hackers and espionage, a Microsoft executive suggests. > > Internet | Maybe on your busy junket to the World Economic Forum in Davos > last week you missed the panel where Craig Mundie, Microsoft’s chief > research and technology officer, offered up the Internet licensing proposal > above. Barbara Kiviat of the Curious Capitalist blog was there, and > summarizes the idea thusly: > Isaac Brekken for The New York Times Licenses for both wheel and Web? > (Audi’s planned dashboard screen, right.) > > What Mundie is proposing is to impose authentication. He draws an analogy to > automobile use. If you want to drive a car, you have to have a license (not > to mention an inspection, insurance, etc.). If you do something bad with > that car, like break a law, there is the chance that you will lose your > license and be prevented from driving in the future. In other words, there > is a legal and social process for imposing discipline. Mundie imagines three > tiers of Internet I.D.: one for people, one for machines and one for > programs (which often act as proxies for the other two). > > Now, there are, of course, a number of obstacles to making such a scheme be > reality. Even here in the mountains of Switzerland I can hear the worldwide > scream go up: “But we’re entitled to anonymity on the Internet!” Really? Are > you? Why do you think that? > > Mundie [above] pointed out that in the physical world we are implicitly > comfortable with the notion that there are certain places we’re not allowed > to go without identifying ourselves. Are you allowed to walk down the street > with no one knowing who you are? Absolutely. Are you allowed to walk into a > bank vault and still not give your name? Hardly. > > The Internet was never originally intended as a worldwide system of mass > communication, Ms. Kiviat notes, let alone a largely anonymous one. But that > is what it grew into, replete with feisty commenters like those reacting to > her post. [The Curious Capitalist] > > ============================ > > http://www.prisonplanet.com/time-magazine-pushes-draconian-internet-licensing-plan.html > > Time Magazine Pushes Draconian Internet Licensing Plan > > Establishment mouthpiece calls for web ID system that would outstrip > Communist Chinese style net censorship > > Time Magazine Pushes Draconian Internet Licensing Plan 030210top > > Paul Joseph Watson > Prison Planet.com > Wednesday, February 3, 2010 > > Time Magazine has enthusiastically jumped on the bandwagon to back Microsoft > executive Craig Mundie’s call for Internet licensing, as authorities push > for a system even more stifling than in Communist China, where only people > with government permission would be allowed to express free speech. > > As we reported earlier this week, during a recent conference at the Davos > Economic Forum, Craig Mundie, chief research and strategy officer for > Microsoft, told fellow globalists at the summit that the Internet needed to > be policed by means of introducing licenses similar to drivers licenses – in > other words government permission to use the web. > > His proposal was almost instantly advocated by Time Magazine, who published > an article by Barbara Kiviat - one of Mundie’s fellow attendees at the > elitist confab. It’s sadistically ironic that Kiviat’s columns run under the > moniker “The Curious Capitalist,” since the ideas expressed in her piece go > further than even the free-speech hating Communist Chinese have dared > venture in terms of Internet censorship. > > “Now, there are, of course, a number of obstacles to making such a scheme be > reality,” writes Kiviat. “Even here in the mountains of Switzerland I can > hear the worldwide scream go up: “But we’re entitled to anonymity on the > Internet!” Really? Are you? Why do you think that?” > > Kiviat ludicrously compares the necessity to show identification when > entering a bank vault to the apparent need for authorities to know who you > are when you set up a website to take credit card payments. > > “The truth of the matter is, the Internet is still in its Wild West phase. > To a large extent, the law hasn’t yet shown up. Yet as more and more people > move to town, that lawlessness is becoming a bigger and bigger problem. As > human societies grow over time they develop more rigid standards for > themselves in order to handle their increased size. There is no reason to > think the Internet shouldn’t follow the same pattern,” she writes. > > “The people in charge—as much as anyone can be in charge when it comes to > the Internet—are thinking about it,” Kiviat barks in her conclusion, > seemingly comfortable with the notion that shadowy individuals and not the > Constitution itself are “in charge” of deciding who is allowed free speech. > > Despite Kiviat’s mealy-mouthed authoritarianism and feigned reasonableness > in advocating such a system, Mundie’s proposal is little different to a > similar system already considered by officials in Communist China to force > bloggers to register their identities before they could post. At the time > the idea was attacked by human rights advocates as an obvious ploy “by which > the government could control information” and crack down on dissent. > > Indeed, the proposal was deemed too severe and the Chinese government > eventually backed down. So a system considered too authoritarian and too > much of a threat to freedom in Communist China is seemingly just fine and > dandy in the “land of the free,” according to Kiviat and her ilk. > > Unfortunately for her, Kiviat was immediately reminded about what makes the > Internet such a threat to the ruling elite for whom she is a well-trained > apologist – almost every comment below her article disagreed with her. > >    “No. A thousand times no. This benefits no one but “the people in > charge,” wrote one respondent. > >    “Drivers’ licenses ensure a basic level of driving competency, so that > 13-year-olds don’t get drunk and drive into a schoolbus. That kind of > stupidity doesn’t happen on the Internet. Enough security theater! Focus on > actual security. Truly awful idea, Barbara.” > >    “I, for one, welcome our new internet overlords. It will be a comforting > time when “the law” comes along to protect people from themselves on the > net, because gosh darn it, freedom is dangerous,” quips another. “Not to > mention, standards only ever come about through coercive government action, > and never through private parties responding to their own incentives.” > >    I think bloggers ought to be fingerprinted, DNA tested for abnormalities > and have the information safely stored in a government vault. That way when > some authoritarian ruler of pit, decides you have broken his self made > tyrannic law he can prosecute you,” jokes another respondent. “For being a > journalist you sure are s—-d, anonymity protects the right of free speech > especially when the scary internet is most dangerous in a nation that > prosecutes freedom of speech and opinion. The biggest thugs and criminals > you mentioned are corrupt governments. I bet you love China’s safe internet > measures huh? But there are worse than China.” > >    “The internet is the only thing preventing total tyranny right now, and > they are trying everything they can to chill free speech. There is NO grass > roots movement anywhere calling for government intervention in the internet. > It is not broken. It works too well, that is a problem for tyrants,” points > out another. > > Shortly after Time Magazine started peddling the proposal, the New York > Times soon followed suit with a blog this morning entitled Driver’s Licenses > for the Internet? which merely parrots Kiviat’s talking points. > > Of course there’s a very good reason for Time Magazine and the New York > Times to be pushing for measures that would undoubtedly lead to a chilling > effect on free speech which would in turn eviscerate the blogosphere. > > Like the rest of the mainstream print dinosaurs, physical sales of Time > Magazine have been plummeting, partly as a result of more people getting > their news for free on the web from independent sources that don’t feed at > the trough of the military-industrial complex. Ad sales for the New York > Times sunk by no less than 28 per cent last year with subscriptions and > street sales also falling. > > “The Internet, where newspapers are generally free, has siphoned off > circulation and advertising,” conceded an October 2009 NY Times article, > which is precisely why establishment publications like the Old Gray Lady and > Time are pushing proposals that would strangle the blogosphere and in turn > eliminate their competition – while devastating free speech all in one foul > swoop. > > ================ > > http://rawstory.com/2010/01/agency-calls-global-cyberwarfare-treaty-drivers-license-web-users/ > > UN agency calls for global cyberwarfare treaty, ‘driver’s license’ for Web > users > > By Agence France-Presse > Saturday, January 30th, 2010 -- 2:35 pm > > web UN agency calls for global cyberwarfare treaty, drivers license for Web > users > > The world needs a treaty to prevent cyber attacks becoming an all-out war, > the head of the main UN communications and technology agency warned > Saturday. > > International Telcommunications Union secretary general Hamadoun Toure gave > his warning at a World Economic Forum debate where experts said nations must > now consider when a cyber attack becomes a declaration of war. > > With attacks on Google from China a major talking point in Davos, Toure said > the risk of a cyber conflict between two nations grows every year. > > He proposed a treaty in which countries would engage not to make the first > cyber strike against another nation. > > "A cyber war would be worse than a tsunami -- a catastrophe," the UN > official said, highlighting examples such as attacks on Estonia last year. > Story continues below... > > He proposed an international accord, adding: "The framework would look like > a peace treaty before a war." > > Countries should guarantee to protect their citizens and their right to > access to information, promise not to harbour cyber terrorists and "should > commit themselves not to attack another." > > John Negroponte, former director of US intelligence, said intelligence > agencies in the major powers would be the first to "express reservations" > about such an accord. > > Susan Collins, a US Republican senator who sits on several Senate military > and home affairs committees, said the prospect of a cyber attack sparking a > war is now being considered in the United States. > > "If someone bombed the electric grid in our country and we saw the bombers > coming in it would clearly be an act of war. > > "If that same country uses sophisticated computers to knock out our > electricity grid, I definitely think we are getting closer to saying it is > an act of war," Collins said. > > Craig Mundie, chief research and strategy officer for Microsoft, said "there > are at least 10 countries in the world whose internet capability is > sophisticated enough to carry out cyber attacks ... and they can make it > appear to come from anywhere." > > "The Internet is the biggest command and control center for every bad guy > out there," he said. > > The head of online security company McAfee told another Davos debate Friday > that China, the United States, Russia, Israel and France are among 20 > countries locked in a cyberspace arms race and gearing up for possible > Internet hostilities. > > Mundie and other experts have said there is a growing need to police the > internet to clampdown on fraud, espionage and the spread of viruses. > > "People don't understand the scale of criminal activity on the internet. > Whether criminal, individual or nation states, the community is growing more > sophisticated," the Microsoft executive said. > > "We need a kind of World Health Organization for the Internet," he said. > > "When there is a pandemic, it organizes the quarantine of cases. We are not > allowed to organize the systematic quarantine of machines that are > compromised." > > He also called for a "driver's license" for internet users. > > "If you want to drive a car you have to have a license to say that you are > capable of driving a car, the car has to pass a test to say it is fit to > drive and you have to have insurance." > > Andre Kudelski, chairman of Kudelski Group, said that a new internet might > have to be created forcing people to have two computers that cannot connect > and pass on viruses. "One internet for secure operations and one internet > for freedom." > > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wildguydujour at me.com Mon Mar 15 18:03:21 2010 From: wildguydujour at me.com (wildguydujour at me.com) Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 18:03:21 -0400 Subject: [governance] how about this... M$ preaching for world governance Message-ID: <3581070924579454893716251211056146567-Webmail@me.com> > yeah they are not on the side of the angels...they have started what seems to be a multipronged campaign in recent weeks. The irony of Microsoft promoting an Internet Driver's Licence and world Internet security response organization is that 95% of the security issues on the Internet would appear to stem from their lack of security architecture for their operating systems. DDoS attacks and Spam operations have made botnets their tool of choice, and it's only Microsoft's impotent windows security model that have made viruses and botnets viable. -WG ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Tue Mar 16 07:29:14 2010 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 08:29:14 -0300 Subject: [governance] how about this... M$ preaching for world governance In-Reply-To: <3581070924579454893716251211056146567-Webmail@me.com> References: <3581070924579454893716251211056146567-Webmail@me.com> Message-ID: <4B9F6B8A.4080903@cafonso.ca> The M$ operating system is intrinsically vulnerable by original design -- the strict interdependency between the GUI applications and the OS kernel make it impossible to mend. But M$ is not dumb -- my vision is that they wanted it to be so to build a giant dependency between consumers and the company regarding updates, luring them to purchase upgrades and so on, using this to control their near monopoly on proprietary OS licencing, while the OS package continues to be as prone to attacks as it was in the first Window$ versions. Their OS's technical project was conceived on purpose to be vulnerable. Systems' kernels such as Linux, BSD (on which Mac OSX is based), and Solaris are entirely independent from their GUI applications, and is one of the main reasons which makes them far more reliable and secure. M$ is the big one to blame regarding responsibilities for network vulnerabilities, and now they want to restrict the Internet so that someone else copes with their amazing failures. Fantastic! --c.a. wildguydujour at me.com wrote: >> yeah they are not on the side of the angels...they have started what seems to be a multipronged campaign in recent weeks. > > The irony of Microsoft promoting an Internet Driver's Licence and world Internet security response organization is that 95% of the security issues on the Internet would appear to stem from their lack of security architecture for their operating systems. DDoS attacks and Spam operations have made botnets their tool of choice, and it's only Microsoft's impotent windows security model that have made viruses and botnets viable. > > -WG > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- 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 bnkuerbi at syr.edu Tue Mar 16 11:46:03 2010 From: bnkuerbi at syr.edu (Brenden Kuerbis) Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 15:46:03 +0000 Subject: [governance] [IGP Announce] Internet Governance Project Headlines In-Reply-To: <28cfc1a41003160722q1fb33140j8f30e5501ece9249@mail.gmail.com> References: <28cfc1a41003160722q1fb33140j8f30e5501ece9249@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <28cfc1a41003160846p722d6560w82b53f85cad83e69@mail.gmail.com> FYI. *From:* FeedBlitz [mailto:feedblitz at mail.feedblitz.com] *On Behalf Of *Internet Governance Project *Sent:* Monday, March 15, 2010 12:10 PM *To:* *Subject:* [IGP Announce] Internet Governance Project Headlines [image: Internet Governance Project] * **March 15, 2010* Ruling the Root part II: RPKI and the IP address space<#127675b22d0104e1_127675989dc6caab_1276752c2163bfe6_0> The Nairobi Board resolutions: painful to read<#127675b22d0104e1_127675989dc6caab_1276752c2163bfe6_1> Exposed: ICANN Policy staff manipulation of Board<#127675b22d0104e1_127675989dc6caab_1276752c2163bfe6_2> Civility and Humility: The story of ICANN’s Ombudsman<#127675b22d0104e1_127675989dc6caab_1276752c2163bfe6_3> A busy two weeks for Internet governance<#127675b22d0104e1_127675989dc6caab_1276752c2163bfe6_4> CFP: Third International Workshop on Global Internet Governance: An Interdisciplinary Research Field in Construction<#127675b22d0104e1_127675989dc6caab_1276752c2163bfe6_5> Search Internet Governance Project Headlines ------------------------------ Ruling the Root part II: RPKI and the IP address space The Internet Architecture Board issued a little-noticed statement February 12 that has the potential to revolutionize Internet governance - and not in a good way. The IAB is now claiming that the application of Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) to addressing and routing is "a prerequisite for improving the security of the global routing system." What may get lost in all the technical mumbo-jumbo is that RPKI is a technology of control and identification. We need to think long and hard before embarking on a path that would lead to the global centralization of such authority in a single institution's hands. • Email to a friend • Article Search • • The Nairobi Board resolutions: painful to read The ICANN board issued a fairly large number of resolutions, at the conclusion of its Nairobi meeting. Give it an A for effort. But on substance? Give them an F. On the .xxx issue, the Board chose to ignore its independent review panel and refused to rectify what was officially determined to be unfair and discriminatory treatment. On the vertical integration issue, it issued a needlessly biased and poorly worded resolution that was an attempt to clarify things but probably did the opposite. There are other gems. We have done the painful work of reading them for you. • Email to a friend • Article Search • • Exposed: ICANN Policy staff manipulation of Board From Avri Doria's blog : *"While in a meeting with Board members, a member of my Stakeholder group had an opportunity to read part of one page of the Policy Staff’s briefing report to the Board from across the table (some of us read documents upside down better the we read right side up.) In this case it was all they could do to refrain themself from standing up and yelling “the staff lies.” *Doria goes on to point out how inaccurate and biased these secret board briefings can be and how unfair it is that these critical messages are kept secret. There is a vital structural issue here: ICANN's board faces too many issues and relies heavily on the policy staff to tell it what is going on. Unfortunately, during the past 5-6 years, the staff has chosen to take sides on policy issues and to favor some constituency groups over others. Often, this is caused by heavy lobbying of the staff by some of the professional, full-time lobbyists who can invest in constantly following and communicating with them. In other cases it is the staff's way of punishing those who were critical of ICANN, especially its policy staff. New CEO Rod Beckstrom has already made an important move to rectify this situation by replacing his policy vice chair with David Olive; it would seem, however, that lower level staff are still mired in the organizational culture established by his predecessor. There is a simple solution to this: make the board briefings public, with the usual exceptions for information considered confidential for legal, personal or personnel reasons. • Email to a friend • Article Search • • Civility and Humility: The story of ICANN’s Ombudsman His behavior last fall during a dispute over the formation of the NCSG confirmed that Frank Fowlie, ICANN’s Ombudsman, is both unhelpful and biased. If the value-add of the Ombudsman’s office is unclear, the negatives are now very clear indeed. About a week ago the Ottawa Citizen published a story about Fowlie’s angry confrontation with a flight attendant after they failed to serve him a meal on a Paris – Montreal flight. What makes the Air Canada incident important is the way it relates to Fowlie’s campaign for imposing standards of “civil discourse” on ICANN participants. Fowlie’s decision to pursue a dispute resolution process showed that he believed that his behavior, which was neither respectful nor civil according to the people on that airplane, was justifiable under the circumstances. Fowlie lost his temper – and a dispute – over bad airline service. We wonder if he now has a bit more sympathy for the sometimes intemperate language used by people in the ICANN community who think that fundamental rights of free expression or privacy or consumer interests are being lost. The stakes are a bit higher than a missed meal. Unfortunately, Fowlie’s speech at the Nairobi meeting shows that he seems to have learned nothing from this incident. • Email to a friend • Article Search • • A busy two weeks for Internet governance There is so much going on this week and next week in Internet governance and IGP is so involved that we barely have time to blog about it. Here is a quick summary and some links to more information; it includes tales of ITU and the RIRs, the Council of Europe, ICANN Nairobi, and Google-Italy. • Email to a friend • Article Search • • CFP: Third International Workshop on Global Internet Governance: An Interdisciplinary Research Field in Construction The Global Internet Governance Academic Network (GigaNet) invites you to participate in its third scholarly workshop to be held in Montreal (QC), Canada, on 30-31 May 2010. This workshop is organized in cooperation with the Canadian Communication Association and Media at McGill, during the Canadian Federation for the Humanities and Social Sciences (CFHSS) 2010 Congress week in Montreal. Building on the success of its first two editions, respectively in Paris, France in June 2008 and in Brussels, Belgium in May 2009, the purpose of this third GigaNet workshop is twofold. • Email to a friend • Article Search • • ------------------------------ *Click here to safely unsubscribe now from "Internet Governance Project Headlines" or change your subscription or subscribe * ------------------------------ ------------------------------ Your requested content delivery powered by FeedBlitz, LLC, 9 Thoreau Way, Sudbury, MA 01776, USA. +1.978.776.9498 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Mar 16 13:21:02 2010 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 20:21:02 +0300 Subject: [governance] Re: ITU IPv6 Event report sought Message-ID: Anybody have anything? Seemingly, there was no web/audio/podcast, which is not surprising. Has the ITU released anything? a press release? -- 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 jcurran at arin.net Tue Mar 16 13:40:42 2010 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 13:40:42 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: ITU IPv6 Event report sought In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0FAFA0E9-44F0-4755-A0AB-7171C67EC796@arin.net> On Mar 16, 2010, at 6:21 PM, McTim wrote: > > Anybody have anything? The 1st meeting of the ITU IPv6 Study Group is still underway (it's presently 6:30 PM in Geneva). The protocol for discussing what happens at an ITU study group is a little unclear, as the meetings are "open" (to members and invited guests) but not to the public at large. Once the official report of the meeting is out, I'll be writing a summary for ARIN's community and will happily send a copy along here. /John ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mail at christopherwilkinson.eu Wed Mar 17 05:18:40 2010 From: mail at christopherwilkinson.eu (CW Mail) Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2010 10:18:40 +0100 Subject: Fwd: [governance] Re: ITU IPv6 Event report sought References: Message-ID: <333F49A4-4114-468D-87C6-9C951FD9C434@christopherwilkinson.eu> > http://meetings.apnic.net/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/19182/apnic-community-consultation-report.pdf > > Good morning: No, I do not have anything from Geneva, but here is an > interesting report from Asia-Pacific. > > Regards, CW > > ------------------------------ > > On 16 Mar 2010, at 18:40, John Curran wrote: > >> On Mar 16, 2010, at 6:21 PM, McTim wrote: >>> >>> Anybody have anything? >> >> The 1st meeting of the ITU IPv6 Study Group is still underway >> (it's presently 6:30 PM in Geneva). The protocol for discussing >> what happens at an ITU study group is a little unclear, as the >> meetings are "open" (to members and invited guests) but not to >> the public at large. Once the official report of the meeting >> is out, I'll be writing a summary for ARIN's community and will >> happily send a copy along here. >> >> /John >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Wed Mar 17 05:23:01 2010 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2010 12:23:01 +0300 Subject: [governance] Re: ITU IPv6 Event report sought In-Reply-To: <333F49A4-4114-468D-87C6-9C951FD9C434@christopherwilkinson.eu> References: <333F49A4-4114-468D-87C6-9C951FD9C434@christopherwilkinson.eu> Message-ID: On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 12:18 PM, CW Mail wrote: > > > http://meetings.apnic.net/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/19182/apnic-community-consultation-report.pdf > > > Good > morning: No, I do not have anything from Geneva, but here is an > interesting report from Asia-Pacific. > > yes, I remotely participated in that one. too bad there was no such facility from the ITU event. Milton, what is the url for the ITU mailing list on this issue you just mentioned on the ARIN list? -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From sergioalvesjunior at gmail.com Wed Mar 17 07:29:11 2010 From: sergioalvesjunior at gmail.com (Sergio Alves Junior) Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2010 08:29:11 -0300 Subject: [governance] Re: ITU IPv6 Event report sought In-Reply-To: References: <333F49A4-4114-468D-87C6-9C951FD9C434@christopherwilkinson.eu> Message-ID: <490d0ba61003170429y5a302451k4bb0f89a08cd21f6@mail.gmail.com> Report of the first meeting of the IPv6 Group, Geneva, 15-16 March 2010. Abraços, Sérgio 2010/3/17 McTim > > > On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 12:18 PM, CW Mail wrote: > >> >> >> http://meetings.apnic.net/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/19182/apnic-community-consultation-report.pdf >> >> >> Good >> morning: No, I do not have anything from Geneva, but here is an >> interesting report from Asia-Pacific. >> >> > yes, I remotely participated in that one. > > too bad there was no such facility from the ITU event. > > Milton, what is the url for the ITU mailing list on this issue you > just mentioned on the ARIN list? > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route > indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: T09-IPV6-R-0001!!MSW-E.pages Type: application/octet-stream Size: 301728 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From sergioalvesjunior at gmail.com Wed Mar 17 07:30:34 2010 From: sergioalvesjunior at gmail.com (Sergio Alves Junior) Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2010 08:30:34 -0300 Subject: [governance] Re: ITU IPv6 Event report sought In-Reply-To: <490d0ba61003170429y5a302451k4bb0f89a08cd21f6@mail.gmail.com> References: <333F49A4-4114-468D-87C6-9C951FD9C434@christopherwilkinson.eu> <490d0ba61003170429y5a302451k4bb0f89a08cd21f6@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <490d0ba61003170430j4b05399cge54626cc042419a7@mail.gmail.com> MS Word version. Sérgio 2010/3/17 Sergio Alves Junior > Report of the first meeting of the IPv6 Group, Geneva, 15-16 March 2010. > > Abraços, > Sérgio > > > 2010/3/17 McTim > >> >> >> On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 12:18 PM, CW Mail wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> http://meetings.apnic.net/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/19182/apnic-community-consultation-report.pdf >>> >>> >>> Good >>> morning: No, I do not have anything from Geneva, but here is an >>> interesting report from Asia-Pacific. >>> >>> >> yes, I remotely participated in that one. >> >> too bad there was no such facility from the ITU event. >> >> Milton, what is the url for the ITU mailing list on this issue you >> just mentioned on the ARIN list? >> >> -- >> Cheers, >> >> McTim >> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route >> indicates how we get there." Jon Postel >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: T09-IPV6-R-0001!!MSW-E.doc Type: application/msword Size: 106496 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ocl at gih.com Wed Mar 17 09:26:11 2010 From: ocl at gih.com (Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond) Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2010 14:26:11 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: ITU IPv6 Event report sought In-Reply-To: <490d0ba61003170430j4b05399cge54626cc042419a7@mail.gmail.com> References: <333F49A4-4114-468D-87C6-9C951FD9C434@christopherwilkinson.eu> <490d0ba61003170429y5a302451k4bb0f89a08cd21f6@mail.gmail.com> <490d0ba61003170430j4b05399cge54626cc042419a7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4BA0D873.6020601@gih.com> Thanks - much appreciated. Kind regards, Olivier Le 17/03/2010 12:30, Sergio Alves Junior a écrit : > MS Word version. > Sérgio > > 2010/3/17 Sergio Alves Junior > > > Report of the first meeting of the IPv6 Group, Geneva, 15-16 March > 2010. > > Abraços, > Sérgio > > > 2010/3/17 McTim > > > > > On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 12:18 PM, CW Mail > > wrote: > > >> http://meetings.apnic.net/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/19182/apnic-community-consultation-report.pdf >> >> >> Good morning: No, I do not have anything from Geneva, but >> here is an interesting report from Asia-Pacific. > > > yes, I remotely participated in that one. > > too bad there was no such facility from the ITU event. > > Milton, what is the url for the ITU mailing list on this issue > you > just mentioned on the ARIN list? > > -- > 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 > > > -- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ian at cymru.com Wed Mar 17 12:52:03 2010 From: ian at cymru.com (Ian Cook) Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2010 16:52:03 +0000 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [DNB] African Bot Distribution Message-ID: <4BA108B3.1060903@cymru.com> Title: African Bot Distribution Author: Steve Santorelli Source: Team Cymru Date Published: 16th March 2010 Excerpt: '....This briefing note provides a brief analysis of the numbers of infected computers that have been observed in African countries in recent months. It also details a comparison of these numbers between different countries and how the numbers changed over the 3 months up to February 2010 The data is presented in the form of maps whereby the ‘height’ of a country indicates the number of infected machines within that country. It is likely that the majority of these infected machines will be Windows machines that are part of one or more ‘Botnets’: infected PCs called ‘Bots’ (short for ‘Robot’) that are all under the control of one individual or group that could be located anywhere in the world......' To read the complete article see: http://www.team-cymru.org/ReadingRoom/Whitepapers/2010/african-bot-distribution.pdf For more Security News see: www.team-cymru.org/News www.team-cymru.org/News/secnews.rss The opinions expressed in the posted news items do not necessarily reflect the views of Team Cymru. The appearance of hyperlinks does not constitute endorsement by Team Cymru of an external Web site, or any commercial company, information, products or services contained therein. Dragon News Bytes is a Private and Restricted mailing list. To subscribe to this mailing list, please signup at https://cymru.com/mailman/listinfo/ians_dragon_newsbytes and then send an email to: outreach at cymru.com providing some personal background and two references, preferably from FIRST.ORG www.first.org/members/teams _ //` `\ _,-"\% // /``\`\ ~^~ >__^ |% // / } `\`\ Team Cymru ) )%// / } } }`\`\ Dragon News Bytes / (%/`/.\_/\_/\_/\`/ ( ` `-._` \ , ( \ _`-.__.- %> /_`\ \ `\ \." `-..- ` ``` /_/`"-=-``/_/ ``` ``` For more Security News see: www.team-cymru.org/News www.youtube.com/teamcymru http://twitter.com/teamcymru _____________________________________________________ Ian Cook Security Evangelist Team Cymru www.cymru.com/contact.html 'To communicate simply you must understand profoundly' ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Mar 17 13:18:34 2010 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2010 10:18:34 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Closed concepts In-Reply-To: <28cfc1a41003160846p722d6560w82b53f85cad83e69@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <546865.4414.qm@web83908.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> It is truly amazing the closed nature of the Internet Governance.  The only answer to the Why? is very bad news.  As a person, I know that when I isolate and do not share my intentions with others this leads down a bad path. It is only amplified when applied to group conscience. The terms "open" Transparent and "accountable" have truly lost all sincere meaning in the last decade. (I must at this point appreciate the NICs)   The Idea of the "closed shop" is just too obviously bad to invoke any sympathy therefor. Whether it be for freedom of Ideas or Freedom for work or Study or Worship isolation is bad. The scariest part of this notion of impenetrable quarantine of thought and debate is what it tells us about those on the inside. It tells us quite clearly that those on the inside are afraid of what is on the outside. Afraid it will weaken their position. Afraid they will have to work harder to learn more. Afraid that their positions will not withstand scrutiny. Afraid of the light.   I do not relish or trust or even want to be near decisions made in fear.  If BoD or lists or forums or conferences are closed it speaks volumes of those closing them.  My buddy basically said; If your light is true and good, let it shine before men.* On the otherhand if your intentions are disrespectful, shameful, ignorant and greedy hide them well. Eric   * I know he should have said "others" Ok, truth is, that I said that, I paraphrased. Please be happy on this fine Irish day. --- On Tue, 3/16/10, Brenden Kuerbis wrote: From: Brenden Kuerbis Subject: [governance] [IGP Announce] Internet Governance Project Headlines To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Date: Tuesday, March 16, 2010, 3:46 PM FYI. From: FeedBlitz [mailto:feedblitz at mail.feedblitz.com] On Behalf Of Internet Governance Project Sent: Monday, March 15, 2010 12:10 PM To:  Subject: [IGP Announce] Internet Governance Project Headlines   March 15, 2010 Ruling the Root part II: RPKI and the IP address space  The Nairobi Board resolutions: painful to read  Exposed: ICANN Policy staff manipulation of Board  Civility and Humility: The story of ICANN’s Ombudsman  A busy two weeks for Internet governance  CFP: Third International Workshop on Global Internet Governance: An Interdisciplinary Research Field in Construction  Search Internet Governance Project Headlines  Ruling the Root part II: RPKI and the IP address space The Internet Architecture Board issued a little-noticed statement February 12 that has the potential to revolutionize Internet governance - and not in a good way. The IAB is now claiming that the application of Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) to addressing and routing is "a prerequisite for improving the security of the global routing system." What may get lost in all the technical mumbo-jumbo is that RPKI is a technology of control and identification. We need to think long and hard before embarking on a path that would lead to the global centralization of such authority in a single institution's hands. • Email to a friend • Article Search • • The Nairobi Board resolutions: painful to read The ICANN board issued a fairly large number of resolutions, at the conclusion of its Nairobi meeting.   Give it an A for effort. But on substance? Give them an F. On the .xxx issue, the Board chose to ignore its independent review panel and refused to rectify what was officially determined to be unfair and discriminatory treatment. On the vertical integration issue, it issued a needlessly biased and poorly worded resolution that was an attempt to clarify things but probably did the opposite. There are other gems. We have done the painful work of reading them for you. • Email to a friend • Article Search • • Exposed: ICANN Policy staff manipulation of Board From Avri Doria's blog: "While in a meeting with Board members, a member of my Stakeholder group had an opportunity to read part of one page of the Policy Staff’s briefing report to the Board from across the table (some of us read documents upside down better the we read right side up.) In this case it was all they could do to refrain themself from standing up and yelling “the staff lies.” Doria goes on to point out how inaccurate and biased these secret board briefings can be and how unfair it is that these critical messages are kept secret. There is a vital structural issue here: ICANN's board faces too many issues and relies heavily on the policy staff to tell it what is going on. Unfortunately, during the past 5-6 years, the staff has chosen to take sides on policy issues and to favor some constituency groups over others. Often, this is caused by heavy lobbying of the staff by some of the professional, full-time lobbyists who can invest in constantly following and communicating with them. In other cases it is the staff's way of punishing those who were critical of ICANN, especially its policy staff. New CEO Rod Beckstrom has already made an important move to rectify this situation by replacing his policy vice chair with David Olive; it would seem, however, that lower level staff are still mired in the organizational culture established by his predecessor. There is a simple solution to this: make the board briefings public, with the usual exceptions for information considered confidential for legal, personal or personnel reasons. • Email to a friend • Article Search • • Civility and Humility: The story of ICANN’s Ombudsman His behavior last fall during a dispute over the formation of the NCSG confirmed that Frank Fowlie, ICANN’s Ombudsman, is both unhelpful and biased. If the value-add of the Ombudsman’s office is unclear, the negatives are now very clear indeed. About a week ago the Ottawa Citizen published a story about Fowlie’s angry confrontation with a flight attendant after they failed to serve him a meal on a Paris – Montreal flight. What makes the Air Canada incident important is the way it relates to Fowlie’s campaign for imposing standards of “civil discourse” on ICANN participants. Fowlie’s decision to pursue a dispute resolution process showed that he believed that his behavior, which was neither respectful nor civil according to the people on that airplane, was justifiable under the circumstances. Fowlie lost his temper – and a dispute – over bad airline service. We wonder if he now has a bit more sympathy for the sometimes intemperate language used by people in the ICANN community who think that fundamental rights of free expression or privacy or consumer interests are being lost. The stakes are a bit higher than a missed meal. Unfortunately, Fowlie’s speech at the Nairobi meeting shows that he seems to have learned nothing from this incident. • Email to a friend • Article Search • • A busy two weeks for Internet governance There is so much going on this week and next week in Internet governance and IGP is so involved that we barely have time to blog about it. Here is a quick summary and some links to more information; it includes tales of ITU and the RIRs, the Council of Europe, ICANN Nairobi, and Google-Italy. • Email to a friend • Article Search • • CFP: Third International Workshop on Global Internet Governance: An Interdisciplinary Research Field in Construction The Global Internet Governance Academic Network (GigaNet) invites you to participate in its third scholarly workshop to be held in Montreal (QC), Canada, on 30-31 May 2010. This workshop is organized in cooperation with the Canadian Communication Association and Media at McGill, during the Canadian Federation for the Humanities and Social Sciences (CFHSS) 2010 Congress week in Montreal. Building on the success of its first two editions, respectively in Paris, France in June 2008 and in Brussels, Belgium in May 2009, the purpose of this third GigaNet workshop is twofold. • Email to a friend • Article Search • • Click here to safely unsubscribe now from "Internet Governance Project Headlines" or change your subscription or subscribe  Your requested content delivery powered by FeedBlitz, LLC, 9 Thoreau Way, Sudbury, MA 01776, USA. +1.978.776.9498   -----Inline Attachment Follows----- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jcurran at arin.net Thu Mar 18 07:19:43 2010 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2010 07:19:43 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: ITU IPv6 Event report sought In-Reply-To: <4BA0D873.6020601@gih.com> References: <333F49A4-4114-468D-87C6-9C951FD9C434@christopherwilkinson.eu> <490d0ba61003170429y5a302451k4bb0f89a08cd21f6@mail.gmail.com> <490d0ba61003170430j4b05399cge54626cc042419a7@mail.gmail.com> <4BA0D873.6020601@gih.com> Message-ID: <1B503C0D-BD97-45AE-8E04-62B90005E774@arin.net> Just a point for everyone to be painfully aware of... That is not "The Report of the first meeting of the ITU IPv6 Group". That is a Draft document which was put before the floor and which had numerous interventions by parties to have paragraphs rewritten (approximately 4 hours worth). So, a reading of it gives a sense of the meeting, it's important not to rely on it regarding an specific text. For example, the charter of correspondence study group two was a topic of discussion for more than an hour, and will a barely recognizable derivative of what's presently shown. It's for this reason that draft documents like these are generally not published outside of the study group members. FYI, /John On Mar 17, 2010, at 9:26 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote: Thanks - much appreciated. Kind regards, Olivier Le 17/03/2010 12:30, Sergio Alves Junior a écrit : MS Word version. Sérgio 2010/3/17 Sergio Alves Junior > Report of the first meeting of the IPv6 Group, Geneva, 15-16 March 2010. Abraços, Sérgio -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pbekono at gmail.com Thu Mar 18 10:03:18 2010 From: pbekono at gmail.com (Pascal Bekono) Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2010 15:03:18 +0100 Subject: [governance] Fwd: CALL FOR PAPERS CPRsouth5: Convergence: Infrastructure, services, policies in Xian, China 6-7 December 2010 In-Reply-To: <235173ed1003172302j350a7861m8379a6908a543541@mail.gmail.com> References: <235173ed1003172302j350a7861m8379a6908a543541@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <80f151491003180703l44db713fj83ad06a3fc9881fe@mail.gmail.com> *CALL FOR PAPERS CPRsouth5: Convergence: Infrastructure, services, policies * *6- 8 December 2010, Xian, China* Organized by LIRNEasia and the Research Centre for Information Industry Development, Xian University of Posts and Telecommunications (XUPT), supported by the International Development Research Centre, Canada (IDRC) and the Department for International Development, UK (DFID)* *Introduction* Communication Policy Research: south (CPRsouth) intends to build human capacity in the South by reinforcing and developing the values and commitment of scholars in the region or with substantial interest in the region. The overall objective is to create policy intellectuals capable of informed and effective intervention in ICT policy and regulatory processes in specific country contexts. The conference provides a forum for mid-career and junior scholars to meet face-to-face and exchange ideas, network and improve the quality of their scholarly work, in order to foster the next generation of active scholars and in-situ experts capable of contributing to good ICT policy and regulation in the region. *About the Conference* CPRsouth5 offers researchers the opportunity to discuss their research on ICT regulation and policy in the South with a policy-oriented, international audience and obtain useful feedback. Prior to the conference, tutorial sessions will be held for Young Scholars on the fundamentals of technology, markets, regulation and policy. Previous conferences were held in collaboration with the National College of Public Administration and Governance (NCPAG), University of the Philippines, Diliman (Manila); the Indian Institute of Technology, Madras (Chennai); the Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications (Beijing) and LIRNEasia (Negombo). *Chairs of CPRsouth5* From CPRsouth: Prof. Ashok Jhunjhunwala, Indian Institute of Technology, Madras From LIRNEasia: Prof. Rohan Samarajiva, Chair and CEO, LIRNEasia From XUPT: Prof. Wen Xiaozheng, Vice President, XUPT *Content* The conference will accommodate ~21 paper presenters over the course of two and half days and include sessions on cutting-edge developments on policy and regulation in the South and discussion of the research-policy interface. The audience will be made up of 60+ scholars on ICT policy and regulation, including 30 Young Scholars. Each of the paper sessions will be chaired by a Senior Scholar. Substantive discussant comments from another Senior Scholar will be provided. *Location* Xi\'an University of Post and Telecommunications (XUPT) also known as the cradle of engineers is situated in Northwest of China. XUPT covers six fields in Science, Engineering, Business Management, Economics, Literature and Law giving more prominence to Information and Science Technology. Over 15,000 students are enrolled at the university, including undergraduates, postgraduates, and three-year college students XUPT is located in Xian, one of the historically most important cities of China. It is world famous for its Terra Cotta Warriors and Horses of Qin Shi Huang, the First Emperor of China. *Call for Abstracts* Abstracts for papers on ICT policy and regulation research carried out in the Asia Pacific or relevant to Asia -Pacific may be submitted for review and acceptance. The abstracts must be capable of being classified with at least three keywords from the list below (if you have trouble doing so, it is an indication that your work may not fit this conference). The keywords will be used to assign papers to reviewers in a double-blind process which will yield a short list of approximately 35. Completed papers based on the shortlisted abstracts will be judged by two senior scholars and the highest ranked three papers in each session will be invited to present at the conference. *Keywords* Access, Applications, Business models, Citizen, Civil society, Competition, Conflict, Connectivity, Consumer, Content, Convergence, Cooperation, Demand, Domestic, Efficiency, Emerging markets, Finance, Governance, Growth, Inclusion, Indicators, Information, Infrastructure, Innovation, International, Judiciary, Knowledge, Legislation, Markets, Monopoly, Networks, Performance, Policy, Poverty, Productivity, Property, Public goods, Reforms, Regional, Regulation, Strategy, Supply, Transparency Please indicate the relevant keywords from the above list in your abstract *Submission Guidelines* Abstracts should be submitted electronically at www.cprsouth.org on or before 25 April 2010 and must contain the following: a. 500-word abstract of the paper, including a minimum of three and a maximum of five keywords from the list given above. Include at least three references to prior work. b. curriculum vitae (one page) The document must be named CPRsouth5_Abstract&Bio_YourLastName. It should be in MS office word format. Please note that the abstract and bio should be on the same document. Notification of acceptance of abstracts will be emailed on or before 02 June 2010, and authors will be given two months to submit their completed papers – i.e. full papers have to be submitted for final review by 01 August 2010. Only full papers of acceptable quality that are received by the deadline, will be considered for travel and accommodation support. It is expected that the papers will be polished and improved in the runup to the conference. Presentation coaching will be provided for the selected paper presenters prior to the conference using youtube. Final presentation will be a policy presentation. All paper givers will be required to develop a policy brief based on the final research paper. Paper presenters who make the cut will be notified by 23 August 2010 with contact information for the assigned chair and discussant and instructions on travel arrangements. *Review Criteria* Abstracts will be reviewed according to the following criteria: 1. Clarity of the thesis or the research finding 2. Novelty, significance, and importance to the CPRsouth community 3. Adequacy of methods 4. Quality of writing 5.Appropriateness of interpretations Please note: Only the authors whose papers that are delivered by the August 01, 2010 deadline AND who meet the quality standard will be allowed to present their policy brief at the conference. Other papers may be made available on the CPRsouth website as ‘online-only’. These authors may attend the event at their own expense or if they have applied for and satisfied the criteria for selection as Young Scholars. The papers selected for presentation at the CPRsouth Conference will be uploaded onto the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) database. Therefore please note that the submission of the final papers implies consent to upload them onto the SSRN database. The slides of the presentations made at the conference will be uploaded to SlideShare *Previous conferences* Please visit www.cprsouth.org for programs and presented papers. *Funding* Selected paper givers will be provided with: •Airfare Lowest-cost economy airfare for paper-givers who are citizens of countries with per capita GDP lower than Malaysia Or 50 percent of lowest-cost airfair will be reimbursed for paper-givers who are citizens of countries with per capita GDP equal to or higher than Malaysia • Twin sharing accommodation and meals for the duration of the conference (6-8 December 2010). The cost of transportation to and from airports in home and conference countries, visa fees (if any) and incidental costs have to borne by the participants *Visas* Visas are required to enter China, with very few exceptions. Letters will be provided for this purpose by XUPT after participant selections have been made. Participants are strongly advised to initiate visa approval procedures immediately thereafter *Key Dates* Deadline for abstracts: *25 April 2010* Deadline for complete papers: *01 August 2010* *CPRsouth Board* Prof. Ashok Jhunjhunwala (Chair; Indian Institute of Technology, Madras) Prof. Milagros Rivera (Alternate Chair, National University of Singapore) Mr. Laurent Elder (International Development Research Centre, Canada) Prof. Myeong-Cheol Park (Korea Advanced Institute for Science and Technology, ,) Prof. Rohan Samarajiva (LIRNEasia, Sri Lanka) Ms. Koesmarihati Sugondo (Directorate General of Posts and Telecommunications, Indonesia) Prof. Patrick Xavier (Curtin Business School, Curtin University of Technology, Australia) Prof. Xu Yan (Hong Kong University of Science and Technology Business School) Prof. Yuan Chunhui (Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunication, China) *About LIRNEasia* LIRNEasia is a regional information and communication technology (ICT) policy and regulation research and capacity building organization. LIRNEasia seeks to identify the institutional constraints on effective use of ICTs to improve the lives of the people of Asia-Pacific; work collaboratively with multiple stakeholders to catalyze changes conducive to greater participation by users and suppliers; and contribute to building capacity within the region for evidence-based intervention in the public-policy process. It serves as the administrative partner for CPRsouth. Visit www.lirneasia.net for more information. *Contact information* Mail: CPRsouth, C/o LIRNEasia, 12 Balcombe Place, Colombo 00080, Sri Lanka Telephone: +94 11 267 1160 Fax: +94 11 267 5212 Email: info at cprsouth.org Website: www.cprsouth.org *Conditional on formal approval -- Nirmali Sivapragasam Researcher, LIRNEasia LIRNEasia | www.lirneasia.net | 12 Balcombe Place, Colombo 8, Sri Lanka | v: +94 (11) 267 1160 | f: + 94 (11) 267 5212 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Mar 18 19:58:38 2010 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2010 16:58:38 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Re: ITU IPv6 Event report sought In-Reply-To: <1B503C0D-BD97-45AE-8E04-62B90005E774@arin.net> Message-ID: <566540.35872.qm@web83902.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> I am not reading this right.  Do you mean that "it is for this reason more reports and drafts should be made public" ?   Or are you saying we should not know about such things because the vast majority of the public is too stupid.?   Or are you saying this made people have to explain themselves and that is bad?   Or that no one on the "outside" should know what goes on on the "inside"?   (hopefully explaining this is not tooo much trouble) --- On Thu, 3/18/10, John Curran  So, a reading of it gives a sense of the meeting, it's important not to rely on it regarding an specific text.  For example, the charter of correspondence study group two was a topic of discussion for more than an hour, and will a barely recognizable derivative of  what's presently shown.  It's for this reason that draft documents like these are generally not published outside of the study group members. FYI, /John -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jcurran at arin.net Thu Mar 18 23:21:23 2010 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2010 23:21:23 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: ITU IPv6 Event report sought In-Reply-To: <566540.35872.qm@web83902.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> References: <566540.35872.qm@web83902.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Eric - In groups like the ITU, everyone that happens in the meeting is captured in "the Meeting Report". The Report *is* the official output of the meeting, and parties often negotiate over its content on a sentence-by-sentence basis (I'm not saying this is either good or bad practice, just pointing out how its done for these forums). The final Report is published as the only output of the meeting, and intermediate/working drafts seen in the closed meeting are discarded. This weeks ITU's IPv6 Forum was no different, and the document which has been circulating is the initial Tuesday 2pm draft of the meeting report from the Chair. There was nearly four hours of interventions over the content which followed, and so the final document is likely to be materially different in some areas. My point is simply that releasing the initial Chairman's draft of the meeting report isn't the ITU practice, anymore than allowing open, public participation. /John p.s. (My particular preference is for fully-open meetings, and actual minutes over negotiated meeting reports). On Mar 18, 2010, at 7:58 PM, Eric Dierker wrote: I am not reading this right. Do you mean that "it is for this reason more reports and drafts should be made public" ? Or are you saying we should not know about such things because the vast majority of the public is too stupid.? Or are you saying this made people have to explain themselves and that is bad? Or that no one on the "outside" should know what goes on on the "inside"? (hopefully explaining this is not tooo much trouble) --- On Thu, 3/18/10, John Curran So, a reading of it gives a sense of the meeting, it's important not to rely on it regarding an specific text. For example, the charter of correspondence study group two was a topic of discussion for more than an hour, and will a barely recognizable derivative of what's presently shown. It's for this reason that draft documents like these are generally not published outside of the study group members. FYI, /John -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mail at christopherwilkinson.eu Fri Mar 19 01:40:56 2010 From: mail at christopherwilkinson.eu (CW Mail) Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2010 06:40:56 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: ITU IPv6 Event report sought In-Reply-To: References: <566540.35872.qm@web83902.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <6348C1C6-B8F2-4B4B-843A-B1D2A49DA097@christopherwilkinson.eu> Okay . . . So, who's got the final version? CW On 19 Mar 2010, at 04:21, John Curran wrote: > Eric - > > In groups like the ITU, everyone that happens in the meeting is > captured in > "the Meeting Report". The Report *is* the official output of the > meeting, and > parties often negotiate over its content on a sentence-by-sentence > basis (I'm > not saying this is either good or bad practice, just pointing out > how its done > for these forums). The final Report is published as the only output > of the > meeting, and intermediate/working drafts seen in the closed meeting > are > discarded. > > This weeks ITU's IPv6 Forum was no different, and the document which > has > been circulating is the initial Tuesday 2pm draft of the meeting > report from the > Chair. There was nearly four hours of interventions over the > content which > followed, and so the final document is likely to be materially > different in some > areas. My point is simply that releasing the initial Chairman's > draft of the > meeting report isn't the ITU practice, anymore than allowing open, > public > participation. > > /John > > p.s. (My particular preference is for fully-open meetings, and > actual minutes > over negotiated meeting reports). > > On Mar 18, 2010, at 7:58 PM, Eric Dierker wrote: >> I am not reading this right. Do you mean that "it is for this >> reason more reports and drafts should be made public" ? >> >> Or are you saying we should not know about such things because the >> vast majority of the public is too stupid.? >> >> Or are you saying this made people have to explain themselves and >> that is bad? >> >> Or that no one on the "outside" should know what goes on on the >> "inside"? >> >> (hopefully explaining this is not tooo much trouble) >> --- On Thu, 3/18/10, John Curran >> So, a reading of it gives a sense of the meeting, it's important not >> to rely on it regarding an specific text. For example, the charter >> of correspondence study group two was a topic of discussion for >> more than an hour, and will a barely recognizable derivative of >> what's presently shown. It's for this reason that draft documents >> like these are generally not published outside of the study group >> members. >> >> FYI, >> /John > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Fri Mar 19 01:50:02 2010 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2010 08:50:02 +0300 Subject: [governance] Re: ITU IPv6 Event report sought In-Reply-To: <6348C1C6-B8F2-4B4B-843A-B1D2A49DA097@christopherwilkinson.eu> References: <566540.35872.qm@web83902.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> <6348C1C6-B8F2-4B4B-843A-B1D2A49DA097@christopherwilkinson.eu> Message-ID: On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 8:40 AM, CW Mail wrote: > Okay . . . So, who's got the final version? > It seems it may not be ready for quite a while if they need to continue negotiations on a line by line basis. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jcurran at arin.net Fri Mar 19 04:46:42 2010 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2010 04:46:42 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: ITU IPv6 Event report sought In-Reply-To: References: <566540.35872.qm@web83902.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> <6348C1C6-B8F2-4B4B-843A-B1D2A49DA097@christopherwilkinson.eu> Message-ID: <5D168EB9-7E47-4E1B-A1BF-7CC97544C4F3@arin.net> On Mar 19, 2010, at 1:50 AM, McTim wrote: ... On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 8:40 AM, CW Mail > wrote: Okay . . . So, who's got the final version? It seems it may not be ready for quite a while if they need to continue negotiations on a line by line basis. The negotiations were all done already in session, but several delegates from various ITu members indicated that they would send text to the Chair regarding (generally correcting sections which summarized their particularly interventions during the meeting). The Chair has the unenviable job of having to collect submissions of this type which we've agreed on principle, actual edits from the floor, and put it all together. This generally will go back out to the delegates to check one more time, and only then does it get released. My optimistic estimate is early next week. /John -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Mar 19 05:13:24 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2010 17:13:24 +0800 Subject: [governance] European Parliament report on Internet governance References: Message-ID: <2C132A3C-978A-4B77-9BB3-259A717005B6@ciroap.org> I'm forwarding the important message below, with permission from the author who is Advocacy Coordinator for the European Digital Rights Initiative (EDRi). Begin forwarded message: > From: "Joe McNamee" > Date: 19 March 2010 5:09:17 PM GMT+08:00 > To: "'Jeremy Malcolm'" > Subject: RE: [EDRi-members] Internet governance > > > Dear all, > > The European Parliament is currently preparing a non-legislative report on Internet governance. > > The Committee responsible (Industry) is going fairly slowly, but the MEP in charge has produced a fairly ill-informed document (in my humble opinion) which includes rather unwelcome, confused and contradictory thoughts, such as these: > http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+COMPARL+PE-438.468+01+DOC+PDF+V0//EN&language=EN > > 6. Bearing in mind that problems involving the Internet worldwide will continue to appear in forthcoming years, it is important that the EU institutions continue to work – as they are already doing on many fronts – on everything that may affect Europe’s values and fundamental rights’ heritage to ensure these are accepted in the global management of the Internet. Progress must therefore continue to be made on the following: > > –guaranteeing plural and non-discriminatory access to the Internet, > –defending the European view on Internet neutrality, > –aspects connected with security in the face of threats or attacks, > –protection of citizens’ right to privacy and resolution of questions as to who has jurisdiction and which law is applicable in deciding where cases are heard (given that the Rome II agreement expressly excludes non-contractual conflicts connected with the right to privacy), > –protection of intellectual property rights and guarantees regarding access to users’ culture, > –guaranteeing free competition, > –combating crime and, specifically, protection of minors’ rights. > > > The “Opinions” from other committees are generally bland and repeatedly call for “more transparency” from ICANN. My fear is that this chipping away at ICANN will lead us slowly in the direction of the ITU (lets not forget, without having nightmares, that the ITU and WIPO made a bid to fulfil the tasks now undertaken by ICANN!). To that end, I would like to draw MEPs’ attention to the fact (?) that there aren’t major problems with ICANN’s transparency, while the ITU would be a disaster for transparency, at least for the following 3 reasons. > > Companies pay to participate in ITU discussions: > http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/membership/cost.html > > This payment is actively sold by the ITU as a way of buying influence: They get “access to various meetings at which decision-makers and potential partners are engaged in discussions” (http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/membership/sector.html) > . > Even more surprisingly, the documents adopted by the ITU are not widely available and must be purchased. See, for example: > http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-X.Sup6-200909-I/en > > As a result, I’m sure that there are members that know this issue far better than I do, particularly with regard to whether or not there are significant transparency issues in ICANN. I therefore need your feedback on a. if EDRi should be taking a view on this, b. if we should be taking the view described above or c. if we should be taking another view? > > Best regards, > > Joe > > > Joe McNamee > Advocacy Coordinator > European Digital Rights > 39/3 Rue Montoyer > B-1000 Brussels > Belgium > Tel: +32 2 550 4112 > http://www.edri.org -- Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 CI is 50 Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010. Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer rights around the world. http://www.consumersinternational.org/50 Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From goldstein.roxana at gmail.com Fri Mar 19 08:20:32 2010 From: goldstein.roxana at gmail.com (Roxana Goldstein) Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2010 09:20:32 -0300 Subject: [governance] European Parliament report on Internet governance In-Reply-To: <2C132A3C-978A-4B77-9BB3-259A717005B6@ciroap.org> References: <2C132A3C-978A-4B77-9BB3-259A717005B6@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <4ca4162f1003190520n10195856y9008096bf4631c66@mail.gmail.com> Hi Jeremy, Thanks a lot for this meaningful info. Could this be resend to other networks? Thanks a lot in advance. Kind regards, Roxana 2010/3/19 Jeremy Malcolm > I'm forwarding the important message below, with permission from the author > who is Advocacy Coordinator for the European Digital Rights Initiative > (EDRi). > > Begin forwarded message: > > *From: *"Joe McNamee" > *Date: *19 March 2010 5:09:17 PM GMT+08:00 > *To: *"'Jeremy Malcolm'" > *Subject: **RE: [EDRi-members] Internet governance* > > > Dear all, > > > > The European Parliament is currently preparing a non-legislative report on > Internet governance. > > > > The Committee responsible (Industry) is going fairly slowly, but the MEP in > charge has produced a fairly ill-informed document (in my humble opinion) > which includes rather unwelcome, confused and contradictory thoughts, such > as these: > > > http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+COMPARL+PE-438.468+01+DOC+PDF+V0//EN&language=EN > > > > 6. Bearing in mind that problems involving the Internet worldwide will > continue to appear in forthcoming years, it is important that the EU > institutions continue to work – as they are already doing on many fronts – > on everything that may affect Europe’s values and fundamental rights’ > heritage to ensure these are accepted in the global management of the > Internet. Progress must therefore continue to be made on the following: > > –guaranteeing plural and non-discriminatory access to the Internet, > > –defending the European view on Internet neutrality, > > –aspects connected with security in the face of threats or attacks, > > –protection of citizens’ right to privacy and resolution of questions as to > who has jurisdiction and which law is applicable in deciding where cases are > heard (given that the Rome II agreement expressly excludes non-contractual > conflicts connected with the right to privacy), > > –protection of intellectual property rights and guarantees regarding access > to users’ culture, > > –guaranteeing free competition, > > –combating crime and, specifically, protection of minors’ rights. > > > > The “Opinions” from other committees are generally bland and repeatedly > call for “more transparency” from ICANN. My fear is that this chipping away > at ICANN will lead us slowly in the direction of the ITU (lets not forget, > without having nightmares, that the ITU and WIPO made a bid to fulfil the > tasks now undertaken by ICANN!). To that end, I would like to draw MEPs’ > attention to the fact (?) that there aren’t major problems with ICANN’s > transparency, while the ITU would be a disaster for transparency, at least > for the following 3 reasons. > > > > Companies pay to participate in ITU discussions: > > http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/membership/cost.html > > > > This payment is actively sold by the ITU as a way of buying influence: They > get “access to various meetings at which decision-makers and potential > partners are engaged in discussions” ( > http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/membership/sector.html) > > . > > Even more surprisingly, the documents adopted by the ITU are not widely > available and must be purchased. See, for example: > > http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-X.Sup6-200909-I/en > > > > As a result, I’m sure that there are members that know this issue far > better than I do, particularly with regard to whether or not there are > significant transparency issues in ICANN. I therefore need your feedback on > a. if EDRi should be taking a view on this, b. if we should be taking the > view described above or c. if we should be taking another view? > > > > Best regards, > > > > Joe > > > > > > Joe McNamee > > Advocacy Coordinator > > European Digital Rights > > 39/3 Rue Montoyer > > B-1000 Brussels > > Belgium > > Tel: +32 2 550 4112 > > http://www.edri.org > > > -- > > *Jeremy Malcolm > Project Coordinator* > Consumers International > Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > *CI is 50* > Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in > 2010. > Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer > rights around the world. > *http://www.consumersinternational.org/50* > > Read our email confidentiality notice. > Don't print this email unless necessary. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Mar 19 13:29:25 2010 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2010 10:29:25 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Re: ITU IPv6 "Consensus" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <396246.24753.qm@web83916.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> John,   This is most excellent and I appreciate your candor. I agree with your PS.   I think in the last decade we have lost a lot of respect for the individual.  It is not by decree or intentions. But from the best I can tell it is by a truly positive desire for consensus.  This hard concept between how we reach "scientific" agreement and how we reach "democratic" motion in our "soft" sciences.    The problem comes about in these drafts or position papers. There is an involuntary yet pervasive need to wipe out individual mindset and brilliance in order to achieve this elusive declaration of consensus.  It becomes a publish or perish group mindset that of necessity ignores personal accountability for a particular notion -- no ego ownership.   So I would ask that you look harder and throw some vigor into your personal preference. That we begin not just keeping notes but also invite and support and encourage dissenting opinions as it were or are.  Not truly dissent but adjunct and critical and parallel.   I very much appreciate McTim and you bringing this subject into the open light many would claim the ITU needs more of such ultraviolet light. --- On Fri, 3/19/10, John Curran wrote: From: John Curran Subject: Re: [governance] Re: ITU IPv6 Event report sought To: "Eric Dierker" Cc: "governance at lists.cpsr.org" Date: Friday, March 19, 2010, 3:21 AM Eric -    In groups like the ITU, everyone that happens in the meeting is captured in  "the Meeting Report".  The Report *is* the official output of the meeting, and  parties often negotiate over its content on a sentence-by-sentence basis (I'm not saying this is either good or bad practice, just pointing out how its done for these forums).  The final Report is published as the only output of the  meeting, and intermediate/working drafts seen in the closed meeting are  discarded. This weeks ITU's IPv6 Forum was no different, and the document which has been circulating is the initial Tuesday 2pm draft of the meeting report from the  Chair.  There was nearly four hours of interventions over the content which  followed, and so the final document is likely to be materially different in some  areas.   My point is simply that releasing the initial Chairman's draft of the  meeting report isn't the ITU practice, anymore than allowing open, public participation. /John p.s.  (My particular preference is for fully-open meetings, and actual minutes          over negotiated meeting reports). On Mar 18, 2010, at 7:58 PM, Eric Dierker wrote: I am not reading this right.  Do you mean that "it is for this reason more reports and drafts should be made public" ?   Or are you saying we should not know about such things because the vast majority of the public is too stupid.?   Or are you saying this made people have to explain themselves and that is bad?   Or that no one on the "outside" should know what goes on on the "inside"?   (hopefully explaining this is not tooo much trouble) --- On Thu, 3/18/10, John Curran  So, a reading of it gives a sense of the meeting, it's important not to rely on it regarding an specific text.  For example, the charter of correspondence study group two was a topic of discussion for more than an hour, and will a barely recognizable derivative of  what's presently shown.  It's for this reason that draft documents like these are generally not published outside of the study group members. FYI, /John -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Mar 19 13:56:01 2010 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2010 10:56:01 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] EU Parliment Principles Message-ID: <418649.12591.qm@web83914.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Is there anything not to agree with here?  Good Law Schools have some courses and spend some time on a subjet usually called "Conflicts of Laws" or some such thing.  Philosophers have been dealing with conflicts of fundamental truths for years. Raw scientists basically reject a new law when in conflict with another existing law.  Lincoln believed strongly that no natural manmade law could conflict with immutable inherint law.  Ho Chi Minh adopted "the Declaration of Independence" as did Juarez as Law not to be contravened.   So what is the EU to do with these glaring blatant attempts to please everyone?   Will they as we predict, foresake individual rights for the preservation of the political status quo?  Will freedom of competition mean as so often Corporate and IP rights over free speech and liberty of non-commercial interests?     –guaranteeing plural and non-discriminatory access to the Internet, –defending the European view on Internet neutrality, –aspects connected with security in the face of threats or attacks, –protection of citizens’ right to privacy and resolution of questions as to who has jurisdiction and which law is applicable in deciding where cases are heard (given that the Rome II agreement expressly excludes non-contractual conflicts connected with the right to privacy), –protection of intellectual property rights and guarantees regarding access to users’ culture, –guaranteeing free competition, –combating crime and, specifically, protection of minors’ rights. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jlfullsack at orange.fr Fri Mar 19 17:39:39 2010 From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK) Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2010 22:39:39 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] European Parliament report on Internet governance In-Reply-To: <2C132A3C-978A-4B77-9BB3-259A717005B6@ciroap.org> References: <2C132A3C-978A-4B77-9BB3-259A717005B6@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <22496511.154820.1269034779185.JavaMail.www@wwinf1g24> Dear members of the list There is at least a forth reason to the "desastreous ITU transparency", curiously forgot in the forwarded message : the absence of CS in the ITU's bodies ! This is a serious paradox since multistakeholderism is the mainstay of the WSIS and the ITU, who is in charge of its organization, is all but MS ! Unfortunately, this paradox wasn't seriously challenged by the CS, neither during the WSIS itself, nor during its follow-up. The reason is probably because there are a handful of (very) rich NGOs who can afford to pay the expensive membership fares for being an "ITU associate member", a species specially and recently created inside of the ITU for a cosmetic purpose : "look, how the ITU is open to CS" ! Another reason -and a major one- ignored in this mail, is that the payment of its 650 or so "sector members" is a bare necessity for the ITU, since its financial resources are critical and its budget is in the "red zone". However, it is true that the "sector members" are all heavily involved in the ICT market and use the ITU for buying influence, mainly through the standardization process. Best regards Jean-Louis Fullsack CSDPTT - France  > Message du 19/03/10 10:14 > De : "Jeremy Malcolm" > A : governance at lists.cpsr.org > Copie à : > Objet : [governance] European Parliament report on Internet governance > > I'm forwarding the important message below, with permission from the author who is Advocacy Coordinator for the European Digital Rights Initiative (EDRi). > > Begin forwarded message: From: "Joe McNamee" > Date: 19 March 2010 5:09:17 PM GMT+08:00 > To: "'Jeremy Malcolm'" > Subject: RE: [EDRi-members] Internet governance > > > Dear all,   The European Parliament is currently preparing a non-legislative report on Internet governance.   The Committee responsible (Industry) is going fairly slowly, but the MEP in charge has produced a fairly ill-informed document (in my humble opinion) which includes rather unwelcome, confused and contradictory thoughts, such as these: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+COMPARL+PE-438.468+01+DOC+PDF+V0//EN&language=EN   6. Bearing in mind that problems involving the Internet worldwide will continue to appear in forthcoming years, it is important that the EU institutions continue to work – as they are already doing on many fronts – on everything that may affect Europe’s values and fundamental rights’ heritage to ensure these are accepted in the global management of the Internet. Progress must therefore continue to be made on the following: –guaranteeing plural and non-discriminatory access to the Internet, –defending the European view on Internet neutrality, –aspects connected with security in the face of threats or attacks, –protection of citizens’ right to privacy and resolution of questions as to who has jurisdiction and which law is applicable in deciding where cases are heard (given that the Rome II agreement expressly excludes non-contractual conflicts connected with the right to privacy), –protection of intellectual property rights and guarantees regarding access to users’ culture, –guaranteeing free competition, –combating crime and, specifically, protection of minors’ rights.   The “Opinions” from other committees are generally bland and repeatedly call for “more transparency” from ICANN. My fear is that this chipping away at ICANN will lead us slowly in the direction of the ITU (lets not forget, without having nightmares, that the ITU and WIPO made a bid to fulfil the tasks now undertaken by ICANN!). To that end, I would like to draw MEPs’ attention to the fact (?) that there aren’t major problems with ICANN’s transparency, while the ITU would be a disaster for transparency, at least for the following 3 reasons.   Companies pay to participate in ITU discussions: http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/membership/cost.html   This payment is actively sold by the ITU as a way of buying influence: They get “access to various meetings at which decision-makers and potential partners are engaged in discussions” (http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/membership/sector.html) . Even more surprisingly, the documents adopted by the ITU are not widely available and must be purchased. See, for example: http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-X.Sup6-200909-I/en   As a result, I’m sure that there are members that know this issue far better than I do, particularly with regard to whether or not there are significant transparency issues in ICANN. I therefore need your feedback on a. if EDRi should be taking a view on this, b. if we should be taking the view described above or c. if we should be taking another view?   Best regards,   Joe     Joe McNamee Advocacy Coordinator European Digital Rights 39/3  Rue Montoyer B-1000 Brussels Belgium Tel: +32 2 550 4112 http://www.edri.org > -- Jeremy Malcolm > Project Coordinator > Consumers International > Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 CI is 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.> > > > [ message-footer.txt (0.4 Ko) ] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From katitza at datos-personales.org Fri Mar 19 18:36:29 2010 From: katitza at datos-personales.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2010 18:36:29 -0400 Subject: [governance] UPDATE: Moving to EFF (Effective March 31) Message-ID: <032006BA-8731-44A4-8099-60A2D9F93F6C@datos-personales.org> Greetings, I am writing to let you know that I will be leaving my position at the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) as of March 31, 2010, to join the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) as International Rights Director. There I will continue to work on international privacy issues, with special emphasis on law enforcement, government surveillance, and cross border data flow, and will expand the scope of my Internet policy work to include issues concerning cybersecurity, freedom of expression, and copyright. EFF is a strong advocate for citizens' rights, with a history of working at the intersection of law and technology. EFF is headquartered in California, with over 14,000 members around the world, and an advocacy list of more than 70,000 supporters worldwide. I will be joining Gwen Hinze and Eddan Katz on EFF's international team in this important work. After April 1, my contact details will be as follows: Katitza Rodriguez, International Rights Director Electronic Frontier Foundation 454 Shotwell Street San Francisco, CA 94110 USA +1 415 436 9333 (voice) http://www.eff.org katitza at eff.org katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email) I look forward to continuing to work with you in my new role at EFF. Thank you and best regards, Katitza -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anja at cis-india.org Sat Mar 20 02:33:20 2010 From: anja at cis-india.org (Anja Kovacs) Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2010 12:03:20 +0530 Subject: [governance] UPDATE: Moving to EFF (Effective March 31) In-Reply-To: <032006BA-8731-44A4-8099-60A2D9F93F6C@datos-personales.org> References: <032006BA-8731-44A4-8099-60A2D9F93F6C@datos-personales.org> Message-ID: <4BA46C30.3090900@cis-india.org> Congratulations on your new job, Katitza! Look forward to continuing to work with you. Warm wishes from a summery Bangalore, Anja On Saturday 20 March 2010 04:06 AM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote: > Greetings, > > I am writing to let you know that I will be leaving my position at the > Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) as of March 31, 2010, to > join the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) as International Rights > Director. There I will continue to work on international privacy issues, > with special emphasis on law enforcement, government surveillance, and > cross border data flow, and will expand the scope of my Internet policy > work to include issues concerning cybersecurity, freedom of expression, > and copyright. EFF is a strong advocate for citizens' rights, with a > history of working at the > intersection of law and technology. EFF is headquartered in California, > with over 14,000 members around the world, and an advocacy list of more > than 70,000 supporters worldwide. I will be joining Gwen Hinze and Eddan > Katz on EFF's international team in this important work. > > After April 1, my contact details will be as follows: > > Katitza Rodriguez, International Rights Director > Electronic Frontier Foundation > 454 Shotwell Street > San Francisco, CA 94110 USA > +1 415 436 9333 (voice) > http://www.eff.org > katitza at eff.org > katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email) > > I look forward to continuing to work with you in my new role at EFF. > > Thank you and best regards, > > Katitza > > -- Dr. Anja Kovacs Centre for Internet and Society No. 194, 2nd 'C' Cross Domlur 2nd Stage Bangalore 560071, India T: +91-(0)80-25350955 | F: +91-(0)80-41148130 M: +91-9611747212 | W: www.cis-india.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Sat Mar 20 05:17:54 2010 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2010 10:17:54 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] UPDATE: Moving to EFF (Effective March 31) References: <032006BA-8731-44A4-8099-60A2D9F93F6C@datos-personales.org> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A069C8@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Best wishes Katitza, thanks for the great work you have done. And indeed the challenges in your new position are rather similar. BTW, it would be good to have a more active EFF in the IGF :-))) Wolfgang ________________________________ Von: Katitza Rodriguez [mailto:katitza at datos-personales.org] Gesendet: Fr 19.03.2010 23:36 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org Betreff: [governance] UPDATE: Moving to EFF (Effective March 31) Greetings, I am writing to let you know that I will be leaving my position at the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) as of March 31, 2010, to join the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) as International Rights Director. There I will continue to work on international privacy issues, with special emphasis on law enforcement, government surveillance, and cross border data flow, and will expand the scope of my Internet policy work to include issues concerning cybersecurity, freedom of expression, and copyright. EFF is a strong advocate for citizens' rights, with a history of working at the intersection of law and technology. EFF is headquartered in California, with over 14,000 members around the world, and an advocacy list of more than 70,000 supporters worldwide. I will be joining Gwen Hinze and Eddan Katz on EFF's international team in this important work. After April 1, my contact details will be as follows: Katitza Rodriguez, International Rights Director Electronic Frontier Foundation 454 Shotwell Street San Francisco, CA 94110 USA +1 415 436 9333 (voice) http://www.eff.org katitza at eff.org katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email) I look forward to continuing to work with you in my new role at EFF. Thank you and best regards, Katitza ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Sat Mar 20 05:39:29 2010 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2010 10:39:29 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] European Parliament report on Internet governance References: <2C132A3C-978A-4B77-9BB3-259A717005B6@ciroap.org> <22496511.154820.1269034779185.JavaMail.www@wwinf1g24> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A069CA@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Jean Louis all this are good point, however we had a number of efforts both within WGIG and in the IGF to encourage ITU to be more open to CS. As a result in Antalya 2006 ITU created a WG to study the options for an involvment of CS in the ITU. The problem: Nobody participated actively, no papers were send to the ITU during 2007. The ITU Council in 2008 closed the WG and took the silence of CS groups as a proof that CS is not interested on ITU work. The only thing you can do is to go via member states to launch a new effort in Guadalajara in November 2010. Wolfgang ________________________________ Von: Jean-Louis FULLSACK [mailto:jlfullsack at orange.fr] Gesendet: Fr 19.03.2010 22:39 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeremy Malcolm Betreff: re: [governance] European Parliament report on Internet governance Dear members of the list There is at least a forth reason to the "desastreous ITU transparency", curiously forgot in the forwarded message : the absence of CS in the ITU's bodies ! This is a serious paradox since multistakeholderism is the mainstay of the WSIS and the ITU, who is in charge of its organization, is all but MS ! Unfortunately, this paradox wasn't seriously challenged by the CS, neither during the WSIS itself, nor during its follow-up. The reason is probably because there are a handful of (very) rich NGOs who can afford to pay the expensive membership fares for being an "ITU associate member", a species specially and recently created inside of the ITU for a cosmetic purpose : "look, how the ITU is open to CS" ! Another reason -and a major one- ignored in this mail, is that the payment of its 650 or so "sector members" is a bare necessity for the ITU, since its financial resources are critical and its budget is in the "red zone". However, it is true that the "sector members" are all heavily involved in the ICT market and use the ITU for buying influence, mainly through the standardization process. Best regards Jean-Louis Fullsack CSDPTT - France > Message du 19/03/10 10:14 > De : "Jeremy Malcolm" > A : governance at lists.cpsr.org > Copie à : > Objet : [governance] European Parliament report on Internet governance > > I'm forwarding the important message below, with permission from the author who is Advocacy Coordinator for the European Digital Rights Initiative (EDRi). > > Begin forwarded message: From: "Joe McNamee" > Date: 19 March 2010 5:09:17 PM GMT+08:00 > To: "'Jeremy Malcolm'" > Subject: RE: [EDRi-members] Internet governance > > > Dear all, The European Parliament is currently preparing a non-legislative report on Internet governance. The Committee responsible (Industry) is going fairly slowly, but the MEP in charge has produced a fairly ill-informed document (in my humble opinion) which includes rather unwelcome, confused and contradictory thoughts, such as these: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+COMPARL+PE-438.468+01+DOC+PDF+V0//EN&language=EN 6. Bearing in mind that problems involving the Internet worldwide will continue to appear in forthcoming years, it is important that the EU institutions continue to work - as they are already doing on many fronts - on everything that may affect Europe's values and fundamental rights' heritage to ensure these are accepted in the global management of the Internet. Progress must therefore continue to be made on the following: -guaranteeing plural and non-discriminatory access to the Internet, -defending the European view on Internet neutrality, -aspects connected with security in the face of threats or attacks, -protection of citizens' right to privacy and resolution of questions as to who has jurisdiction and which law is applicable in deciding where cases are heard (given that the Rome II agreement expressly excludes non-contractual conflicts connected with the right to privacy), -protection of intellectual property rights and guarantees regarding access to users' culture, -guaranteeing free competition, -combating crime and, specifically, protection of minors' rights. The "Opinions" from other committees are generally bland and repeatedly call for "more transparency" from ICANN. My fear is that this chipping away at ICANN will lead us slowly in the direction of the ITU (lets not forget, without having nightmares, that the ITU and WIPO made a bid to fulfil the tasks now undertaken by ICANN!). To that end, I would like to draw MEPs' attention to the fact (?) that there aren't major problems with ICANN's transparency, while the ITU would be a disaster for transparency, at least for the following 3 reasons. Companies pay to participate in ITU discussions: http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/membership/cost.html This payment is actively sold by the ITU as a way of buying influence: They get "access to various meetings at which decision-makers and potential partners are engaged in discussions" (http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/membership/sector.html) . Even more surprisingly, the documents adopted by the ITU are not widely available and must be purchased. See, for example: http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-X.Sup6-200909-I/en As a result, I'm sure that there are members that know this issue far better than I do, particularly with regard to whether or not there are significant transparency issues in ICANN. I therefore need your feedback on a. if EDRi should be taking a view on this, b. if we should be taking the view described above or c. if we should be taking another view? Best regards, Joe Joe McNamee Advocacy Coordinator European Digital Rights 39/3 Rue Montoyer B-1000 Brussels Belgium Tel: +32 2 550 4112 http://www.edri.org > -- Jeremy Malcolm > Project Coordinator > Consumers International > Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 CI is 50 Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010. Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer rights around the world. > http://www.consumersinternational.org/50 > > Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. > > > > [ message-footer.txt (0.4 Ko) ] ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Sat Mar 20 10:29:49 2010 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2010 07:29:49 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] European Parliament report on Internet governance In-Reply-To: <22496511.154820.1269034779185.JavaMail.www@wwinf1g24> Message-ID: <659932.47785.qm@web83911.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> So How is this challenge met?  I take what you say at face value.  I incorporate your core value that CS should be more involved in ITU. I assume that there is a barrier well crafted by those who have an interest in denying CS involvement in the ITU. I presume that outside the closed meetings CS is not heard as it should be to be effective.   Is just buying seats appropriate?  Is existing political government intercession appropriate? --- On Fri, 3/19/10, Jean-Louis FULLSACK wrote: From: Jean-Louis FULLSACK Subject: re: [governance] European Parliament report on Internet governance To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Jeremy Malcolm" Date: Friday, March 19, 2010, 9:39 PM Dear members of the list There is at least a forth reason to the "desastreous ITU transparency", curiously forgot in the forwarded message : the absence of CS in the ITU's bodies ! This is a serious paradox since multistakeholderism is the mainstay of the WSIS and the ITU, who is in charge of its organization, is all but MS ! Unfortunately, this paradox wasn't seriously challenged by the CS, neither during the WSIS itself, nor during its follow-up. The reason is probably because there are a handful of (very) rich NGOs who can afford to pay the expensive membership fares for being an "ITU associate member", a species specially and recently created inside of the ITU for a cosmetic purpose : "look, how the ITU is open to CS" ! Another reason -and a major one- ignored in this mail, is that the payment of its 650 or so "sector members" is a bare necessity for the ITU, since its financial resources are critical and its budget is in the "red zone". However, it is true that the "sector members" are all heavily involved in the ICT market and use the ITU for buying influence, mainly through the standardization process. Best regards Jean-Louis Fullsack CSDPTT - France  > Message du 19/03/10 10:14 > De : "Jeremy Malcolm" > A : governance at lists.cpsr.org > Copie à : > Objet : [governance] European Parliament report on Internet governance > > I'm forwarding the important message below, with permission from the author who is Advocacy Coordinator for the European Digital Rights Initiative (EDRi). > > Begin forwarded message: From: "Joe McNamee" > Date: 19 March 2010 5:09:17 PM GMT+08:00 > To: "'Jeremy Malcolm'" > Subject: RE: [EDRi-members] Internet governance > > > Dear all,   The European Parliament is currently preparing a non-legislative report on Internet governance.   The Committee responsible (Industry) is going fairly slowly, but the MEP in charge has produced a fairly ill-informed document (in my humble opinion) which includes rather unwelcome, confused and contradictory thoughts, such as these: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+COMPARL+PE-438.468+01+DOC+PDF+V0//EN&language=EN   6. Bearing in mind that problems involving the Internet worldwide will continue to appear in forthcoming years, it is important that the EU institutions continue to work – as they are already doing on many fronts – on everything that may affect Europe’s values and fundamental rights’ heritage to ensure these are accepted in the global management of the Internet. Progress must therefore continue to be made on the following: –guaranteeing plural and non-discriminatory access to the Internet, –defending the European view on Internet neutrality, –aspects connected with security in the face of threats or attacks, –protection of citizens’ right to privacy and resolution of questions as to who has jurisdiction and which law is applicable in deciding where cases are heard (given that the Rome II agreement expressly excludes non-contractual conflicts connected with the right to privacy), –protection of intellectual property rights and guarantees regarding access to users’ culture, –guaranteeing free competition, –combating crime and, specifically, protection of minors’ rights.   The “Opinions” from other committees are generally bland and repeatedly call for “more transparency” from ICANN. My fear is that this chipping away at ICANN will lead us slowly in the direction of the ITU (lets not forget, without having nightmares, that the ITU and WIPO made a bid to fulfil the tasks now undertaken by ICANN!). To that end, I would like to draw MEPs’ attention to the fact (?) that there aren’t major problems with ICANN’s transparency, while the ITU would be a disaster for transparency, at least for the following 3 reasons.   Companies pay to participate in ITU discussions: http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/membership/cost.html   This payment is actively sold by the ITU as a way of buying influence: They get “access to various meetings at which decision-makers and potential partners are engaged in discussions” (http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/membership/sector.html) . Even more surprisingly, the documents adopted by the ITU are not widely available and must be purchased. See, for example: http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-X.Sup6-200909-I/en   As a result, I’m sure that there are members that know this issue far better than I do, particularly with regard to whether or not there are significant transparency issues in ICANN. I therefore need your feedback on a. if EDRi should be taking a view on this, b. if we should be taking the view described above or c. if we should be taking another view?   Best regards,   Joe     Joe McNamee Advocacy Coordinator European Digital Rights 39/3  Rue Montoyer B-1000 Brussels Belgium Tel: +32 2 550 4112 http://www.edri.org > --  Jeremy Malcolm > Project Coordinator > Consumers International > Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 CI is 50 Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010. Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer rights around the world.  > http://www.consumersinternational.org/50 > > Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. > > > > [ message-footer.txt (0.4 Ko) ] -----Inline Attachment Follows----- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Sat Mar 20 10:55:06 2010 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2010 07:55:06 -0700 (PDT) Subject: AW: [governance] European Parliament report on Internet governance Message-ID: <658859.8891.qm@web83903.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Wolfgang, You seem historically accurate. Although you conclusion as to what was ITU's conclusion seems skewed.  Probably not that they decided no interest but rather they decided no need to worry about the interest. The same would hold true of your further conclusion that "all we can do" is -----   No matter what the innocence level or the method of achieving inclusion to a heightened degree the immutable truth is that ITU must be desirous of that inclusion for some reason. Pleasure or Pain as it were. They must be inclined to allow for participation either because to deny it would cause them problems or because to accept participation will gain them something of worth.   It would seem that we can basically regard ICANN and ITU as similar creatures.  One of their survival techniques is to block credit to outsiders. Not unusual where value is measured by concrete contributions that have good PR legs and funding ramifications.  Also this is in line with Group Ego and Alpha Dog think.    So I think one of CS' most honorable charges at this point is to diagnose and prognose methodology where good ideas are examined.  Leadership, charisma, funding and other matters aside, we need to create a social atmosphere where the Idea is paramount not the messenger.  If we can place the appropriate weight on good solid contribution, then it is beneficial to all socio-governance bureaucracies to let us in.   The biggest problem in this theory is that CS is quite like ICANN and ITU itself.       --- On Sat, 3/20/10, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" Subject: AW: [governance] European Parliament report on Internet governance To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Jean-Louis FULLSACK" , governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Jeremy Malcolm" Date: Saturday, March 20, 2010, 9:39 AM Jean Louis all this are good point, however we had a number of efforts both within WGIG and in the IGF to encourage ITU to be more open to CS. As a result in Antalya 2006 ITU created a WG to study the options for an involvment of CS in the ITU. The problem: Nobody participated actively, no papers were send to the ITU during 2007. The ITU Council in 2008 closed the WG and took the silence of CS groups as a proof that CS is not interested on ITU work. The only thing you can do is to go via member states to launch a new effort in Guadalajara in November 2010. Wolfgang     ________________________________ Von: Jean-Louis FULLSACK [mailto:jlfullsack at orange.fr] Gesendet: Fr 19.03.2010 22:39 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeremy Malcolm Betreff: re: [governance] European Parliament report on Internet governance Dear members of the list There is at least a forth reason to the "desastreous ITU transparency", curiously forgot in the forwarded message : the absence of CS in the ITU's bodies ! This is a serious paradox since multistakeholderism is the mainstay of the WSIS and the ITU, who is in charge of its organization, is all but MS ! Unfortunately, this paradox wasn't seriously challenged by the CS, neither during the WSIS itself, nor during its follow-up. The reason is probably because there are a handful of (very) rich NGOs who can afford to pay the expensive membership fares for being an "ITU associate member", a species specially and recently created inside of the ITU for a cosmetic purpose : "look, how the ITU is open to CS" ! Another reason -and a major one- ignored in this mail, is that the payment of its 650 or so "sector members" is a bare necessity for the ITU, since its financial resources are critical and its budget is in the "red zone". However, it is true that the "sector members" are all heavily involved in the ICT market and use the ITU for buying influence, mainly through the standardization process. Best regards Jean-Louis Fullsack CSDPTT - France      > Message du 19/03/10 10:14     > De : "Jeremy Malcolm"     > A : governance at lists.cpsr.org     > Copie à :     > Objet : [governance] European Parliament report on Internet governance     >     > I'm forwarding the important message below, with permission from the author who is Advocacy Coordinator for the European Digital Rights Initiative (EDRi).     >         >     Begin forwarded message:         From: "Joe McNamee"         >         Date: 19 March 2010 5:09:17 PM GMT+08:00         >         To: "'Jeremy Malcolm'"         >         Subject: RE: [EDRi-members] Internet governance         >         >                 >                 Dear all,                   The European Parliament is currently preparing a non-legislative report on Internet governance.                   The Committee responsible (Industry) is going fairly slowly, but the MEP in charge has produced a fairly ill-informed document (in my humble opinion) which includes rather unwelcome, confused and contradictory thoughts, such as these:         http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+COMPARL+PE-438.468+01+DOC+PDF+V0//EN&language=EN                     6. Bearing in mind that problems involving the Internet worldwide will continue to appear in forthcoming years, it is important that the EU institutions continue to work - as they are already doing on many fronts - on everything that may affect Europe's values and fundamental rights' heritage to ensure these are accepted in the global management of the Internet. Progress must therefore continue to be made on the following:         -guaranteeing plural and non-discriminatory access to the Internet,         -defending the European view on Internet neutrality,         -aspects connected with security in the face of threats or attacks,         -protection of citizens' right to privacy and resolution of questions as to who has jurisdiction and which law is applicable in deciding where cases are heard (given that the Rome II agreement expressly excludes non-contractual conflicts connected with the right to privacy),         -protection of intellectual property rights and guarantees regarding access to users' culture,         -guaranteeing free competition,         -combating crime and, specifically, protection of minors' rights.                   The "Opinions" from other committees are generally bland and repeatedly call for "more transparency" from ICANN. My fear is that this chipping away at ICANN will lead us slowly in the direction of the ITU (lets not forget, without having nightmares, that the ITU and WIPO made a bid to fulfil the tasks now undertaken by ICANN!). To that end, I would like to draw MEPs' attention to the fact (?) that there aren't major problems with ICANN's transparency, while the ITU would be a disaster for transparency, at least for the following 3 reasons.                   Companies pay to participate in ITU discussions:         http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/membership/cost.html                   This payment is actively sold by the ITU as a way of buying influence: They get "access to various meetings at which decision-makers and potential partners are engaged in discussions" (http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/membership/sector.html)         .         Even more surprisingly, the documents adopted by the ITU are not widely available and must be purchased. See, for example:         http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-X.Sup6-200909-I/en                   As a result, I'm sure that there are members that know this issue far better than I do, particularly with regard to whether or not there are significant transparency issues in ICANN. I therefore need your feedback on a. if EDRi should be taking a view on this, b. if we should be taking the view described above or c. if we should be taking another view?                   Best regards,                   Joe                             Joe McNamee         Advocacy Coordinator         European Digital Rights         39/3  Rue Montoyer         B-1000 Brussels         Belgium         Tel: +32 2 550 4112         http://www.edri.org                                                 >         --     Jeremy Malcolm     > Project Coordinator     > Consumers International     > Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East     > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia     > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599     CI is 50     Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010.     Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer rights around the world.     > http://www.consumersinternational.org/50     >     > Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary.         >                         >     >     > [ message-footer.txt (0.4 Ko) ] ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Sat Mar 20 11:36:59 2010 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2010 15:36:59 +0000 Subject: AW: [governance] European Parliament report on Internet governance In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A069CA@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <2C132A3C-978A-4B77-9BB3-259A717005B6@ciroap.org> <22496511.154820.1269034779185.JavaMail.www@wwinf1g24> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A069CA@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: In message <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A069CA at server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>, at 10:39:29 on Sat, 20 Mar 2010, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" writes >Nobody participated actively, no papers were send to the ITU during >2007. The ITU Council in 2008 closed the WG and took the silence of >CS groups as a proof that CS is not interested on ITU work. That would seem to mirror the way this list works. If people don't post their opinions and contributions, how is (eg) Malcolm supposed to take them into account when finalising a statement? -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jlfullsack at orange.fr Sat Mar 20 18:54:16 2010 From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK) Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2010 23:54:16 +0100 (CET) Subject: AW: [governance] European Parliament report on Internet In-Reply-To: References: <2C132A3C-978A-4B77-9BB3-259A717005B6@ciroap.org> <22496511.154820.1269034779185.JavaMail.www@wwinf1g24> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A069CA@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <12471190.71698.1269125656055.JavaMail.www@wwinf1k13> Sorry Roland The two points I highlighted are "in the public domain" since some years, and well known by all the CS WSIS insiders Best Jean-Louis > Message du 20/03/10 16:38 > De : "Roland Perry" > A : governance at lists.cpsr.org > Copie à : > Objet : Re: AW: [governance] European Parliament report on Internet governance > > > In message > <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A069CA at server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>, > at 10:39:29 on Sat, 20 Mar 2010, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" > writes > >Nobody participated actively, no papers were send to the ITU during > >2007. The ITU Council in 2008 closed the WG and took the silence of > >CS groups as a proof that CS is not interested on ITU work. > > That would seem to mirror the way this list works. If people don't post > their opinions and contributions, how is (eg) Malcolm supposed to take > them into account when finalising a statement? > -- > Roland Perry > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Sat Mar 20 19:08:07 2010 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2010 00:08:07 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] European Parliament report on Internet References: <2C132A3C-978A-4B77-9BB3-259A717005B6@ciroap.org> <22496511.154820.1269034779185.JavaMail.www@wwinf1g24> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20100320224707.0701e120@jefsey.com> Jean-Louis, Wolfgang, Jeremy, May I remind you that I initiated with the internal support of the ITU the http://i-sector.org project seven years ago. I met several times with the ITU to initiate an ITU-I. We discussed several times an IPv6 support using for exemple our telephone numbers as a start (remember ENUM? It was/is off the shelf). I gave up when I realised that: 1. everyone confused between: - the uncompleted Governance (missing enhanced cooperations) of the people's usage, where Civil Society can contribute - the incompletely analysed and acknowledged Adminance of the technology, i.e. research, standards, development, deployment, operations and maintenance of the technology that people use, where Internet Users, "@large", lead users, whatever the way you want to name it were actually influent, and even in charge. 2. most were still blocked by obsolete democratic concept and images, while they already actually participated into what I call polycracy - where the very basis is not a vote or influence, but a pragmatic multi-consensus, using appropriate determination processes. This is why I initiated the iucg at ietf.org (Internet Users Contributing Group,- http://iucg.org). We are still very small in number and lack resources, but what we already obtained in terms of Internet architecture, is not minor. Nor our current impact. Our power is not in letters, votes, etc. our power is in technology. Because it happens that Internet (lead) Users are anthropotechnologically more informed, hence advanced, than "1983 Internet core"'s engineers. At this stage, we take our time, with a major appeal the IESG is to address and that will go the IAB. Its target is to know who/where the Internet Usage Interface technology, of which we made acknowldged the necessity, is to be documented and its resources administered. We are talking of things like the ML-DNS, the unique virtual root matrix with its billions TLDs, the presentation layer, the smart internet, ambient and dynamic content layers, the Intersem (semiotic) exploration, the Internet of the thoughts and subjects, etc. We, people, are the co-owners of the internet and we foot the bill. Yet we do not have the services we pay for. Therefore we do not have the Governance we would expect for the services we do not have. Therefore our interest is to extend the technology in order to satisfy our needs, and to use that technology. We have to do it responsibly because in so doing we can create havoc. This will force every partner (ITU, IETF, ICANN, IGF, etc.) to move ahead and better unserstand both the Internet technology and the Internet Users' needs. ITU partly did it when they asked Francis to investigate classes (they are a part of the existing unused Internet architecture that we just made necessary to document and utilize through the IDNA2008 lessons and improvements over IDNA2003). Everything goes slowlier than hoped: but better late than never. jfc At 10:39 20/03/2010, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: >Jean Louis > >all this are good point, however we had a number of efforts both >within WGIG and in the IGF to encourage ITU to be more open to CS. >As a result in Antalya 2006 ITU created a WG to study the options >for an involvment of CS in the ITU. The problem: Nobody participated >actively, no papers were send to the ITU during 2007. The ITU >Council in 2008 closed the WG and took the silence of CS groups as a >proof that CS is not interested on ITU work. The only thing you can >do is to go via member states to launch a new effort in Guadalajara >in November 2010. > >Wolfgang > > >________________________________ > >Von: Jean-Louis FULLSACK [mailto:jlfullsack at orange.fr] >Gesendet: Fr 19.03.2010 22:39 >An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeremy Malcolm >Betreff: re: [governance] European Parliament report on Internet governance > > > >Dear members of the list > >There is at least a forth reason to the "desastreous ITU >transparency", curiously forgot in the forwarded message : the >absence of CS in the ITU's bodies ! > >This is a serious paradox since multistakeholderism is the mainstay >of the WSIS and the ITU, who is in charge of its organization, is >all but MS ! Unfortunately, this paradox wasn't seriously challenged >by the CS, neither during the WSIS itself, nor during its follow-up. >The reason is probably because there are a handful of (very) rich >NGOs who can afford to pay the expensive membership fares for being >an "ITU associate member", a species specially and recently created >inside of the ITU for a cosmetic purpose : "look, how the ITU is open to CS" ! > >Another reason -and a major one- ignored in this mail, is that the >payment of its 650 or so "sector members" is a bare necessity for >the ITU, since its financial resources are critical and its budget >is in the "red zone". However, it is true that the "sector members" >are all heavily involved in the ICT market and use the ITU for >buying influence, mainly through the standardization process. > >Best regards > >Jean-Louis Fullsack >CSDPTT - France > > > > > > > > Message du 19/03/10 10:14 > > De : "Jeremy Malcolm" > > A : governance at lists.cpsr.org > > Copie à : > > Objet : [governance] European Parliament report on > Internet governance > > > > I'm forwarding the important message below, with > permission from the author who is Advocacy Coordinator for the > European Digital Rights Initiative (EDRi). > > > > > > > > Begin forwarded message: > > > From: "Joe McNamee" > > > > Date: 19 March 2010 5:09:17 PM GMT+08:00 > > > > To: "'Jeremy Malcolm'" > > > > Subject: RE: [EDRi-members] Internet governance > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear all, > > > > The European Parliament is currently preparing a > non-legislative report on Internet governance. > > > > The Committee responsible (Industry) is going > fairly slowly, but the MEP in charge has produced a fairly > ill-informed document (in my humble opinion) which includes rather > unwelcome, confused and contradictory thoughts, such as these: > > >http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+COMPARL+PE-438.468+01+DOC+PDF+V0//EN&language=EN > > > > > > 6. Bearing in mind that problems involving the > Internet worldwide will continue to appear in forthcoming years, it > is important that the EU institutions continue to work - as they > are already doing on many fronts - on everything that may affect > Europe's values and fundamental rights' heritage to ensure these > are accepted in the global management of the Internet. Progress > must therefore continue to be made on the following: > > -guaranteeing plural and non-discriminatory access > to the Internet, > > -defending the European view on Internet neutrality, > > -aspects connected with security in the face of > threats or attacks, > > -protection of citizens' right to privacy and > resolution of questions as to who has jurisdiction and which law is > applicable in deciding where cases are heard (given that the Rome > II agreement expressly excludes non-contractual conflicts connected > with the right to privacy), > > -protection of intellectual property rights and > guarantees regarding access to users' culture, > > -guaranteeing free competition, > > -combating crime and, specifically, protection of > minors' rights. > > > > The "Opinions" from other committees are generally > bland and repeatedly call for "more transparency" from ICANN. My > fear is that this chipping away at ICANN will lead us slowly in the > direction of the ITU (lets not forget, without having nightmares, > that the ITU and WIPO made a bid to fulfil the tasks now undertaken > by ICANN!). To that end, I would like to draw MEPs' attention to > the fact (?) that there aren't major problems with ICANN's > transparency, while the ITU would be a disaster for transparency, > at least for the following 3 reasons. > > > > Companies pay to participate in ITU discussions: > > http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/membership/cost.html > > > > This payment is actively sold by the ITU as a way > of buying influence: They get "access to various meetings at which > decision-makers and potential partners are engaged in discussions" > (http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/membership/sector.html) > > . > > Even more surprisingly, the documents adopted by > the ITU are not widely available and must be purchased. See, for example: > > http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-X.Sup6-200909-I/en > > > > As a result, I'm sure that there are members that > know this issue far better than I do, particularly with regard to > whether or not there are significant transparency issues in ICANN. > I therefore need your feedback on a. if EDRi should be taking a > view on this, b. if we should be taking the view described above or > c. if we should be taking another view? > > > > Best regards, > > > > Joe > > > > > > Joe McNamee > > Advocacy Coordinator > > European Digital Rights > > 39/3 Rue Montoyer > > B-1000 Brussels > > Belgium > > Tel: +32 2 550 4112 > > http://www.edri.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Jeremy Malcolm > > Project Coordinator > > Consumers International > > Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East > > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 > Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia > > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > CI is 50 > > Consumers International marks 50 years of the global > consumer movement in 2010. > > Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and > protect consumer rights around the world. > > http://www.consumersinternational.org/50 > > > > > Read our email confidentiality notice > > . Don't print this email unless necessary. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [ message-footer.txt (0.4 Ko) ] > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gpaque at gmail.com Sat Mar 20 19:26:09 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2010 18:56:09 -0430 Subject: AW: [governance] UPDATE: Moving to EFF (Effective March 31) In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A069C8@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <032006BA-8731-44A4-8099-60A2D9F93F6C@datos-personales.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A069C8@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <4BA55991.30801@gmail.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nkurunziza1999 at yahoo.fr Sun Mar 21 04:40:02 2010 From: nkurunziza1999 at yahoo.fr (Jean Paul NKURUNZIZA) Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2010 08:40:02 +0000 (GMT) Subject: AW: [governance] UPDATE: Moving to EFF (Effective March 31) In-Reply-To: <4BA55991.30801@gmail.com> References: <032006BA-8731-44A4-8099-60A2D9F93F6C@datos-personales.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A069C8@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4BA55991.30801@gmail.com> Message-ID: <877499.36858.qm@web25905.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Hi Katitza, Congratulations for your new position. Wishing you success ! NKURUNZIZA Jean Paul Tel : 783273867 ________________________________ De : Ginger Paque À : governance at lists.cpsr.org; "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" Cc : Katitza Rodriguez Envoyé le : Dim 21 mars 2010, 0 h 26 min 09 s Objet : Re: AW: [governance] UPDATE: Moving to EFF (Effective March 31) Hi Katitza.... Congratulations! I wish you the best of success in this exciting change. I won't wish you "luck", because one of the things I admire about you is that you really do make your own luck. I watch you work, moderate, facilitate and "make things happen". I have seen you arduously defend our privacy rights in the IGF and other spaces. I have learned by watching you, and am amazed how you can move projects along from inception to finish. I am not an active CSISAC (or Public Voice) member, but support the work and issues that you and the others have developed. I do hope you will continue to work on the projects you have nurtured thus far! Congratulations to EFF too! I look forward to seeing your new projects (as Wolfgang said... maybe we will see more of EFF at the IFG now)! Best, Ginger Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: Best wishes Katitza, > >thanks for the great work you have done. And indeed the challenges in your new position are rather similar. BTW, it would be good to have a more active EFF in the IGF :-))) > >Wolfgang > >________________________________ > >Von: Katitza Rodriguez [mailto:katitza at datos-personales.org] >Gesendet: Fr 19.03.2010 23:36 >An: governance at lists.cpsr.org >Betreff: [governance] UPDATE: Moving to EFF (Effective March 31) > > >Greetings, > >I am writing to let you know that I will be leaving my position at the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) as of March 31, 2010, to join the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) as International Rights Director. There I will continue to work on international privacy issues, with special emphasis on law enforcement, government surveillance, and cross border data flow, and will expand the scope of my Internet policy work to include issues concerning cybersecurity, freedom of expression, and copyright. EFF is a strong advocate for citizens' rights, with a history of working at the >intersection of law and technology. EFF is headquartered in California, with over 14,000 members around the world, and an advocacy list of more than 70,000 supporters worldwide. I will be joining Gwen Hinze and Eddan Katz on EFF's international team in this important work. > >After April 1, my contact details will be as follows: > >Katitza Rodriguez, International Rights Director >Electronic Frontier Foundation >454 Shotwell Street >San Francisco, CA 94110 USA >+1 415 436 9333 (voice) >http://www.eff.org >katitza at eff.org katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email) > >I look forward to continuing to work with you in my new role at EFF. > >Thank you and best regards, > >Katitza > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From presidencia at internauta.org.ar Sun Mar 21 09:00:58 2010 From: presidencia at internauta.org.ar (Presidencia Internauta) Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2010 10:00:58 -0300 Subject: AW: [governance] UPDATE: Moving to EFF (Effective March 31) References: <032006BA-8731-44A4-8099-60A2D9F93F6C@datos-personales.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A069C8@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4BA55991.30801@gmail.com> <877499.36858.qm@web25905.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <50C599CBE6D241D989F0ABBAB04CC990@Sergio> Congratulation Katitza! Regards from Argentina Sergio Salinas Porto Presidente Internauta Argentina Asoc. Argentina de Usuarios de Internet http://www.internauta.org.ar ----- Original Message ----- From: Jean Paul NKURUNZIZA To: governance at lists.cpsr.org ; Ginger Paque ; Kleinwächter, Wolfgang Cc: Katitza Rodriguez Sent: Sunday, March 21, 2010 5:40 AM Subject: Re : AW: [governance] UPDATE: Moving to EFF (Effective March 31) Hi Katitza, Congratulations for your new position. Wishing you success ! NKURUNZIZA Jean Paul Tel : 783273867 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ De : Ginger Paque À : governance at lists.cpsr.org; "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" Cc : Katitza Rodriguez Envoyé le : Dim 21 mars 2010, 0 h 26 min 09 s Objet : Re: AW: [governance] UPDATE: Moving to EFF (Effective March 31) Hi Katitza.... Congratulations! I wish you the best of success in this exciting change. I won't wish you "luck", because one of the things I admire about you is that you really do make your own luck. I watch you work, moderate, facilitate and "make things happen". I have seen you arduously defend our privacy rights in the IGF and other spaces. I have learned by watching you, and am amazed how you can move projects along from inception to finish. I am not an active CSISAC (or Public Voice) member, but support the work and issues that you and the others have developed. I do hope you will continue to work on the projects you have nurtured thus far! Congratulations to EFF too! I look forward to seeing your new projects (as Wolfgang said... maybe we will see more of EFF at the IFG now)! Best, Ginger Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: Best wishes Katitza, thanks for the great work you have done. And indeed the challenges in your new position are rather similar. BTW, it would be good to have a more active EFF in the IGF :-))) Wolfgang________________________________Von: Katitza Rodriguez [mailto:katitza at datos-personales.org]Gesendet: Fr 19.03.2010 23:36An: governance at lists.cpsr.org Betreff: [governance] UPDATE: Moving to EFF (Effective March 31) Greetings, I am writing to let you know that I will be leaving my position at the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) as of March 31, 2010, to join the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) as International Rights Director. There I will continue to work on international privacy issues, with special emphasis on law enforcement, government surveillance, and cross border data flow, and will expand the scope of my Internet policy work to include issues concerning cybersecurity, freedom of expression, and copyright. EFF is a strong advocate for citizens' rights, with a history of working at the intersection of law and technology. EFF is headquartered in California, with over 14,000 members around the world, and an advocacy list of more than 70,000 supporters worldwide. I will be joining Gwen Hinze and Eddan Katz on EFF's international team in this important work. After April 1, my contact details will be as follows: Katitza Rodriguez, International Rights Director Electronic Frontier Foundation 454 Shotwell Street San Francisco, CA 94110 USA +1 415 436 9333 (voice) http://www.eff.org katitza at eff.org katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email)I look forward to continuing to work with you in my new role at EFF.Thank you and best regards,Katitza____________________________________________________________You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From amedinagomez at gmail.com Sun Mar 21 10:22:03 2010 From: amedinagomez at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Antonio_Medina_G=F3mez?=) Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2010 10:22:03 -0400 Subject: [governance] UPDATE: Moving to EFF (Effective March 31) In-Reply-To: <032006BA-8731-44A4-8099-60A2D9F93F6C@datos-personales.org> References: <032006BA-8731-44A4-8099-60A2D9F93F6C@datos-personales.org> Message-ID: <2bd2431a1003210722t121c2b8fvfd0a69a3c32b241f@mail.gmail.com> Greetings from the Colombian Association of Internet Users. Congratulations and much success in the new task, which will be of great importance. Best regards Antonio Medina Gómez Presidente Asociación Colombiana de Usuarios de Internet 2010/3/19 Katitza Rodriguez > Greetings, > > I am writing to let you know that I will be leaving my position at the > Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) as of March 31, 2010, to join > the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) as International Rights Director. > There I will continue to work on international privacy issues, with special > emphasis on law enforcement, government surveillance, and cross border data > flow, and will expand the scope of my Internet policy work to include issues > concerning cybersecurity, freedom of expression, and copyright. EFF is a > strong advocate for citizens' rights, with a history of working at the > intersection of law and technology. EFF is headquartered in California, > with over 14,000 members around the world, and an advocacy list of more than > 70,000 supporters worldwide. I will be joining Gwen Hinze and Eddan Katz on > EFF's international team in this important work. > > After April 1, my contact details will be as follows: > > Katitza Rodriguez, International Rights Director > Electronic Frontier Foundation > 454 Shotwell Street > San Francisco, CA 94110 USA > +1 415 436 9333 (voice) > http://www.eff.org > katitza at eff.org > katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email) > > I look forward to continuing to work with you in my new role at EFF. > > Thank you and best regards, > > Katitza > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jfcallo at isocperu.org Sun Mar 21 21:41:53 2010 From: jfcallo at isocperu.org (jfcallo at isocperu.org) Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2010 21:41:53 -0400 Subject: [governance] Una peruana que nos enorgullece In-Reply-To: <877499.36858.qm@web25905.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <032006BA-8731-44A4-8099-60A2D9F93F6C@datos-personales.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A069C8@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4BA55991.30801@gmail.com> <877499.36858.qm@web25905.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20100321214153.a9iffs02aog4cwg4@www.isocperu.org> Katitza: Dice la cancion: "Tengo el orgullo de ser peruano y soy feliz" y quien escribe al igual que los miembros de este Capitulo de ISOC-PERU, saludamos tus nuevas tareas y compromisos, recordandote que estamos aqui en Lima, Peru, para apoyar el exito de tus gestiones en la nueva Organizacion que te acoje. Fraternalmente Jose F. Callo Romero Secretario ISOC Peru ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From andrespiazza at gmail.com Sun Mar 21 22:47:29 2010 From: andrespiazza at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Andr=E9s_Piazza?=) Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2010 23:47:29 -0300 Subject: [governance] Una peruana que nos enorgullece In-Reply-To: <20100321214153.a9iffs02aog4cwg4@www.isocperu.org> References: <032006BA-8731-44A4-8099-60A2D9F93F6C@datos-personales.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A069C8@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4BA55991.30801@gmail.com> <877499.36858.qm@web25905.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <20100321214153.a9iffs02aog4cwg4@www.isocperu.org> Message-ID: What a great gesture José! I want to congratulate Katitza also... And send her the best desires for the new position. Andrés Piazza El 21/03/10, jfcallo at isocperu.org escribió: > Katitza: > Dice la cancion: > "Tengo el orgullo de ser peruano y soy feliz" y quien escribe al igual > que los miembros de este Capitulo de ISOC-PERU, saludamos tus nuevas > tareas y compromisos, recordandote que estamos aqui en Lima, Peru, > para apoyar el exito de tus gestiones en la nueva Organizacion que te > acoje. > Fraternalmente > > Jose F. Callo Romero > Secretario > ISOC Peru > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- Enviado desde mi dispositivo móvil ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gpaque at gmail.com Mon Mar 22 06:34:02 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 06:04:02 -0430 Subject: [Fwd: [governance] IGC activities] Activation request Message-ID: <4BA7479A.3070107@paque.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IGC letter to UNSG.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 35021 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Mon Mar 22 07:24:49 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 19:24:49 +0800 Subject: [governance] Workshop proposals for Vilnius Message-ID: Here is a separate thread for discussion of workshop proposals for Vilnius. According to Ginger's last mail the deadline is 30 April, though the IGF Web site says 15 April 2010. In any case, it would be best for us to work towards the earlier deadline. Some possible ideas: Messages from the IGF Looking forward to WSIS 2015 Successes and failures of Internet governance, 1995 - 2010 -- Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 CI is 50 Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010. Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer rights around the world. http://www.consumersinternational.org/50 Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Mon Mar 22 08:49:28 2010 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 12:49:28 +0000 Subject: [governance] Workshop proposals for Vilnius In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In message , at 19:24:49 on Mon, 22 Mar 2010, Jeremy Malcolm writes >  According to Ginger's last mail the deadline is 30 April, though the >IGF Web site says 15 April 2010. 30th is current deadline for registering as a "resource person". -- 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 b.schombe at gmail.com Tue Mar 23 04:11:25 2010 From: b.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin SCHOMBE) Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 09:11:25 +0100 Subject: [governance] Workshop proposals for Vilnius In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: positive ideas Some possible ideas: - Messages from the IGF - Looking forward to WSIS 2015 - Successes and failures of Internet governance, 1995 - 2010 : International and regional level 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. 2010/3/22 Jeremy Malcolm > Here is a separate thread for discussion of workshop proposals for Vilnius. > According to Ginger's last mail the deadline is 30 April, though the IGF > Web site says 15 April 2010. In any case, it would be best for us to work > towards the earlier deadline. > > Some possible ideas: > > > - Messages from the IGF > - Looking forward to WSIS 2015 > - Successes and failures of Internet governance, 1995 - 2010 > > -- > > *Jeremy Malcolm > Project Coordinator* > Consumers International > Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > *CI is 50* > Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in > 2010. > Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer > rights around the world. > *http://www.consumersinternational.org/50* > > Read our email confidentiality notice. > Don't print this email unless necessary. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jlfullsack at orange.fr Tue Mar 23 04:49:56 2010 From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK) Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 09:49:56 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] Workshop proposals for Vilnius In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <15806002.206890.1269334196625.JavaMail.www@wwinf1631> I share the Baudoin's idea about the main theme to be dealt with before Vilnius. What's more, the outcomes of discussions about this theme would be a good basis for a debate about Jeremy's idea of 'Looking forward to WSIS 2015' which is unavoidable anyway.  Best Jean-Louis Fullsack CSDPTT > Message du 23/03/10 09:12 > De : "Baudouin SCHOMBE" > A : governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Jeremy Malcolm" > Copie à : > Objet : Re: [governance] Workshop proposals for Vilnius > > positive ideas > > Some possible ideas: > Messages from the IGFLooking forward to WSIS 2015Successes and failures of Internet governance, 1995 - 2010 : International and regional level > > > > 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. > > > 2010/3/22 Jeremy Malcolm > Here is a separate thread for discussion of workshop proposals for Vilnius.  According to Ginger's last mail the deadline is 30 April, though the IGF Web site says 15 April 2010.  In any case, it would be best for us to work towards the earlier deadline. > Some possible ideas: > Messages from the IGFLooking forward to WSIS 2015Successes and failures of Internet governance, 1995 - 2010 --  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 > > > > [ message-footer.txt (0.4 Ko) ] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Tue Mar 23 08:27:42 2010 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 09:27:42 -0300 Subject: [governance] google down? In-Reply-To: <15806002.206890.1269334196625.JavaMail.www@wwinf1631> References: <15806002.206890.1269334196625.JavaMail.www@wwinf1631> Message-ID: <4BA8B3BE.2000603@cafonso.ca> I am connecting through the NIC.br high-speed hub. Google is disappearing from the Net intermittently. This is affecting millions of sites which depend on Google's various metering services (sitemeter is down, ads is down, blogspot is down etc). Is the whole Google net under attack? I do not think the simple redirection of google.cn to google.com.kh is causing this. Are 400 million Chinese Internet users in a coordinated attack against Google? :) --c.a. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Tue Mar 23 09:39:31 2010 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 16:39:31 +0300 Subject: [governance] google down? In-Reply-To: <4BA8B3BE.2000603@cafonso.ca> References: <15806002.206890.1269334196625.JavaMail.www@wwinf1631> <4BA8B3BE.2000603@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: Hi Carlos, I've just been in an UIXP meeting hosted by the Google office here in Nairobi, no sign of outage there or now at home: http://www.google.co.ke/search?q=carlos+afonso&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a ;-) Maybe your upstream or their upstream(s)? What happens when you ping -t or traceroute? -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 3:27 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > I am connecting through the NIC.br high-speed hub. Google is disappearing > from the Net intermittently. This is affecting millions of sites which > depend on Google's various metering services (sitemeter is down, ads is > down, blogspot is down etc). > > Is the whole Google net under attack? I do not think the simple redirection > of google.cn to google.com.kh is causing this. > > Are 400 million Chinese Internet users in a coordinated attack against > Google? :) > > --c.a. > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >    governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Tue Mar 23 10:10:34 2010 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 11:10:34 -0300 Subject: [governance] google down? In-Reply-To: References: <15806002.206890.1269334196625.JavaMail.www@wwinf1631> <4BA8B3BE.2000603@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <4BA8CBDA.9080608@cafonso.ca> I just googled "Sadowsky" and discovered that the Sadowskys are great guitar artisans! It seems an intermittent problem, some people here think there is something to do with IPv6 running with IPv4 in client computers... --c.a. George Sadowsky wrote: > Hi, Carlos, > > I just googled you and got a nice picture of you and three other people > with your name. So google may be down, but you are up! :-) > > George > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > >> I am connecting through the NIC.br high-speed hub. Google is >> disappearing from the Net intermittently. This is affecting millions >> of sites which depend on Google's various metering services (sitemeter >> is down, ads is down, blogspot is down etc). >> >> Is the whole Google net under attack? I do not think the simple >> redirection of google.cn to google.com.kh is causing this. >> >> Are 400 million Chinese Internet users in a coordinated attack against >> Google? :) >> >> --c.a. >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Wed Mar 24 05:39:25 2010 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 14:39:25 +0500 Subject: [governance] Workshop proposals for Vilnius In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <701af9f71003240239v388f672ctf24e5c9b15fb7a4@mail.gmail.com> Hi, Good stimulus Jeremy. I would also look at some innovative workshop format that would interest most participants in a very productive manner that can also act as a future IG idea stimulator. My proposal for a workshop is: Title: Revolutionary Internet Ideas that can help change the Developing World! Objective: A workshop that provides stakeholders the opportunity to share positive ideas for stimulating socio-economic change in the developing world utilizing the Internet. This will be a venue for both developed and developing world participants. An example may be Tim Berner Lee's TED ideas for Opening Data to the world that helped in gaining concrete relief information on the ground during the Haiti earthquake crisis. Another idea may be Google's mapping of the Sudan crisis. There are many positive ideas that can evolve from this venue and be recorded and measured till the next IGF (hopefully) and then feedback can help in identifying which ideas had an impact over the past 12 months since presented. Format: A round table open to all participants of the workshop. The format will be 3 minutes given to each of the participants to share an existing or revolutionary idea. All the ideas will be recorded and categorized under various topics for measurement of impact in the next few months. > Some possible ideas: > > Messages from the IGF - I am not sure about this topic. > Looking forward to WSIS 2015 - Good topic that can be continued in future IGF's > Successes and failures of Internet governance, 1995 - 2010 - This topic might create a bit of controversy but it is too early to say anything. Maybe try it and learn from it. What if we combine both he WSIS 2015 workshop with this one so that it becomes: - Learning from IG 1995-2010 and looking forward to WSIS 2015 > > -- > > Jeremy Malcolm -- 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 jeremy at ciroap.org Wed Mar 24 06:10:55 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 18:10:55 +0800 Subject: [governance] Workshop proposals for Vilnius In-Reply-To: <701af9f71003240239v388f672ctf24e5c9b15fb7a4@mail.gmail.com> References: <701af9f71003240239v388f672ctf24e5c9b15fb7a4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 24/03/2010, at 5:39 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > My proposal for a workshop is: > > Title: Revolutionary Internet Ideas that can help change the Developing World! > > Objective: > A workshop that provides stakeholders the opportunity to share > positive ideas for stimulating socio-economic change in the developing > world utilizing the Internet. This will be a venue for both developed > and developing world participants. An example may be Tim Berner Lee's > TED ideas for Opening Data to the world that helped in gaining > concrete relief information on the ground during the Haiti earthquake > crisis. Another idea may be Google's mapping of the Sudan crisis. > There are many positive ideas that can evolve from this venue and be > recorded and measured till the next IGF (hopefully) and then feedback > can help in identifying which ideas had an impact over the past 12 > months since presented. I like this, though we would need to ensure that there is an IG dimension to it. This has been a hallmark of IGC workshops, I think. In other words, the workshop needs to ask, not only are there nifty ideas out there, but what IG processes exist to ensure these ideas are applied where they are needed. If others agree that this idea is worthwhile, would you volunteer to coordinate it? >> Looking forward to WSIS 2015 > - Good topic that can be continued in future IGF's > >> Successes and failures of Internet governance, 1995 - 2010 > - This topic might create a bit of controversy but it is too early to > say anything. Maybe try it and learn from it. What if we combine both > he WSIS 2015 workshop with this one so that it becomes: > > - Learning from IG 1995-2010 and looking forward to WSIS 2015 That's also not a bad idea. My intention with the looking forward to WSIS 2015 topic was to include questions like, are we backing away from multi-stakeholder democracy? Will the next WSIS be more or less welcoming to civil society? Learning from IG was intended more to revisit the paragraph of the mandate about assessing the embodiment of the WSIS principles in IG processes, by looking at the wrong turns various institutions have made in the past and to assess how we have learned from them... but also, to celebrate best practices in IG. Is anyone interested in participating in the organisation of a workshop on these lines? -- 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 fouadbajwa at gmail.com Wed Mar 24 07:28:35 2010 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 16:28:35 +0500 Subject: [governance] Workshop proposals for Vilnius In-Reply-To: References: <701af9f71003240239v388f672ctf24e5c9b15fb7a4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <701af9f71003240428s6e1475e2p560746531e45bf46@mail.gmail.com> Jeremy, thank you for the accurate guidance. Yes, I totally agree with your suggestions and that is the perspective to evolve this with the support of our community and provide everyone the opportunity to participate within the scope of IG. How would the following title feel: "Revolutionary Internet Governance Ideas that can help change the Developing World" Now included is the full scope of IG and we need more ideas here. Yes I would love to coordinate this workshop and would be available to share perspectives in the other workshops shared by you. We need more participation of our community in all these workshops. On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 3:10 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 24/03/2010, at 5:39 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > >> My proposal for a workshop is: >> >> Title: Revolutionary Internet Ideas that can help change the Developing World! >> >> Objective: >> A workshop that provides stakeholders the opportunity to share >> positive ideas for stimulating socio-economic change in the developing >> world utilizing the Internet. This will be a venue for both developed >> and developing world participants. An example may be Tim Berner Lee's >> TED ideas for Opening Data to the world that helped in gaining >> concrete relief information on the ground during the Haiti earthquake >> crisis. Another idea may be Google's mapping of the Sudan crisis. >> There are many positive ideas that can evolve from this venue and be >> recorded and measured till the next IGF (hopefully) and then feedback >> can help in identifying which ideas had an impact over the past 12 >> months since presented. > > I like this, though we would need to ensure that there is an IG dimension to it.  This has been a hallmark of IGC workshops, I think.  In other words, the workshop needs to ask, not only are there nifty ideas out there, but what IG processes exist to ensure these ideas are applied where they are needed. > > If others agree that this idea is worthwhile, would you volunteer to coordinate it? > >>> Looking forward to WSIS 2015 >> - Good topic that can be continued in future IGF's >> >>> Successes and failures of Internet governance, 1995 - 2010 >> - This topic might create a bit of controversy but it is too early to >> say anything. Maybe try it and learn from it. What if we combine both >> he WSIS 2015 workshop with this one so that it becomes: >> >> - Learning from IG 1995-2010 and looking forward to WSIS 2015 > > That's also not a bad idea.  My intention with the looking forward to WSIS 2015 topic was to include questions like, are we backing away from multi-stakeholder democracy?  Will the next WSIS be more or less welcoming to civil society? > > Learning from IG was intended more to revisit the paragraph of the mandate about assessing the embodiment of the WSIS principles in IG processes, by looking at the wrong turns various institutions have made in the past and to assess how we have learned from them... but also, to celebrate best practices in IG. > > Is anyone interested in participating in the organisation of a workshop on these lines? > > -- > Jeremy Malcolm > Project Coordinator > Consumers International > Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > CI is 50 > Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010. > Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer rights around the world. > http://www.consumersinternational.org/50 > > Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. > > -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Mar 24 07:35:13 2010 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 08:35:13 -0300 Subject: [governance] Workshop proposals for Vilnius In-Reply-To: <701af9f71003240428s6e1475e2p560746531e45bf46@mail.gmail.com> References: <701af9f71003240239v388f672ctf24e5c9b15fb7a4@mail.gmail.com> <701af9f71003240428s6e1475e2p560746531e45bf46@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4BA9F8F1.8020408@cafonso.ca> I am not too much worried about titles -- the proposal is absolutely great, count me in. --c.a. Fouad Bajwa wrote: > Jeremy, thank you for the accurate guidance. Yes, I totally agree with > your suggestions and that is the perspective to evolve this with the > support of our community and provide everyone the opportunity to > participate within the scope of IG. How would the following title > feel: > > "Revolutionary Internet Governance Ideas that can help change the > Developing World" > > Now included is the full scope of IG and we need more ideas here. Yes > I would love to coordinate this workshop and would be available to > share perspectives in the other workshops shared by you. We need more > participation of our community in all these workshops. > > On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 3:10 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> On 24/03/2010, at 5:39 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: >> >>> My proposal for a workshop is: >>> >>> Title: Revolutionary Internet Ideas that can help change the Developing World! >>> >>> Objective: >>> A workshop that provides stakeholders the opportunity to share >>> positive ideas for stimulating socio-economic change in the developing >>> world utilizing the Internet. This will be a venue for both developed >>> and developing world participants. An example may be Tim Berner Lee's >>> TED ideas for Opening Data to the world that helped in gaining >>> concrete relief information on the ground during the Haiti earthquake >>> crisis. Another idea may be Google's mapping of the Sudan crisis. >>> There are many positive ideas that can evolve from this venue and be >>> recorded and measured till the next IGF (hopefully) and then feedback >>> can help in identifying which ideas had an impact over the past 12 >>> months since presented. >> I like this, though we would need to ensure that there is an IG dimension to it. This has been a hallmark of IGC workshops, I think. In other words, the workshop needs to ask, not only are there nifty ideas out there, but what IG processes exist to ensure these ideas are applied where they are needed. >> >> If others agree that this idea is worthwhile, would you volunteer to coordinate it? >> >>>> Looking forward to WSIS 2015 >>> - Good topic that can be continued in future IGF's >>> >>>> Successes and failures of Internet governance, 1995 - 2010 >>> - This topic might create a bit of controversy but it is too early to >>> say anything. Maybe try it and learn from it. What if we combine both >>> he WSIS 2015 workshop with this one so that it becomes: >>> >>> - Learning from IG 1995-2010 and looking forward to WSIS 2015 >> That's also not a bad idea. My intention with the looking forward to WSIS 2015 topic was to include questions like, are we backing away from multi-stakeholder democracy? Will the next WSIS be more or less welcoming to civil society? >> >> Learning from IG was intended more to revisit the paragraph of the mandate about assessing the embodiment of the WSIS principles in IG processes, by looking at the wrong turns various institutions have made in the past and to assess how we have learned from them... but also, to celebrate best practices in IG. >> >> Is anyone interested in participating in the organisation of a workshop on these lines? >> >> -- >> 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 rafik.dammak at gmail.com Wed Mar 24 07:44:41 2010 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 20:44:41 +0900 Subject: [governance] Workshop proposals for Vilnius In-Reply-To: <701af9f71003240239v388f672ctf24e5c9b15fb7a4@mail.gmail.com> References: <701af9f71003240239v388f672ctf24e5c9b15fb7a4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi Fouad, for your workshop proposal, I would like to suggest that you include youth as much as possible. I will forward the message to the youth coalition. Regards Rafik 2010/3/24 Fouad Bajwa > Hi, > > Good stimulus Jeremy. I would also look at some innovative workshop > format that would interest most participants in a very productive > manner that can also act as a future IG idea stimulator. > > My proposal for a workshop is: > > Title: Revolutionary Internet Ideas that can help change the Developing > World! > > Objective: > A workshop that provides stakeholders the opportunity to share > positive ideas for stimulating socio-economic change in the developing > world utilizing the Internet. This will be a venue for both developed > and developing world participants. An example may be Tim Berner Lee's > TED ideas for Opening Data to the world that helped in gaining > concrete relief information on the ground during the Haiti earthquake > crisis. Another idea may be Google's mapping of the Sudan crisis. > There are many positive ideas that can evolve from this venue and be > recorded and measured till the next IGF (hopefully) and then feedback > can help in identifying which ideas had an impact over the past 12 > months since presented. > > Format: > A round table open to all participants of the workshop. The format > will be 3 minutes given to each of the participants to share an > existing or revolutionary idea. All the ideas will be recorded and > categorized under various topics for measurement of impact in the next > few months. > > > Some possible ideas: > > > > Messages from the IGF > - I am not sure about this topic. > > > Looking forward to WSIS 2015 > - Good topic that can be continued in future IGF's > > > Successes and failures of Internet governance, 1995 - 2010 > - This topic might create a bit of controversy but it is too early to > say anything. Maybe try it and learn from it. What if we combine both > he WSIS 2015 workshop with this one so that it becomes: > > - Learning from IG 1995-2010 and looking forward to WSIS 2015 > > > > > -- > > > > Jeremy Malcolm > > > -- > 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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Wed Mar 24 07:51:49 2010 From: ceo at bnnrc.net (AHM Bazlur Rahman) Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 17:51:49 +0600 Subject: [governance] Workshop proposals References: <701af9f71003240239v388f672ctf24e5c9b15fb7a4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Dear All. Greetings from Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio and Communication(BNNRC) I would like to suggest that you include some member of the Parliament as much as possible. With best regards, Bazlu _______________________ AHM. Bazlur Rahman-S21BR Chief Executive Officer Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio and Communication(BNNRC) & Member, Strategy Council UN-Global Alliance for ICT and Development (UN GAID) House: 13/1, Road:2, Shaymoli, Dhaka-1207 Post Box: 5095, Dhaka 1205 Bangladesh Phone: 88-02-9130750, 88-02-9138501 01711881647 Fax: 88-02-9138501-105 E-mail: ceo at bnnrc.net, bnnrc at bd.drik.net www.bnnrc.net ----- Original Message ----- From: Rafik Dammak To: governance at lists.cpsr.org ; Fouad Bajwa Cc: Jeremy Malcolm Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2010 5:44 PM Subject: Re: [governance] Workshop proposals for Vilnius Hi Fouad, for your workshop proposal, I would like to suggest that you include youth as much as possible. I will forward the message to the youth coalition. Regards Rafik 2010/3/24 Fouad Bajwa Hi, Good stimulus Jeremy. I would also look at some innovative workshop format that would interest most participants in a very productive manner that can also act as a future IG idea stimulator. My proposal for a workshop is: Title: Revolutionary Internet Ideas that can help change the Developing World! Objective: A workshop that provides stakeholders the opportunity to share positive ideas for stimulating socio-economic change in the developing world utilizing the Internet. This will be a venue for both developed and developing world participants. An example may be Tim Berner Lee's TED ideas for Opening Data to the world that helped in gaining concrete relief information on the ground during the Haiti earthquake crisis. Another idea may be Google's mapping of the Sudan crisis. There are many positive ideas that can evolve from this venue and be recorded and measured till the next IGF (hopefully) and then feedback can help in identifying which ideas had an impact over the past 12 months since presented. Format: A round table open to all participants of the workshop. The format will be 3 minutes given to each of the participants to share an existing or revolutionary idea. All the ideas will be recorded and categorized under various topics for measurement of impact in the next few months. > Some possible ideas: > > Messages from the IGF - I am not sure about this topic. > Looking forward to WSIS 2015 - Good topic that can be continued in future IGF's > Successes and failures of Internet governance, 1995 - 2010 - This topic might create a bit of controversy but it is too early to say anything. Maybe try it and learn from it. What if we combine both he WSIS 2015 workshop with this one so that it becomes: - Learning from IG 1995-2010 and looking forward to WSIS 2015 > > -- > > Jeremy Malcolm -- 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Wed Mar 24 07:57:24 2010 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 07:57:24 -0400 Subject: [governance] Workshop proposals for Vilnius In-Reply-To: References: <701af9f71003240239v388f672ctf24e5c9b15fb7a4@mail.gmail.com>, Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015463CE8A@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Fouad, Following on from Rafik's comment - and to share the load ; ) - perhaps the youth coalition could run a competition that would solicit ideas from his membership, with the prize being a few minutes to talk about them at your workshop/some web display before and after. Kind of like a student business plan competition, but ig focused. ________________________________________ From: Rafik Dammak [rafik.dammak at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2010 7:44 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Fouad Bajwa Cc: Jeremy Malcolm Subject: Re: [governance] Workshop proposals for Vilnius Hi Fouad, for your workshop proposal, I would like to suggest that you include youth as much as possible. I will forward the message to the youth coalition. Regards Rafik 2010/3/24 Fouad Bajwa > Hi, Good stimulus Jeremy. I would also look at some innovative workshop format that would interest most participants in a very productive manner that can also act as a future IG idea stimulator. My proposal for a workshop is: Title: Revolutionary Internet Ideas that can help change the Developing World! Objective: A workshop that provides stakeholders the opportunity to share positive ideas for stimulating socio-economic change in the developing world utilizing the Internet. This will be a venue for both developed and developing world participants. An example may be Tim Berner Lee's TED ideas for Opening Data to the world that helped in gaining concrete relief information on the ground during the Haiti earthquake crisis. Another idea may be Google's mapping of the Sudan crisis. There are many positive ideas that can evolve from this venue and be recorded and measured till the next IGF (hopefully) and then feedback can help in identifying which ideas had an impact over the past 12 months since presented. Format: A round table open to all participants of the workshop. The format will be 3 minutes given to each of the participants to share an existing or revolutionary idea. All the ideas will be recorded and categorized under various topics for measurement of impact in the next few months. > Some possible ideas: > > Messages from the IGF - I am not sure about this topic. > Looking forward to WSIS 2015 - Good topic that can be continued in future IGF's > Successes and failures of Internet governance, 1995 - 2010 - This topic might create a bit of controversy but it is too early to say anything. Maybe try it and learn from it. What if we combine both he WSIS 2015 workshop with this one so that it becomes: - Learning from IG 1995-2010 and looking forward to WSIS 2015 > > -- > > Jeremy Malcolm -- 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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Wed Mar 24 08:18:37 2010 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 21:18:37 +0900 Subject: [governance] Workshop proposals for Vilnius In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015463CE8A@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <701af9f71003240239v388f672ctf24e5c9b15fb7a4@mail.gmail.com>, <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015463CE8A@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Ory Okolloh of Ushahidi.com, perhaps the kind of person to involve? See Great story, but not sure of the IG angle, unless it's all about openness. Adam >Fouad, > >Following on from Rafik's comment - and to share the load ; ) - >perhaps the youth coalition could run a competition that would >solicit ideas from his membership, with the prize being a few >minutes to talk about them at your workshop/some web display before >and after. Kind of like a student business plan competition, but ig >focused. >________________________________________ >From: Rafik Dammak [rafik.dammak at gmail.com] >Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2010 7:44 AM >To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Fouad Bajwa >Cc: Jeremy Malcolm >Subject: Re: [governance] Workshop proposals for Vilnius > >Hi Fouad, > >for your workshop proposal, I would like to suggest that you include >youth as much as possible. I will forward the message to the youth >coalition. > >Regards > >Rafik > >2010/3/24 Fouad Bajwa > >Hi, > >Good stimulus Jeremy. I would also look at some innovative workshop >format that would interest most participants in a very productive >manner that can also act as a future IG idea stimulator. > >My proposal for a workshop is: > >Title: Revolutionary Internet Ideas that can help change the Developing World! > >Objective: >A workshop that provides stakeholders the opportunity to share >positive ideas for stimulating socio-economic change in the developing >world utilizing the Internet. This will be a venue for both developed >and developing world participants. An example may be Tim Berner Lee's >TED ideas for Opening Data to the world that helped in gaining >concrete relief information on the ground during the Haiti earthquake >crisis. Another idea may be Google's mapping of the Sudan crisis. >There are many positive ideas that can evolve from this venue and be >recorded and measured till the next IGF (hopefully) and then feedback >can help in identifying which ideas had an impact over the past 12 >months since presented. > >Format: >A round table open to all participants of the workshop. The format >will be 3 minutes given to each of the participants to share an >existing or revolutionary idea. All the ideas will be recorded and >categorized under various topics for measurement of impact in the next >few months. > >> Some possible ideas: >> >> Messages from the IGF >- I am not sure about this topic. > >> Looking forward to WSIS 2015 >- Good topic that can be continued in future IGF's > >> Successes and failures of Internet governance, 1995 - 2010 >- This topic might create a bit of controversy but it is too early to >say anything. Maybe try it and learn from it. What if we combine both >he WSIS 2015 workshop with this one so that it becomes: > >- Learning from IG 1995-2010 and looking forward to WSIS 2015 > >> >> -- >> >> Jeremy Malcolm > > >-- >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 > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Wed Mar 24 08:57:40 2010 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 17:57:40 +0500 Subject: [governance] Workshop proposals for Vilnius In-Reply-To: References: <701af9f71003240239v388f672ctf24e5c9b15fb7a4@mail.gmail.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015463CE8A@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <701af9f71003240557p27da6a62y941c432fbabad8d2@mail.gmail.com> My dearest friends, As a member of IGC's MAG representation I would like to keep my visibility minimum and promote other members to take up visibility and leadership in this proposal. I welcome everyone's support and thank you all for backing this collaborative idea. Inputs to your suggestions: Jeremy: Kindly propose an improved language to the workshop proposal so that IGC can collaboratively develop it into a very fruitful discourse. Rafik: How about we include 20% ideas from Youth, 20% from Women, 20% from Civil Society, 20% from Private Sector and 20% from Governments though I am still unsure to how this might be managed. Carlos: Please share your help and support on this. We need maximum participation from the global south and their creative interventions. Lee Mcknight: Totally accept and welcome your suggestions for incorporation. Adam: Very good suggestion and it would viable to have resource people and such a person could stimulate both the energy and the passion to such a idea sharing activity. Please send in more suggestions and we can collaboratively develop and back this proposal. Everyone please continue sharing your ideas. On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 5:18 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > Ory Okolloh of Ushahidi.com, perhaps the kind of person to involve? See > > > Great story, but not sure of the IG angle, unless it's all about openness. > > Adam > > > >> Fouad, >> >> Following on from Rafik's comment - and to share the load ; ) - perhaps >> the youth coalition could run a competition that would solicit ideas from >> his membership, with the prize being a few minutes to talk about them at >> your workshop/some web display before and after. Kind of like a student >> business plan competition, but ig focused. >> ________________________________________ >> From: Rafik Dammak [rafik.dammak at gmail.com] >> Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2010 7:44 AM >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Fouad Bajwa >> Cc: Jeremy Malcolm >> Subject: Re: [governance] Workshop proposals for Vilnius >> >> Hi Fouad, >> >> for your workshop proposal, I would like to suggest that you include youth >> as much as possible. I will forward the message to the youth coalition. >> >> Regards >> >> Rafik >> >> 2010/3/24 Fouad Bajwa > >> Hi, >> >> Good stimulus Jeremy. I would also look at some innovative workshop >> format that would interest most participants in a very productive >> manner that can also act as a future IG idea stimulator. >> >> My proposal for a workshop is: >> >> Title: Revolutionary Internet Ideas that can help change the Developing >> World! >> >> Objective: >> A workshop that provides stakeholders the opportunity to share >> positive ideas for stimulating socio-economic change in the developing >> world utilizing the Internet. This will be a venue for both developed >> and developing world participants. An example may be Tim Berner Lee's >> TED ideas for Opening Data to the world that helped in gaining >> concrete relief information on the ground during the Haiti earthquake >> crisis. Another idea may be Google's mapping of the Sudan crisis. >> There are many positive ideas that can evolve from this venue and be >> recorded and measured till the next IGF (hopefully) and then feedback >> can help in identifying which ideas had an impact over the past 12 >> months since presented. >> >> Format: >> A round table open to all participants of the workshop. The format >> will be 3 minutes given to each of the participants to share an >> existing or revolutionary idea. All the ideas will be recorded and >> categorized under various topics for measurement of impact in the next >> few months. >> >>>  Some possible ideas: >>> >>>  Messages from the IGF >> >> - I am not sure about this topic. >> >>>  Looking forward to WSIS 2015 >> >> - Good topic that can be continued in future IGF's >> >>>  Successes and failures of Internet governance, 1995 - 2010 >> >> - This topic might create a bit of controversy but it is too early to >> say anything. Maybe try it and learn from it. What if we combine both >> he WSIS 2015 workshop with this one so that it becomes: >> >> - Learning from IG 1995-2010 and looking forward to WSIS 2015 >> >>> >>>  -- >>> >>>  Jeremy Malcolm >> >> >> -- >> Regards. >> -------------------------- >> Fouad Bajwa -- 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 ceo at bnnrc.net Wed Mar 24 09:09:04 2010 From: ceo at bnnrc.net (AHM Bazlur Rahman) Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 19:09:04 +0600 Subject: [governance] Workshop proposals for Vilnius References: <701af9f71003240239v388f672ctf24e5c9b15fb7a4@mail.gmail.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015463CE8A@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <701af9f71003240557p27da6a62y941c432fbabad8d2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Dear Fouad, Greetings from Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio and Communication(BNNRC) I would like to suggest that you include some member of the Parliament (MP) as much as possible. I will help you to mobilize Memebr of Parliament. With best regards, Bazlu _______________________ AHM. Bazlur Rahman-S21BR Chief Executive Officer Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio and Communication(BNNRC) & Member, Strategy Council UN-Global Alliance for ICT and Development (UN GAID) House: 13/1, Road:2, Shaymoli, Dhaka-1207 Post Box: 5095, Dhaka 1205 Bangladesh Phone: 88-02-9130750, 88-02-9138501 01711881647 Fax: 88-02-9138501-105 E-mail: ceo at bnnrc.net, bnnrc at bd.drik.net www.bnnrc.net ----- Original Message ----- From: "Fouad Bajwa" To: ; "Adam Peake" Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2010 6:57 PM Subject: Re: [governance] Workshop proposals for Vilnius My dearest friends, As a member of IGC's MAG representation I would like to keep my visibility minimum and promote other members to take up visibility and leadership in this proposal. I welcome everyone's support and thank you all for backing this collaborative idea. Inputs to your suggestions: Jeremy: Kindly propose an improved language to the workshop proposal so that IGC can collaboratively develop it into a very fruitful discourse. Rafik: How about we include 20% ideas from Youth, 20% from Women, 20% from Civil Society, 20% from Private Sector and 20% from Governments though I am still unsure to how this might be managed. Carlos: Please share your help and support on this. We need maximum participation from the global south and their creative interventions. Lee Mcknight: Totally accept and welcome your suggestions for incorporation. Adam: Very good suggestion and it would viable to have resource people and such a person could stimulate both the energy and the passion to such a idea sharing activity. Please send in more suggestions and we can collaboratively develop and back this proposal. Everyone please continue sharing your ideas. On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 5:18 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > Ory Okolloh of Ushahidi.com, perhaps the kind of person to involve? See > > > Great story, but not sure of the IG angle, unless it's all about openness. > > Adam > > > >> Fouad, >> >> Following on from Rafik's comment - and to share the load ; ) - perhaps >> the youth coalition could run a competition that would solicit ideas from >> his membership, with the prize being a few minutes to talk about them at >> your workshop/some web display before and after. Kind of like a student >> business plan competition, but ig focused. >> ________________________________________ >> From: Rafik Dammak [rafik.dammak at gmail.com] >> Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2010 7:44 AM >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Fouad Bajwa >> Cc: Jeremy Malcolm >> Subject: Re: [governance] Workshop proposals for Vilnius >> >> Hi Fouad, >> >> for your workshop proposal, I would like to suggest that you include >> youth >> as much as possible. I will forward the message to the youth coalition. >> >> Regards >> >> Rafik >> >> 2010/3/24 Fouad Bajwa > >> Hi, >> >> Good stimulus Jeremy. I would also look at some innovative workshop >> format that would interest most participants in a very productive >> manner that can also act as a future IG idea stimulator. >> >> My proposal for a workshop is: >> >> Title: Revolutionary Internet Ideas that can help change the Developing >> World! >> >> Objective: >> A workshop that provides stakeholders the opportunity to share >> positive ideas for stimulating socio-economic change in the developing >> world utilizing the Internet. This will be a venue for both developed >> and developing world participants. An example may be Tim Berner Lee's >> TED ideas for Opening Data to the world that helped in gaining >> concrete relief information on the ground during the Haiti earthquake >> crisis. Another idea may be Google's mapping of the Sudan crisis. >> There are many positive ideas that can evolve from this venue and be >> recorded and measured till the next IGF (hopefully) and then feedback >> can help in identifying which ideas had an impact over the past 12 >> months since presented. >> >> Format: >> A round table open to all participants of the workshop. The format >> will be 3 minutes given to each of the participants to share an >> existing or revolutionary idea. All the ideas will be recorded and >> categorized under various topics for measurement of impact in the next >> few months. >> >>> Some possible ideas: >>> >>> Messages from the IGF >> >> - I am not sure about this topic. >> >>> Looking forward to WSIS 2015 >> >> - Good topic that can be continued in future IGF's >> >>> Successes and failures of Internet governance, 1995 - 2010 >> >> - This topic might create a bit of controversy but it is too early to >> say anything. Maybe try it and learn from it. What if we combine both >> he WSIS 2015 workshop with this one so that it becomes: >> >> - Learning from IG 1995-2010 and looking forward to WSIS 2015 >> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Jeremy Malcolm >> >> >> -- >> Regards. >> -------------------------- >> Fouad Bajwa -- 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= ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Wed Mar 24 09:11:13 2010 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 18:11:13 +0500 Subject: [governance] Workshop proposals for Vilnius In-Reply-To: References: <701af9f71003240239v388f672ctf24e5c9b15fb7a4@mail.gmail.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015463CE8A@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <701af9f71003240557p27da6a62y941c432fbabad8d2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <701af9f71003240611p24be21c6x392767dd14944eee@mail.gmail.com> Hi Bazlur, Yes definitely, these workshops are open spaces and thats why I suggested to have an inclusion of all stakeholders so that we can explore what ideas or experiments have a combined thrust approach of utilizing the Internet for combined regional growth. Lets continue to explore community suggestions on this as this idea is for everyone in IGC to explore. On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 6:09 PM, AHM Bazlur Rahman wrote: > Dear Fouad, > Greetings from Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio and Communication(BNNRC) > I would like to suggest that you include some member of the Parliament (MP) > as much as possible. > I will help you to mobilize Memebr of Parliament. > With best regards, > > > > Bazlu > _______________________ > AHM. Bazlur Rahman-S21BR > Chief Executive Officer > Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio and Communication(BNNRC) > & > Member, Strategy Council > UN-Global Alliance for ICT and Development (UN GAID) > > House: 13/1, Road:2, Shaymoli, Dhaka-1207 > Post Box: 5095, Dhaka 1205 Bangladesh > > Phone: 88-02-9130750, 88-02-9138501 > 01711881647 Fax: 88-02-9138501-105 > > E-mail: ceo at bnnrc.net, bnnrc at bd.drik.net > www.bnnrc.net > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Fouad Bajwa" -- 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 anriette at apc.org Wed Mar 24 11:47:30 2010 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 17:47:30 +0200 Subject: [governance] Calling all readers in the USA: Survey on content filtering in public libraries Message-ID: <1269445650.3115.5112.camel@anriette-laptop> Please do pass this around to your networks. Thanks Anriette Calling all readers in the USA: Survey on content filtering in public libraries NEW YORK 19 March 2010 (Sex Work Awareness for APC) --- APC has teamed up with Sex Work Awareness in a study to look at content filtering systems in public libraries with internet access in the United States, with an eye towards reproductive health and sexuality. Find out more and take the survey! http://www.infoandthelibrary.org/ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ anriette esterhuysen - executive director association for progressive communications p o box 29755 melville - south africa 2109 anriette at apc.org - tel/fax + 27 11 726 1692 http://www.apc.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From katitza at datos-personales.org Wed Mar 24 17:00:22 2010 From: katitza at datos-personales.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 17:00:22 -0400 Subject: [governance] Una peruana que nos enorgullece In-Reply-To: <20100321214153.a9iffs02aog4cwg4@www.isocperu.org> References: <032006BA-8731-44A4-8099-60A2D9F93F6C@datos-personales.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A069C8@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4BA55991.30801@gmail.com> <877499.36858.qm@web25905.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <20100321214153.a9iffs02aog4cwg4@www.isocperu.org> Message-ID: <6483DBC2-3962-4525-A0FE-A9045369A7DC@datos-personales.org> Estimado Jose, Jean Paul, Wolfgang, Acabo de leer tu mensaje, y se me ha salido una lagrima. :) Muchisimas gracias por tus palabras, que ademas las tomo con mucha responsabilidad. Agradezco enormemente la oportunidad que EPIC me brindo al confiar en mi trabajo cuando vivia en Peru. Tengo nuevos retos con esta linda oportunidad que EFF me brinda. Es una nueva etapa en mi vida, con nuevos retos para producir un cambio. Gracias Ginger, por confiar en mi. Ups, yo que comunicaba mi cambios de datos (de forma rapidita_ ;-), y ahora siento una doble responsabilidad, pero la recibo con mucho carino y seriedad. Un abrazo, Katitza On Mar 21, 2010, at 9:41 PM, jfcallo at isocperu.org wrote: > Katitza: > Dice la cancion: > "Tengo el orgullo de ser peruano y soy feliz" y quien escribe al > igual que los miembros de este Capitulo de ISOC-PERU, saludamos tus > nuevas tareas y compromisos, recordandote que estamos aqui en Lima, > Peru, para apoyar el exito de tus gestiones en la nueva Organizacion > que te acoje. > Fraternalmente > > Jose F. Callo Romero > Secretario > ISOC Peru > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From goldstein.roxana at gmail.com Wed Mar 24 17:38:29 2010 From: goldstein.roxana at gmail.com (Roxana Goldstein) Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 18:38:29 -0300 Subject: [governance] Una peruana que nos enorgullece In-Reply-To: <6483DBC2-3962-4525-A0FE-A9045369A7DC@datos-personales.org> References: <032006BA-8731-44A4-8099-60A2D9F93F6C@datos-personales.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A069C8@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4BA55991.30801@gmail.com> <877499.36858.qm@web25905.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <20100321214153.a9iffs02aog4cwg4@www.isocperu.org> <6483DBC2-3962-4525-A0FE-A9045369A7DC@datos-personales.org> Message-ID: <4ca4162f1003241438t9c58b79g3844ef0a66ac8f7d@mail.gmail.com> Querida Katitza, Aunque ya te mandé en privado mis felicitaciones y mejores deseos para esta nueva etapa, me sumo aquí a todo lo lindo que te han dicho. Te conocí virtualmente en el curso de Diplo sobre IG, y admiré desde el primer momento tu empuje, capacidad, dinamismo y la generosidad con que compartiste tus saberes con todos. Me alegra enormemente ver cómo fuiste avanzando en tu carrera, tal como prometía ser!!!! Por muchos más logros y alegrías para vos!!! Un fuerte abrazo, Roxana El 24 de marzo de 2010 18:00, Katitza Rodriguez < katitza at datos-personales.org> escribió: > Estimado Jose, Jean Paul, Wolfgang, > > Acabo de leer tu mensaje, y se me ha salido una lagrima. :) Muchisimas > gracias por tus palabras, que ademas las tomo con mucha responsabilidad. > Agradezco enormemente la oportunidad que EPIC me brindo al confiar en mi > trabajo cuando vivia en Peru. > > Tengo nuevos retos con esta linda oportunidad que EFF me brinda. Es una > nueva etapa en mi vida, con nuevos retos para producir un cambio. Gracias > Ginger, por confiar en mi. Ups, yo que comunicaba mi cambios de datos (de > forma rapidita_ ;-), y ahora siento una doble responsabilidad, pero la > recibo con mucho carino y seriedad. > > Un abrazo, Katitza > > > > > > On Mar 21, 2010, at 9:41 PM, jfcallo at isocperu.org wrote: > > Katitza: >> Dice la cancion: >> "Tengo el orgullo de ser peruano y soy feliz" y quien escribe al igual que >> los miembros de este Capitulo de ISOC-PERU, saludamos tus nuevas tareas y >> compromisos, recordandote que estamos aqui en Lima, Peru, para apoyar el >> exito de tus gestiones en la nueva Organizacion que te acoje. >> Fraternalmente >> >> Jose F. Callo Romero >> Secretario >> ISOC Peru >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fatimacambronero at gmail.com Thu Mar 25 14:40:25 2010 From: fatimacambronero at gmail.com (Fatima Cambronero) Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 15:40:25 -0300 Subject: [governance] Una peruana que nos enorgullece In-Reply-To: <4ca4162f1003241438t9c58b79g3844ef0a66ac8f7d@mail.gmail.com> References: <032006BA-8731-44A4-8099-60A2D9F93F6C@datos-personales.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A069C8@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4BA55991.30801@gmail.com> <877499.36858.qm@web25905.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <20100321214153.a9iffs02aog4cwg4@www.isocperu.org> <6483DBC2-3962-4525-A0FE-A9045369A7DC@datos-personales.org> <4ca4162f1003241438t9c58b79g3844ef0a66ac8f7d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Katitza, yo también te saludé por privado, pero quiero sumarme a esta felicitación pública! De todo corazón te deseo todo lo mejor para esta nueva etapa! Muchas felicidades! Sos una guía muy importante para mí, siempre alentando para el crecimiento, para seguir aprendiendo, trabajando y dándonos espacio a los que hace poco nos iniciamos en este camino, para seguir creciendo en él. Y ya te iremos todos a visitar a tu nuevo hogar!! :) Un beso grande! Fátima El día 24 de marzo de 2010 18:38, Roxana Goldstein escribió: > Querida Katitza, > > Aunque ya te mandé en privado mis felicitaciones y mejores deseos para esta > nueva etapa, me sumo aquí a todo lo lindo que te han dicho. > > Te conocí virtualmente en el curso de Diplo sobre IG, y admiré desde el > primer momento tu empuje, capacidad, dinamismo y la generosidad con que > compartiste tus saberes con todos. > > Me alegra enormemente ver cómo fuiste avanzando en tu carrera, tal como > prometía ser!!!! > > Por muchos más logros y alegrías para vos!!! > Un fuerte abrazo, > Roxana > > > El 24 de marzo de 2010 18:00, Katitza Rodriguez > escribió: >> >> Estimado Jose, Jean Paul, Wolfgang, >> >> Acabo de leer tu mensaje, y se me ha salido una lagrima. :) Muchisimas >> gracias por tus palabras, que ademas las tomo con mucha responsabilidad. >> Agradezco enormemente la oportunidad que EPIC me brindo al confiar en mi >> trabajo cuando vivia en Peru. >> >> Tengo nuevos retos con esta linda oportunidad que EFF me brinda. Es una >> nueva etapa en mi vida, con nuevos retos para producir un cambio. Gracias >> Ginger, por confiar en mi. Ups, yo que comunicaba mi cambios de datos (de >> forma rapidita_ ;-), y ahora siento una doble responsabilidad, pero la >> recibo con mucho carino y seriedad. >> >> Un abrazo, Katitza >> >> >> >> >> On Mar 21, 2010, at 9:41 PM, jfcallo at isocperu.org wrote: >> >>> Katitza: >>> Dice la cancion: >>> "Tengo el orgullo de ser peruano y soy feliz" y quien escribe al igual >>> que los miembros de este Capitulo de ISOC-PERU, saludamos tus nuevas tareas >>> y compromisos, recordandote que estamos aqui en Lima, Peru, para apoyar el >>> exito de tus gestiones en la nueva Organizacion que te acoje. >>> Fraternalmente >>> >>> Jose F. Callo Romero >>>   Secretario >>>   ISOC Peru >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>   governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>   governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>   http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>    governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- Fátima Cambronero Abogada-Argentina http://ar.ageiadensi.org/ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Thu Mar 25 14:53:48 2010 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 11:53:48 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Youths and Developing Nations Message-ID: <411466.10602.qm@web83907.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> I live and work in the very developed San Diego USA. I do and have sponsored many youths from both Mexico and Vietnam. Most of what I do with them is mentoring through our higher education facilities and institutions here. They obviously are priviledged to pursue such education and have appropriate talents.   But they have no training with the life of the Internet. They can access just fine. They can operate for learning and school just fine. But as a very generalized rule these upperclass futures of their country have no real world experience. They are part of a class that is not familiar with the rough and tumble world of sheisters and con artists and philanderors. They are not prepared with the tools it takes to navigate the corrupt and enticing world of online scams, advertising and social intrusions. They are pulled as though by a drug into the materialistic and nonproductive availability of vices.   I have no interest to stop or limit activity on the Internet.  What I am very interested in is in educating these best and brightest that are our hope and our legacy.  Programs that help in recognition of problems ocurring in such areas as gaming, social networking, privacy issues, publication issues.*   Eric   (*this is an area we cannot reasonably expect developing nation parents to be proficient in) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Sun Mar 28 18:25:01 2010 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2010 19:25:01 -0300 Subject: [governance] Global Pulse online event March 29-31 Message-ID: <2246656D-D44B-4F44-A6CE-A2309B210724@graduateinstitute.ch> Hi I just stumbled across reference to this and thought someone here might be interested. Quoting from http://www.globalpulse2010.gov/index.html "Global Pulse 2010 March 29 – 31, 2010 The U.S. Government wants to engage, and partner, with the international community in a meaningful way. Join the conversation! Participate in a unique event and help shape the future.Global Pulse 2010 is a 3-day, online collaboration event, that will bring together individual socially-engaged participants and organizations from around the world. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) is sponsoring the Global Pulse 2010, in partnership with the Departments of State, Education, Commerce, and Health and Human Services. As the name implies, the event will take the pulse of thousands of participants on key issues facing communities around the world. Global Pulse 2010 will connect participants who are champions for the same social issues to build new, or strengthen existing relationships, and inform U.S. foreign assistance and diplomatic strategies on major themes and ideas that emerge across the span of the event. Individual discussions will take place within forums and will focus on ten designated topics. Participants can choose to participate in any of the discussion areas that interest them the most." The tenth discussion topic is relevant to the concerns of governance mavens: "Pursuing Grand Challenges Identifying the “grand challenges” of the next decade What is the new frontier in 21st century development? What is similar to the “Space Race”? What challenges do you or individuals from your country expect to face in the next decade? Over the next decade, what are we going to see as the biggest challenges around internet freedom, access to information, and connectivity with people around the world?" FYI, Bill *********************************************************** William J. Drake Senior Associate Centre for International Governance Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, Switzerland william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html *********************************************************** ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From bdelachapelle at gmail.com Mon Mar 29 06:59:33 2010 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 12:59:33 +0200 Subject: [governance] DESA information meeting on IGF continuation in New York tomorrow (March 30) Message-ID: <954259bd1003290359gf6572a9n568cd84233dd0de0@mail.gmail.com> Dear all, I do not know if members of this list are aware of the information meeting organised by DESA tomorrow in New York on the continuation of the IGF. (sorry for not having shared this earlier). The meeting will take place from 15 to 18, in the conference room 2 (Edificio del Jardim norte ???) The invitation letter to permanent missions (spanish version attached), is interesting because it indicates that the meeting is open not only to accredited entities to the World Summit on the Information society, but also to "institutions and persons with demonstrated knowledge and experience in issues related to the Internet Governance Forum" (excuse my rough translation ...). I suppose this means that any participant in the IGF meetings is allowed to attend. The indicated telephone number for DESA is : (1) 212 963 1234. I do not know how widely this invitation has been circulated, but the presence of actors on this list who can be in New York would certainly be useful (given the late date, this probably means mostly US-based actors). This will be the first opportunity to hear the public presentation by DESA and the Assistant Secretary General Sha, of the next steps in preparation of the future discussions in ECOSOC and UN GA regarding the continuation of the IGF. The European Union will actively participate and reiterate support for the continuation of the IGF in its Tunis mandate for at least another period of five years. Feedback from people that will be attending is highly welcome. Apologies again for not having thought of sharing this on the list earlier. Best Bertrand -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the Information Society Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 20100317 DESA Reunión informativfa del SG Adjunto de Atos Económicos y Sociales.TIF Type: image/tiff Size: 149254 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From andersj at elon.edu Mon Mar 29 14:59:29 2010 From: andersj at elon.edu (Janna Anderson) Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 14:59:29 -0400 Subject: [governance] FutureWeb conference opportunity in April In-Reply-To: <4B9D4539.90200@gmail.com> Message-ID: (Please distribute widely, as appropriate, thank you.) The WWW2010 collocated conference FutureWeb takes place in Raleigh April 28-30 - http://futureweb2010.wordpress.com/ - featuring Cerf, Weitzner, boyd, Searls, DiBona, Tiemann, Rotenberg, Young, Davidson, Clemente, Rappa, Burney, Jones and many others. Leaders from Google, NTIA, Microsoft, EPIC, the Internet Society, Red Hat, Lulu and more will discuss the likely evolution of the Web and what it will mean for our social, political and economic future. Among the other conferences co-located with FutureWeb are WWW2010 - http://www2010.org/; WebSci10 - http://www.websci10.org/home.html; W4A 2010 - http://www.w4a.info/. Early registration closes April 15. Right now costs are low - at the $195, $95, $60 levels. http://futureweb2010.wordpress.com/ #fw2010 @futureweb2010 on Twitter JOIN SMART DISCUSSIONS about the ways the evolution of the World Wide Web will continue to impact the social, political and economic landscapeŠ Explore the future of social networks, open source, the media, privacy, intellectual property, public health, education, core values, Web analytics, print publishing, and more and imagine the possibilities. Vint Cerf, Danny Weitzner, danah boyd, Chris DiBona, Bob Young, Marc Rotenberg, Michael Clemente, Doc Searls, Lee Rainie, David Burney, Michael Tiemann, Alejandro Pisanty, Charles Coleman, Tom Rabon, Penny Abernathy, Michael Rappa, Paul Jones, Cathy Davidson, Henry Copeland, Tom Miller, Fred Stutzman, Dan Conover, Nathan James, Mark Anthony Neal, Negar Mottahedeh, Dave Levine, Scott Wingo, Chris Evans, David Gardner, William Weiss, Aaron Houghton, and Tony O¹Driscoll, and the list is growing. The Imagining the Internet Center at Elon University - http://www.imaginingtheinternet.org - will host FutureWeb at the Raleigh (NC) Convention Center in conjunction with the WWW2010 International conference. Participants can attend one, two or three days of the FutureWeb conference for the same low registration cost. FutureWeb is OPEN to anyone interested in assessing the likely future. The workshops will be valuable, interesting and accessible to anyone in the general public, including business people, professionals from all fields, educators and university students. http://futureweb2010.wordpress.com/ -- Janna Quitney Anderson Director of Imagining the Internet www.imaginingtheinternet.org Associate Professor School of Communications Elon University andersj at elon.edu (336) 278-5733 (o) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Mon Mar 29 15:37:58 2010 From: David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu (David Allen) Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 15:37:58 -0400 Subject: [governance] useful update on freedom of expression and ONI, GNI In-Reply-To: <954259bd1003290359gf6572a9n568cd84233dd0de0@mail.gmail.com> References: <954259bd1003290359gf6572a9n568cd84233dd0de0@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Today's Financial Times gives a current snapshot of free expression on the web, with a review including the OpenNet Initiative and the Global Network Initiative. The article is The internet: Closing the frontier. (For those who will not be able to get to the FT online, the pdf is below.) A couple of quotes: -- "More than 40 countries now apply some sort of barrier on the web, compared with a handful less than a decade ago ..." Besides the usual suspects, the article delves into Australia's filtering, the UK's planned IPR-protection scheme and Italy's conviction-in-absentia of executives. -- “This is not just about ... – it’s about how the internet is going to be regulated globally.” Exactly three companies have joined GNI - almost 20 others were recently castigated for failing so to do. David -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: The internet- Closing the frontier - FTimes Mar 28 2010-A4.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 81221 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Tue Mar 30 03:47:58 2010 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 09:47:58 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] DESA information meeting on IGF continuation in New References: <954259bd1003290359gf6572a9n568cd84233dd0de0@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A06A2A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Dear list to be frank I see this procedure, chosen by UNDESA, as a provocation and in sharp contrast to the principles of the Tunis Agenda. Why this letter was send out only to the permanent missions in New York when the meeting is open to all other stakeholders? How serious is this invitation to non-governmental stakeholders if the invitation is send out on such a short notice and with a very limited distribution? Under such conditions there will be only a very small number of non-governmental representatives available for a discussion. Is this the intention of the meeting to be formally open but de facto closed? Why such a meeting was not announced via the IGF website? Why UNDESA did not use other channels - including the various mailing lists - to inform about such a consultation which is obviously important for the future of the IGF as a whole? I understand that governments need a space where they can discuss internally their issues and procedures. It would have been better when this meeting would have been declared as a closed internal intergovernmental IGF consultation. But to give the impression this is a consultation open for all stakeholdery by reducing the opportunity for non-governmental stakeholders to be present and to organize it in this way gives the a meeting the bad taste of a tricky procedure aimed at exclusion and deal making behind closed doors against the principles of openess, transparency and bottom up PDP. Governments in the IGF are an important partner. But they are embedded into a multistakeholder environment. The IGF is not an intergovernmental body. Such dubious meetings produce mistrust in a process which should and has to be based on confidence among the stakeholders. What will happen with the report of this meeting? Who was there? Can we get any reporting back from it? Wolfgang ________________________________ Von: Bertrand de La Chapelle [mailto:bdelachapelle at gmail.com] Gesendet: Mo 29.03.2010 12:59 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org Betreff: [governance] DESA information meeting on IGF continuation in New York tomorrow (March 30) Dear all, I do not know if members of this list are aware of the information meeting organised by DESA tomorrow in New York on the continuation of the IGF. (sorry for not having shared this earlier). The meeting will take place from 15 to 18, in the conference room 2 (Edificio del Jardim norte ???) The invitation letter to permanent missions (spanish version attached), is interesting because it indicates that the meeting is open not only to accredited entities to the World Summit on the Information society, but also to "institutions and persons with demonstrated knowledge and experience in issues related to the Internet Governance Forum" (excuse my rough translation ...). I suppose this means that any participant in the IGF meetings is allowed to attend. The indicated telephone number for DESA is : (1) 212 963 1234. I do not know how widely this invitation has been circulated, but the presence of actors on this list who can be in New York would certainly be useful (given the late date, this probably means mostly US-based actors). This will be the first opportunity to hear the public presentation by DESA and the Assistant Secretary General Sha, of the next steps in preparation of the future discussions in ECOSOC and UN GA regarding the continuation of the IGF. The European Union will actively participate and reiterate support for the continuation of the IGF in its Tunis mandate for at least another period of five years. Feedback from people that will be attending is highly welcome. Apologies again for not having thought of sharing this on the list earlier. Best Bertrand -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the Information Society Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Tue Mar 30 06:22:22 2010 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 11:22:22 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] DESA information meeting on IGF continuation in New In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A06A2A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <954259bd1003290359gf6572a9n568cd84233dd0de0@mail.gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A06A2A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: In message <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A06A2A at server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>, at 09:47:58 on Tue, 30 Mar 2010, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" writes >What will happen with the report of this meeting? Who was there? >Can we get any reporting back from it? Hopefully there will be enough people there to allow some reporting back to a wide range of stakeholders. (If it had been held in Geneva I'd probably have hopped on a plane, but NY is too far for a day-trip!) But is it a consulation? My guess is that it's really a "press conference" for DESA to announce the report on IGF renewal that we were previously expecting to be debated at CSTD (which is in late May, of course). They would also presumably make some kind of statement about the process they expect to use, going forward. -- 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 bdelachapelle at gmail.com Tue Mar 30 06:35:24 2010 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 12:35:24 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] DESA information meeting on IGF continuation in In-Reply-To: References: <954259bd1003290359gf6572a9n568cd84233dd0de0@mail.gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A06A2A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <954259bd1003300335j267cbda9vdfcf5ee412f2ffc1@mail.gmail.com> Roland, You are right : this is not a consultation but an "information meeting". Some precisions expected on the process by DESA. However, as it lasts minimum 1 : 30 hours, one can expect opportunities for questions from the floor. Bertrand On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 12:22 PM, Roland Perry < roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote: > In message < > 2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A06A2A at server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>, > at 09:47:58 on Tue, 30 Mar 2010, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" < > wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> writes > > > What will happen with the report of this meeting? Who was there? >> Can we get any reporting back from it? >> > > Hopefully there will be enough people there to allow some reporting back to > a wide range of stakeholders. (If it had been held in Geneva I'd probably > have hopped on a plane, but NY is too far for a day-trip!) > > But is it a consulation? My guess is that it's really a "press conference" > for DESA to announce the report on IGF renewal that we were previously > expecting to be debated at CSTD (which is in late May, of course). They > would also presumably make some kind of statement about the process they > expect to use, going forward. > > -- > 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 > -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the Information Society Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Tue Mar 30 06:51:36 2010 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 15:51:36 +0500 Subject: AW: [governance] DESA information meeting on IGF continuation in In-Reply-To: <954259bd1003300335j267cbda9vdfcf5ee412f2ffc1@mail.gmail.com> References: <954259bd1003290359gf6572a9n568cd84233dd0de0@mail.gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A06A2A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <954259bd1003300335j267cbda9vdfcf5ee412f2ffc1@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <701af9f71003300351m765ed6advde7ba30d3e1bff5e@mail.gmail.com> Is it available over the Internet? I mean will the transcript and meeting video broadcast over the Internet as is done with many of the WSIS follow-up meetings etc? Is there an element of any transparency to this process? -- Fouad On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 3:35 PM, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > Roland, > > You are right : this is not a consultation but an "information meeting". > > Some precisions expected on the process by DESA. > > However, as it lasts minimum 1 : 30 hours, one can expect opportunities for > questions from the floor. > > Bertrand > > > On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 12:22 PM, Roland Perry > wrote: >> >> In message >> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A06A2A at server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>, at >> 09:47:58 on Tue, 30 Mar 2010, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" >> writes >> >>> What will happen with the report of this meeting?  Who was there? >>> Can we get any reporting back from it? >> >> Hopefully there will be enough people there to allow some reporting back >> to a wide range of stakeholders. (If it had been held in Geneva I'd probably >> have hopped on a plane, but NY is too far for a day-trip!) >> >> But is it a consulation? My guess is that it's really a "press conference" >> for DESA to announce the report on IGF renewal that we were previously >> expecting to be debated at CSTD (which is in late May, of course). They >> would also presumably make some kind of statement about the process they >> expect to use, going forward. >> >> -- >> 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 > > > -- > ____________________ > Bertrand de La Chapelle > Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the > Information Society > Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of Foreign > and European Affairs > Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 > > "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint > Exupéry > ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Tue Mar 30 07:13:40 2010 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 12:13:40 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] DESA information meeting on IGF continuation in In-Reply-To: <701af9f71003300351m765ed6advde7ba30d3e1bff5e@mail.gmail.com> References: <954259bd1003290359gf6572a9n568cd84233dd0de0@mail.gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A06A2A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <954259bd1003300335j267cbda9vdfcf5ee412f2ffc1@mail.gmail.com> <701af9f71003300351m765ed6advde7ba30d3e1bff5e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: In message <701af9f71003300351m765ed6advde7ba30d3e1bff5e at mail.gmail.com>, at 15:51:36 on Tue, 30 Mar 2010, Fouad Bajwa writes >Is it available over the Internet? Some UN press conferences are, but I haven't found this one yet. http://www.un.org/webcast/pc2010.htm -- 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 jcancio at mityc.es Tue Mar 30 07:39:46 2010 From: jcancio at mityc.es (Cancio Melia, Jorge) Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 13:39:46 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] DESA information meeting on IGF continuation in In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <9F3467EE0D55B9419912B6BFBBDA1E720A69A6E7B3@SRVC202.mityc.age> Dear all Apart from the invitation forwarded you by Bertrand I have found this reference to today's meeting in the Journal of the UN (attached, p. 6): "Briefing by the Under-Secretary-General for Economic and Social Affairs on "Matters related to the continuation of the Internet Governance Forum" (organized by the Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA)) From 3 to 4.30 p.m. in Conference Room 2 (NLB). [Participation is open to all Member States and entities accredited to the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS). For further information, please contact Ms. Elvira Doyle, DESA (e-mail doylee at un.org; tel. 1 (212) 963-8377); or Mr. Vincenzo Aquaro, DESA (e-mail aquaro at un.org; tel. 1 (917) 367-4524).]" Best Jorge -----Mensaje original----- De: Roland Perry [mailto:roland at internetpolicyagency.com] Enviado el: martes, 30 de marzo de 2010 13:14 Para: governance at lists.cpsr.org Asunto: Re: AW: [governance] DESA information meeting on IGF continuation in In message <701af9f71003300351m765ed6advde7ba30d3e1bff5e at mail.gmail.com>, at 15:51:36 on Tue, 30 Mar 2010, Fouad Bajwa writes >Is it available over the Internet? Some UN press conferences are, but I haven't found this one yet. http://www.un.org/webcast/pc2010.htm -- 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 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: un DAILY JOURNAL.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 236143 bytes Desc: un DAILY JOURNAL.pdf URL: From bdelachapelle at gmail.com Tue Mar 30 08:30:43 2010 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 14:30:43 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] DESA information meeting on IGF continuation in In-Reply-To: <9F3467EE0D55B9419912B6BFBBDA1E720A69A6E7B3@SRVC202.mityc.age> References: <9F3467EE0D55B9419912B6BFBBDA1E720A69A6E7B3@SRVC202.mityc.age> Message-ID: <954259bd1003300530t63b1884tf629c7ec2054a696@mail.gmail.com> Dear Jorge, Interesting to note that the initial invitation received by the Presidency mentioned entities and people with recognized knowledge in matters of the IGF, but the daily program only WSIS-accredited entities. It may be only because of space on the paper program; but it would be interesting to verify if the meeting was indeed accessible for instance to IGF participants from business and civil society, irrespective of their being WSIS-accredited entities or not. Best Bertrand On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 1:39 PM, Cancio Melia, Jorge wrote: > Dear all > > Apart from the invitation forwarded you by Bertrand I have found this > reference to today's meeting in the Journal of the UN (attached, p. 6): > > "Briefing by the Under-Secretary-General for Economic and Social Affairs on > "Matters related to the continuation of the Internet Governance Forum" > (organized by the Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA)) > From 3 to 4.30 p.m. in Conference Room 2 (NLB). > [Participation is open to all Member States and entities accredited to the > World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS). For further information, > please contact Ms. Elvira Doyle, DESA (e-mail doylee at un.org; tel. 1 (212) > 963-8377); or Mr. Vincenzo Aquaro, > DESA (e-mail aquaro at un.org; tel. 1 (917) 367-4524).]" > > Best > > Jorge > > -----Mensaje original----- > De: Roland Perry [mailto:roland at internetpolicyagency.com] > Enviado el: martes, 30 de marzo de 2010 13:14 > Para: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Asunto: Re: AW: [governance] DESA information meeting on IGF continuation > in > > In message > <701af9f71003300351m765ed6advde7ba30d3e1bff5e at mail.gmail.com>, at > 15:51:36 on Tue, 30 Mar 2010, Fouad Bajwa writes > >Is it available over the Internet? > > Some UN press conferences are, but I haven't found this one yet. > > http://www.un.org/webcast/pc2010.htm > -- > 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 > -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the Information Society Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From toml at communisphere.com Tue Mar 30 10:23:56 2010 From: toml at communisphere.com (Thomas Lowenhaupt) Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 10:23:56 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: DESA Meeting in NYC March 30 Message-ID: <02e801cad014$a2c39350$7800a8c0@powuseren2ihcx> It appears that I have received the necessary approvals to gain access to today's DESA meeting at the UN. Should there be an opportunity for Q&A, suggestions as to questions I might ask, or other actions that might advance our mission, are welcomed. Tom Lowenhaupt TomL at communisphere.com 718 639 4222 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: pic46461.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 2610 bytes Desc: not available URL: From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Tue Mar 30 11:03:57 2010 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 08:03:57 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Re: DESA Meeting in NYC March 30 In-Reply-To: <02e801cad014$a2c39350$7800a8c0@powuseren2ihcx> Message-ID: <621792.57829.qm@web83912.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Is there any mechanism that allows those admitted to attend to be contacted (just like you are doing here) so that there is some representation of Individuals?   What group or individual is on the record as desiring to cease the work of the IGF?   What group or individual is on the record as desiring to increase the work of the IGF?   Is DESA accepting any independent public written input regarding the work of the IGF?  If so where and how? --- On Tue, 3/30/10, Thomas Lowenhaupt wrote: From: Thomas Lowenhaupt Subject: [governance] Re: DESA Meeting in NYC March 30 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Date: Tuesday, March 30, 2010, 2:23 PM It appears that I have received the necessary approvals to gain access to today's DESA meeting at the UN. Should there be an opportunity for Q&A, suggestions as to questions I might ask, or other actions that might advance our mission, are welcomed. Tom Lowenhaupt TomL at communisphere.com 718 639 4222 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Tue Mar 30 11:06:44 2010 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 08:06:44 -0700 (PDT) Subject: AW: [governance] DESA information meeting on IGF continuation in New In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A06A2A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <488927.25449.qm@web83911.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Does someone have the "names and addresses" of the members of DESA?  They seem to be sequestered from the public view -- both meanings intended. --- On Tue, 3/30/10, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" Subject: AW: [governance] DESA information meeting on IGF continuation in New To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Bertrand de La Chapelle" , governance at lists.cpsr.org Date: Tuesday, March 30, 2010, 7:47 AM Dear list to be frank I see this procedure, chosen by UNDESA, as a provocation and in sharp contrast to the principles of the Tunis Agenda.  Why this letter was send out only to the permanent missions in New York when the meeting is open to all other stakeholders? How serious is this invitation to non-governmental stakeholders if the invitation is send out on such a short notice and with a very limited distribution? Under such conditions there will be only a very small number of non-governmental representatives available for a discussion. Is this the intention of the meeting to be formally open but de facto closed? Why such a meeting was not announced via the IGF website? Why UNDESA did not use other channels - including the various mailing lists - to inform about such a consultation which is obviously important for the future of the IGF as a whole? I understand that governments need a space where they can discuss internally their issues and procedures. It would have been better when this meeting would have been declared as a closed internal intergovernmental IGF consultation. But to give the impression this is a consultation open for all stakeholdery by reducing the opportunity for non-governmental stakeholders to be present and to organize it in this way gives the a meeting the bad taste of a tricky procedure aimed at exclusion and deal making behind closed doors against the principles of openess, transparency and bottom up PDP. Governments in the IGF are an important partner. But they are embedded into a multistakeholder environment. The IGF is not an intergovernmental body. Such dubious meetings produce mistrust in a process which should and has to be based on confidence among the stakeholders. What will happen with the report of this meeting?  Who was there? Can we get any reporting back from it? Wolfgang   ________________________________ Von: Bertrand de La Chapelle [mailto:bdelachapelle at gmail.com] Gesendet: Mo 29.03.2010 12:59 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org Betreff: [governance] DESA information meeting on IGF continuation in New York tomorrow (March 30) Dear all, I do not know if members of this list are aware of the information meeting organised by DESA tomorrow in New York on the continuation of the IGF. (sorry for not having shared this earlier). The meeting will take place from 15 to 18, in the conference room 2 (Edificio del Jardim norte ???) The invitation letter to permanent missions (spanish version attached), is interesting because it indicates that the meeting is open not only to accredited entities to the World Summit on the Information society, but also to "institutions and persons with demonstrated knowledge and experience in issues related to the Internet Governance Forum" (excuse my rough translation ...). I suppose this means that any participant in the IGF meetings is allowed to attend. The indicated telephone number for DESA is : (1) 212 963 1234. I do not know how widely this invitation has been circulated, but the presence of actors on this list who can be in New York would certainly be useful (given the late date, this probably means mostly US-based actors). This will be the first opportunity to hear the public presentation by DESA and the Assistant Secretary General Sha, of the next steps in preparation of the future discussions in ECOSOC and UN GA regarding the continuation of the IGF. The European Union will actively participate and reiterate support for the continuation of the IGF in its Tunis mandate for at least another period of five years. Feedback from people that will be attending is highly welcome. Apologies again for not having thought of sharing this on the list earlier. Best Bertrand -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the Information Society Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Mar 30 11:08:44 2010 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 08:08:44 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Who? DESA Message-ID: <115777.965.qm@web83902.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Who is the US country representative on the DESA?   (please repeat for any other country) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Mar 30 11:29:17 2010 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 08:29:17 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] China Governance Message-ID: <969209.17622.qm@web83910.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> In watching all the news reports of Google and Censoring and freedom of Information,,,,  I find myself asking the fundamental question of "for China -- are we sure that a more open Internet is really the right thing to do".   It seems fundamentally that the answer is always yes!!!  But just take the earth and our environment for one small example.  Are we really ready to have mass consumerism sprout wings for 1 billion more people. Of course the same questions are begged for, Pornography, Competitive Politics, and Religion.   For me the balance always comes down on the side of open and free, but at what cost and at what speed?  And obviously who is the western Internet to decide for the east? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Mar 30 11:36:17 2010 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 16:36:17 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] DESA information meeting on IGF continuation in New In-Reply-To: <488927.25449.qm@web83911.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A06A2A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <488927.25449.qm@web83911.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: In message <488927.25449.qm at web83911.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>, at 08:06:44 on Tue, 30 Mar 2010, Eric Dierker writes >Does someone have the "names and addresses" of the members of DESA?  Does it have a concept of "members" (other than "all UN states")? Some of its relevant, to this list, subcommittees (eg ECOSOC) have specific membership: http://www.un.org/en/ecosoc/about/members.shtml Plus a range of organisations which are accredited with "consultative status" : http://www.un.org/esa/coordination/ngo/ -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Tue Mar 30 11:37:46 2010 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 16:37:46 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: DESA Meeting in NYC March 30 In-Reply-To: <621792.57829.qm@web83912.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> References: <02e801cad014$a2c39350$7800a8c0@powuseren2ihcx> <621792.57829.qm@web83912.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: In message <621792.57829.qm at web83912.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>, at 08:03:57 on Tue, 30 Mar 2010, Eric Dierker writes >Is DESA accepting any independent public written input regarding the >work of the IGF?  If so where and how? I think you had to submit that before (or at worst during) the Sharm IGF meeting. -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gpaque at gmail.com Tue Mar 30 17:31:42 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 17:01:42 -0430 Subject: [governance] [Fwd: Launch of CSO Net - the Civil Society Network] Message-ID: <4BB26DBE.5000300@gmail.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From bdelachapelle at gmail.com Tue Mar 30 17:48:49 2010 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 23:48:49 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: DESA Meeting in NYC March 30 In-Reply-To: References: <02e801cad014$a2c39350$7800a8c0@powuseren2ihcx> <621792.57829.qm@web83912.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <954259bd1003301448n5c24d6b4w7827fa6582778542@mail.gmail.com> This is right. B. On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 5:37 PM, Roland Perry < roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote: > In message <621792.57829.qm at web83912.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>, at 08:03:57 on > Tue, 30 Mar 2010, Eric Dierker writes > > Is DESA accepting any independent public written input regarding the >> work of the IGF? If so where and how? >> > > I think you had to submit that before (or at worst during) the Sharm IGF > 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 > -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the Information Society Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gpaque at gmail.com Tue Mar 30 19:34:29 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 19:04:29 -0430 Subject: [governance] NOW ONLINE: Nomination Form for a Speaking Role at the Informal InteractiveHearings of the General Assembly with Civil Society] Message-ID: <4BB28A85.7030901@gmail.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From toml at communisphere.com Wed Mar 31 02:22:52 2010 From: toml at communisphere.com (Thomas Lowenhaupt) Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 02:22:52 -0400 Subject: [governance] Notes from Under-Secretary-General Sha's briefing on IGF at UN New York March 30 2010 References: <115777.965.qm@web83902.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <041201cad09a$998b61b0$7800a8c0@powuseren2ihcx> Internet Governance - IGF Briefing by Under-Secretary-General Sha at UN March 30, 2010 The briefing began at 3:15 PM at the new temporary building at UN Headquarters in New York City. Under-Secretary- General for Economic and Social Affairs Mr. Sha Zukang presided. Mr. Sha began with a statement about his early interest in Internet Governance, stating that he was the first to bring up the subject of Internet Governance at the U.N. Apparently responding to some suspicion arising from his former position as China's Ambassador to the U.N., and the controversies about China's oversight of that nation's Internet resources, he stated that he spoke as a U.N. employee. He stated that China had no real interest in this matter and was not even present in the hall. "They don't care." He then read a six page statement, interspersed with personal observations. I'll endeavor to transcribe from the written statement beginning after the history on page 3, under the heading "How The Review Process Will Unfold." After reading the statement Mr. Sha took statements from Yemen, EU, Egypt, Sri Lanka, Canada, U.S., U.K., France, Norway, ICC and some concluding statements by Mr., Sha. >From page 3 of the written statement [with my comments in brackets] - ------------------------------ How The Review Process Will Unfold When the IGF was created, it was given a lifespan of five years, after which time Member States would review the desirability of its continuation. The Secretary-General was asked to assist in this process by examining its merits taking into account the views of its many participants. More precisely, Member States, in paragraph 76 of the Tunis Agenda "ask the UN Secretary General to examiner the desirability of the continuation of the Forum, in formal consultation with Forum participants, within five years of its creation, and to make recommendations to the UN Membership in this regard." Those five years have now come to an end. The formal consultations were initiated by an online process. A total of 61 written submissions were received following these calls for public comment, of which 40 responded to the online questionnaire. Contributions were received from Governments. Comments were also received from a number of individuals. In November 2009, I convened a formal consultation with IGF participants during the fourth meeting of the Forum in Sharm El Sheikh, Egypt. During the consultation 47 speakers. Eight statements of participants who were not given a speaking time slot due to time constraints were posted online. In addition, two statement were submitted after the consultations. The total number of contributions over the six month consultation period from July to December 2009 was thus 118. Paragraph 35 of the Tunis Agenda enumerates four groups of stakeholders and describes, in broad terms, the role that each might play in Internet governance. They are: 1. Governments; 2. The private sector; 3. Civic society; 4. Intergovernmental and other international organizations. Member States also recognized "the valuable contributions by the academic and technical communities within those stakeholder groups." Here, Member States have been very clear. The WSIS Declaration of Principles adopted during the first phase of the Summit express a commitment to building an inclusive, people-centered and development-oriented Information Society for all. The Tunis Agenda, adopted during the second phase, reinforced this understanding by calling for the establishment of a platform for multistakeholder dialogue, the IGF, where voices could be heard. What stakeholders have said [This section enumerated six areas where participants have made suggestions.] Submission of the Recommendations of the Secretary-General It is in the spirit of inclusiveness that the recommendations of the Secretary-General must be prepared , taking into account the opinions expressed by all stakeholder groups in the consultations. Based on Paragraph 76 of the Tunis Agenda, the note will be transmitted to the 65th session of the General Assembly for consideration under item 17 of the provisional agenda on information and communication technology for development. The General Assembly will decide on the issue of the consultation of the IGF. Recently, some Member States have expressed the desire that the note of the Secretary-General on continuation of the IGF be submitted to the CSTD for consideration. As you know, the agenda and the programme of the work of the CSTD were decided by ECOSOC in its decision 2009/219. The decision did not request that the Commission review the continuation of the IGF. Nor was there any subsequent request for the submission of the recommendations of the Secretary-General to the CSTD. In the provisional annotated agenda and organization of work issued early this month under the symbol E/CN.16/2010/1, the matter of the continuation of the IGF was nowhere mentioned in the annotated agenda of the CSTD. While CSTD is scheduled to consider WSIS follow up, it will address the broad issue of the assessment of the five-year progress made in the implementation of WSIS. Without a specific request from the CSTD, as requested in the decision of ECOSOC, DESA is proceeding with the preparation of the recommendations of the /Secretary-General, with the documentation timeline for the General Assembly. [Here he emphasized the need and difficulty of translating into the UN's 6 languages.] The matter whether the CSTD will consider the recommendations of the Secretary-General on the continuation of the IGF will therefore be a decision by Member States. Regarding the note of the Secretary-General containing the recommendations of the continuation of the IGF, UNDESA could circulate the note of the Secretary-General during the 13th session of the CSTD in Geneva from 17-21 May. [Here Mr. Sha emphasized the use of the word "could."] However, since the Secretariat is preparing the note according to the documentation timeline of the General Assembly, the note will be only in unedited form in English only. The official document on six languages will not be available before then. As you know, the advance text itself must go through editing, translation and production processes. So the issue before us is two-fold - a decision by member states as to whether the recommendations of the Secretary-General should be submitted first to CSTD; whether Member States could proceed with consideration of the recommendations in the advance unedited form and not in six official languages. At any rate I would be pleased to send a representative to CSTD to share whatever information we can on the substance of the SGs recommendations, if invited. Let me conclude by repeating that this briefing serves to inform you about the process for preparation of the SGs recommendation. Mr. Sha then took statements from several entities. Yemen - presented a "Statement on Behalf of the Group of 77 and China." (See http://www.g77.org/doc/) After a preamble it made 6 points, which I paraphrase: 1. The issue is important and must be addressed at the General Assembly regardless of other fora that might also discuss it. 2. G77 and China believe IGF should be reviewed every 2-3 years. 3. IGF should focus, among other areas, "on how to resolve significant public policy issues such as the unilateral control of the critical Internet resources." 4. The IGF should move beyond advice and provide advice to intergovernmental bodies. 5. LDC's should be more involved than in the past. 6. "the Tunis Agenda should be strictly followed, when reforming the IGF, so as not to duplicate the work and mandates of other existing arrangements, mechanisms, institutions or organizations." And the IGF should continue to work under the auspices of the UN. EU- Offered strong support for another five years in its current form. The CSTD should be directly involved in the process. They suggested that the preliminary note's "could" be circulated status be changed to "will." Egypt - They subscribe to Group of 77 plus China. Supports continuation of IGF but its working methods need to be revised. Needs more financial support for LDCs. Paragraph 71 has not been followed. Sri Lanka - Support continuation of IGF. Canada - Supports IGF continuation. U.S. - Statement by Michael Snowden, Advisor, Economic and Social Affairs. Appreciate effort put forward by Mr. Sha. Echo previous statement. IGF has been valuable. They second the hope that an early version of the SG's notes can be circulated prior to CSTD. U.K. - 60252 asked ECOSOC to work with CSTD. Would like copy circulated prior to CSTD. Mr. Sha Comment - As long as the General Assembly membership agrees that an English-only version may circulate, he will enable it. But there must be a unanimous call for this. France - Agreed with G 77 and China and EU. Wants it for the CSTD meeting but language is an issue. [Here Mr. Sha praised France.] Norway - Asked about paragraph 71. Staff had to check this and at the conclusion of the comments Mr. Sha stated that this process was to be undertaken by Council of Europe, ICANN, IETF, OECD, WIPO, W3C. He referred to a SG progress report in 2008. Mr. Sha noted that he follows the General Assembly: 193 members of General Assembly 54 members of ECOSOC 43 members of CSTD. ICC (International Chamber of Commerce - Supports continuation of IGF. Mr. Sha - CSTD can be helpful but it can't supplant the work of the General Assembly. To release the draft note he needs a request from the CSTD, from the bureau [not sure which that is] or an ad hoc group. He also needs the non-English to say it is OK, or minimally not object. One objection would stop him from releasing the draft SG note. End of notes and comments by Tom Lowenhaupt, March 31, 2010. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Wed Mar 31 02:41:32 2010 From: toml at communisphere.com (Thomas Lowenhaupt) Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 02:41:32 -0400 Subject: [governance] REVISED Notes from Under-Secretary-General Sha's briefing on IGF at UN New York March 30 2010 Message-ID: <042601cad09d$34f932b0$7800a8c0@powuseren2ihcx> Sorry for this REVISED version but I noticed that several ellipses ... were stripped from my earlier version. Internet Governance – IGF Briefing by Under-Secretary-General Sha at UN March 30, 2010 The briefing began at 3:15 PM at the new temporary building at UN Headquarters in New York City. Under-Secretary- General for Economic and Social Affairs Mr. Sha Zukang presided. Mr. Sha began with a statement about his early interest in Internet Governance, stating that he was the first to bring up the subject of Internet Governance at the U.N. Apparently responding to some suspicion arising from his former position as China’s Ambassador to the U.N., and the controversies about China’s oversight of that nation’s Internet resources, he stated that he spoke as a U.N. employee. He stated that China had no real interest in this matter and was not even present in the hall. "They don’t care." He then read a six page statement, interspersed with personal observations. I’ll endeavor to transcribe from the written statement beginning after the history on page 3, under the heading "How The Review Process Will Unfold." After reading the statement Mr. Sha took statements from Yemen, EU, Egypt, Sri Lanka, Canada, U.S., U.K., France, Norway, ICC and some concluding statements by Mr. Sha. >From page 3 of the written statement [with my comments in brackets] - ------------------------------ How The Review Process Will Unfold When the IGF was created, it was given a lifespan of five years, after which time Member States would review the desirability of its continuation. The Secretary-General was asked to assist in this process by examining its merits taking into account the views of its many participants. More precisely, Member States, in paragraph 76 of the Tunis Agenda "ask the UN Secretary General to examiner the desirability of the continuation of the Forum, in formal consultation with Forum participants, within five years of its creation, and to make recommendations to the UN Membership in this regard." Those five years have now come to an end. The formal consultations were initiated by an online process… A total of 61 written submissions were received following these calls for public comment, of which 40 responded to the online questionnaire. Contributions were received from Governments… Comments were also received from a number of individuals. In November 2009, I convened a formal consultation with IGF participants during the fourth meeting of the Forum in Sharm El Sheikh, Egypt. During the consultation 47 speakers… Eight statements of participants who were not given a speaking time slot due to time constraints were posted online. In addition, two statement were submitted after the consultations. The total number of contributions over the six month consultation period from July to December 2009 was thus 118. Paragraph 35 of the Tunis Agenda enumerates four groups of stakeholders and describes, in broad terms, the role that each might play in Internet governance. They are: 1. Governments; 2. The private sector; 3. Civic society; 4. Intergovernmental and other international organizations. Member States also recognized "the valuable contributions by the academic and technical communities within those stakeholder groups… Here, Member States have been very clear. The WSIS Declaration of Principles adopted during the first phase of the Summit express a commitment to building an inclusive, people-centered and development-oriented Information Society for all. The Tunis Agenda, adopted during the second phase, reinforced this understanding by calling for the establishment of a platform for multistakeholder dialogue, the IGF, where voices could be heard. What stakeholders have said [This section enumerated six areas where participants made suggestions.] Submission of the Recommendations of the Secretary-General It is in the spirit of inclusiveness that the recommendations of the Secretary-General must be prepared , taking into account the opinions expressed by all stakeholder groups in the consultations. Based on Paragraph 76 of the Tunis Agenda, the note will be transmitted to the 65th session of the General Assembly for consideration under item 17 of the provisional agenda on information and communication technology for development. The General Assembly will decide on the issue of the consultation of the IGF. Recently, some Member States have expressed the desire that the note of the Secretary-General on continuation of the IGF be submitted to the CSTD for consideration. As you know, the agenda and the programme of the work of the CSTD were decided by ECOSOC in its decision 2009/219. The decision did not request that the Commission review the continuation of the IGF. Nor was there any subsequent request for the submission of the recommendations of the Secretary-General to the CSTD. In the provisional annotated agenda and organization of work issued early this month under the symbol E/CN.16/2010/1, the matter of the continuation of the IGF was nowhere mentioned in the annotated agenda of the CSTD. While CSTD is scheduled to consider WSIS follow up, it will address the broad issue of the assessment of the five-year progress made in the implementation of WSIS. Without a specific request from the CSTD, as requested in the decision of ECOSOC, DESA is proceeding with the preparation of the recommendations of the /Secretary-General, with the documentation timeline for the General Assembly. [Here he emphasized the need and difficulty of translating into the UN’s 6 languages.] The matter whether the CSTD will consider the recommendations of the Secretary-General on the continuation of the IGF will therefore be a decision by Member States. Regarding the note of the Secretary-General containing the recommendations of the continuation of the IGF, UNDESA could circulate the note of the Secretary-General during the 13th session of the CSTD in Geneva from 17-21 May. [Here Mr. Sha emphasized the use of the word "could."] However, since the Secretariat is preparing the note according to the documentation timeline of the General Assembly, the note will be only in unedited form in English only. The official document on six languages will not be available before then. As you know, the advance text itself must go through editing, translation and production processes. So the issue before us is two-fold – a decision by member states as to whether the recommendations of the Secretary-General should be submitted first to CSTD; whether Member States could proceed with consideration of the recommendations in the advance unedited form and not in six official languages. At any rate I would be pleased to send a representative to CSTD to share whatever information we can on the substance of the SGs recommendations, if invited. Let me conclude by repeating that this briefing serves to inform you about the process for preparation of the SGs recommendation… Mr. Sha then took statements from several entities. Yemen – presented a "Statement on Behalf of the Group of 77 and China." (See http://www.g77.org/doc/ on Group of 77) After a preamble it made 6 points, which I paraphrase: 1. The issue is important and must be addressed at the General Assembly regardless of other fora that might also discuss it. 2. G77 and China believe IGF should be reviewed every 2-3 years. 3. IGF should focus, among other areas, "on how to resolve significant public policy issues such as the unilateral control of the critical Internet resources…" 4. The IGF should move beyond advice and provide advice to intergovernmental bodies. 5. LDC’s should be more involved than in the past. 6. "the Tunis Agenda should be strictly followed, when reforming the IGF, so as not to duplicate the work and mandates of other existing arrangements, mechanisms, institutions or organizations." And the IGF should continue to work under the auspices of the UN. EU- Offered strong support for another five years in its current form. The CSTD should be directly involved in the process. They suggested that the preliminary note’s "could" be circulated status be changed to "will." Egypt – They subscribe to Group of 77 plus China. Supports continuation of IGF but its working methods need to be revised. Needs more financial support for LDCs. Paragraph 71 has not been followed. Sri Lanka – Support continuation of IGF. Canada – Supports IGF continuation. U.S. – Statement by Michael Snowden, Advisor, Economic and Social Affairs. Appreciate effort put forward by Mr. Sha. Echo previous statement. IGF has been valuable. They second the hope that an early version of the SGs notes can be circulated prior to CSTD. U.K. – 60252 asked ECOSOC to work with CSTD. Would like copy circulated prior to CSTD. Mr. Sha Comment – As long as the General Assembly membership agrees that an English-only version may circulate, he will enable it. But there must be a unanimous call for this. France – Agreed with G 77 and China and EU. Wants it for the CSTD meeting but language is an issue. [Here Mr. Sha praised France.] Norway – Asked about paragraph 71. Staff had to check this and this process was to be undertaken by Council of Europe, ICANN, IETF, OECD, WIPO, W3C. He referred to a SG progress report in 2008. Mr. Sha noted that he follows the General Assembly: 193 members of General Assembly 54 members of ECOSOC 43 members of CSTD. ICC (International Chamber of Commerce – Supports continuation of IGF. Mr. Sha – CSTD can be helpful but it can’t supplant the work of the General Assembly. He needs a request from the CSTD, from the bureau [not sure which that is] or an ad hoc group before he can release the draft SG note. He also needs the non-English to say it is OK, or minimally not object. One objection would probably stop him from releasing it. End of notes and comments. Tom Lowenhaupt. 2:06 AM. March 31, 2010. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Wed Mar 31 03:21:07 2010 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 09:21:07 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] REVISED Notes from Under-Secretary-General Sha's References: <042601cad09d$34f932b0$7800a8c0@powuseren2ihcx> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A06A34@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Dear Thomas thanks very very much. wolfgang ________________________________ Von: Thomas Lowenhaupt [mailto:toml at communisphere.com] Gesendet: Mi 31.03.2010 08:41 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org Betreff: [governance] REVISED Notes from Under-Secretary-General Sha's briefing on IGF at UN New York March 30 2010 Sorry for this REVISED version but I noticed that several ellipses ... were stripped from my earlier version. Internet Governance - IGF Briefing by Under-Secretary-General Sha at UN March 30, 2010 The briefing began at 3:15 PM at the new temporary building at UN Headquarters in New York City. Under-Secretary- General for Economic and Social Affairs Mr. Sha Zukang presided. Mr. Sha began with a statement about his early interest in Internet Governance, stating that he was the first to bring up the subject of Internet Governance at the U.N. Apparently responding to some suspicion arising from his former position as China's Ambassador to the U.N., and the controversies about China's oversight of that nation's Internet resources, he stated that he spoke as a U.N. employee. He stated that China had no real interest in this matter and was not even present in the hall. "They don't care." He then read a six page statement, interspersed with personal observations. I'll endeavor to transcribe from the written statement beginning after the history on page 3, under the heading "How The Review Process Will Unfold." After reading the statement Mr. Sha took statements from Yemen, EU, Egypt, Sri Lanka, Canada, U.S., U.K., France, Norway, ICC and some concluding statements by Mr. Sha. >From page 3 of the written statement [with my comments in brackets] - ------------------------------ How The Review Process Will Unfold When the IGF was created, it was given a lifespan of five years, after which time Member States would review the desirability of its continuation. The Secretary-General was asked to assist in this process by examining its merits taking into account the views of its many participants. More precisely, Member States, in paragraph 76 of the Tunis Agenda "ask the UN Secretary General to examiner the desirability of the continuation of the Forum, in formal consultation with Forum participants, within five years of its creation, and to make recommendations to the UN Membership in this regard." Those five years have now come to an end. The formal consultations were initiated by an online process... A total of 61 written submissions were received following these calls for public comment, of which 40 responded to the online questionnaire. Contributions were received from Governments... Comments were also received from a number of individuals. In November 2009, I convened a formal consultation with IGF participants during the fourth meeting of the Forum in Sharm El Sheikh, Egypt. During the consultation 47 speakers... Eight statements of participants who were not given a speaking time slot due to time constraints were posted online. In addition, two statement were submitted after the consultations. The total number of contributions over the six month consultation period from July to December 2009 was thus 118. Paragraph 35 of the Tunis Agenda enumerates four groups of stakeholders and describes, in broad terms, the role that each might play in Internet governance. They are: 1. Governments; 2. The private sector; 3. Civic society; 4. Intergovernmental and other international organizations. Member States also recognized "the valuable contributions by the academic and technical communities within those stakeholder groups... Here, Member States have been very clear. The WSIS Declaration of Principles adopted during the first phase of the Summit express a commitment to building an inclusive, people-centered and development-oriented Information Society for all. The Tunis Agenda, adopted during the second phase, reinforced this understanding by calling for the establishment of a platform for multistakeholder dialogue, the IGF, where voices could be heard. What stakeholders have said [This section enumerated six areas where participants made suggestions.] Submission of the Recommendations of the Secretary-General It is in the spirit of inclusiveness that the recommendations of the Secretary-General must be prepared , taking into account the opinions expressed by all stakeholder groups in the consultations. Based on Paragraph 76 of the Tunis Agenda, the note will be transmitted to the 65th session of the General Assembly for consideration under item 17 of the provisional agenda on information and communication technology for development. The General Assembly will decide on the issue of the consultation of the IGF. Recently, some Member States have expressed the desire that the note of the Secretary-General on continuation of the IGF be submitted to the CSTD for consideration. As you know, the agenda and the programme of the work of the CSTD were decided by ECOSOC in its decision 2009/219. The decision did not request that the Commission review the continuation of the IGF. Nor was there any subsequent request for the submission of the recommendations of the Secretary-General to the CSTD. In the provisional annotated agenda and organization of work issued early this month under the symbol E/CN.16/2010/1, the matter of the continuation of the IGF was nowhere mentioned in the annotated agenda of the CSTD. While CSTD is scheduled to consider WSIS follow up, it will address the broad issue of the assessment of the five-year progress made in the implementation of WSIS. Without a specific request from the CSTD, as requested in the decision of ECOSOC, DESA is proceeding with the preparation of the recommendations of the /Secretary-General, with the documentation timeline for the General Assembly. [Here he emphasized the need and difficulty of translating into the UN's 6 languages.] The matter whether the CSTD will consider the recommendations of the Secretary-General on the continuation of the IGF will therefore be a decision by Member States. Regarding the note of the Secretary-General containing the recommendations of the continuation of the IGF, UNDESA could circulate the note of the Secretary-General during the 13th session of the CSTD in Geneva from 17-21 May. [Here Mr. Sha emphasized the use of the word "could."] However, since the Secretariat is preparing the note according to the documentation timeline of the General Assembly, the note will be only in unedited form in English only. The official document on six languages will not be available before then. As you know, the advance text itself must go through editing, translation and production processes. So the issue before us is two-fold - a decision by member states as to whether the recommendations of the Secretary-General should be submitted first to CSTD; whether Member States could proceed with consideration of the recommendations in the advance unedited form and not in six official languages. At any rate I would be pleased to send a representative to CSTD to share whatever information we can on the substance of the SGs recommendations, if invited. Let me conclude by repeating that this briefing serves to inform you about the process for preparation of the SGs recommendation... Mr. Sha then took statements from several entities. Yemen - presented a "Statement on Behalf of the Group of 77 and China." (See http://www.g77.org/doc/ on Group of 77) After a preamble it made 6 points, which I paraphrase: 1. The issue is important and must be addressed at the General Assembly regardless of other fora that might also discuss it. 2. G77 and China believe IGF should be reviewed every 2-3 years. 3. IGF should focus, among other areas, "on how to resolve significant public policy issues such as the unilateral control of the critical Internet resources..." 4. The IGF should move beyond advice and provide advice to intergovernmental bodies. 5. LDC's should be more involved than in the past. 6. "the Tunis Agenda should be strictly followed, when reforming the IGF, so as not to duplicate the work and mandates of other existing arrangements, mechanisms, institutions or organizations." And the IGF should continue to work under the auspices of the UN. EU- Offered strong support for another five years in its current form. The CSTD should be directly involved in the process. They suggested that the preliminary note's "could" be circulated status be changed to "will." Egypt - They subscribe to Group of 77 plus China. Supports continuation of IGF but its working methods need to be revised. Needs more financial support for LDCs. Paragraph 71 has not been followed. Sri Lanka - Support continuation of IGF. Canada - Supports IGF continuation. U.S. - Statement by Michael Snowden, Advisor, Economic and Social Affairs. Appreciate effort put forward by Mr. Sha. Echo previous statement. IGF has been valuable. They second the hope that an early version of the SGs notes can be circulated prior to CSTD. U.K. - 60252 asked ECOSOC to work with CSTD. Would like copy circulated prior to CSTD. Mr. Sha Comment - As long as the General Assembly membership agrees that an English-only version may circulate, he will enable it. But there must be a unanimous call for this. France - Agreed with G 77 and China and EU. Wants it for the CSTD meeting but language is an issue. [Here Mr. Sha praised France.] Norway - Asked about paragraph 71. Staff had to check this and this process was to be undertaken by Council of Europe, ICANN, IETF, OECD, WIPO, W3C. He referred to a SG progress report in 2008. Mr. Sha noted that he follows the General Assembly: 193 members of General Assembly 54 members of ECOSOC 43 members of CSTD. ICC (International Chamber of Commerce - Supports continuation of IGF. Mr. Sha - CSTD can be helpful but it can't supplant the work of the General Assembly. He needs a request from the CSTD, from the bureau [not sure which that is] or an ad hoc group before he can release the draft SG note. He also needs the non-English to say it is OK, or minimally not object. One objection would probably stop him from releasing it. End of notes and comments. Tom Lowenhaupt. 2:06 AM. March 31, 2010. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Wed Mar 31 03:22:59 2010 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 09:22:59 +0200 Subject: [governance] WG: Launch of CSO Net - the Civil Society Network References: Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A06A35@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> FYI This is what I (and probably many others) got today from UNDESA. Wolfgang ________________________________ Von: DESA NGO Branch [mailto:ngonews at un.org] Gesendet: Di 30.03.2010 19:50 An: wolfgang at imv.au.dk Betreff: Launch of CSO Net - the Civil Society Network Dear NGO Community, With an increasing number of civil society organizations seeking consultative status with the Economic and Social Council, the NGO Branch of the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA), is increasingly being called upon to engage with these organizations worldwide on a wide range of issues on the United Nation's development agenda. There is now a growing demand from organizations from both the developed and developing countries to contribute to the UN's economic and social agenda, including to the internationally agreed development goals. In order to facilitate this engagement and provide a suitable platform for civil society, I am pleased to announce that UNDESA has launched a knowledge-based, open networking platform called CSO Net - the Civil Society Network, which is designed to facilitate interaction among civil society groups worldwide, Member States and UN system agencies. The aim is to: share and promote best practices in the field of economic and social development; establish innovative and collaborative development solutions; facilitate partnerships among the users of the portal; and promote interactive discussions through online forums on issues of immediate relevance to the UN's agenda. This portal can be accessed at http://www.un.org/ecosoc/csonet . I invite you to visit the portal and explore ways that your organization can contribute to and engage effectively with the NGO Branch and the United Nations system as a whole. The multiple features of the portal provide numerous tools, sources of information and news about civil society and the UN that are designed, as much to inform you about the UN's work, and as much as to highlight and facilitate civil society contribution to the UN's development goals. We look forward to reinforcing our partnership with civil society in order to deliver on our global commitments. To that end, I very much look forward to your suggestions, feedback and recommendations on the use of this portal and the way forward. Yours sincerely, Sha Zukang Under-Secretary-General Department of Economic and Social Affairs United Nations ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From yrjo_lansipuro at hotmail.com Wed Mar 31 03:37:55 2010 From: yrjo_lansipuro at hotmail.com (=?Windows-1252?B?WXJq9iBM5G5zaXB1cm8=?=) Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 10:37:55 +0300 Subject: [governance] REVISED Notes from Under-Secretary-General Sha's Message-ID: Dear Thomas, Thank you very much for this report. The CSTD Bureau consists of the Chair and four Vice-Chairs. Together, they represent all five UN regions. The present Chair is Switzerland, Vice-Chairs are El Salvador,Ghana,India and Slovakia. http://www.unctad.org/Templates/Page.asp?intItemID=4805&lang=1 So if I understood correctly, what Sha is saying is that if this group puts in a request, the document can/will be made available to the CSTD. Best, Yrjö > From: toml at communisphere.com > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 02:41:32 -0400 > Subject: [governance] REVISED Notes from Under-Secretary-General Sha's briefing on IGF at UN New York March 30 2010 > > Sorry for this REVISED version but I noticed that several ellipses ... were > stripped from my earlier version. > > Internet Governance – IGF Briefing by Under-Secretary-General Sha at UN > March 30, 2010 > > The briefing began at 3:15 PM at the new temporary building at UN > Headquarters in New York City. Under-Secretary- General for Economic and > Social Affairs Mr. Sha Zukang presided. > > Mr. Sha began with a statement about his early interest in Internet > Governance, stating that he was the first to bring up the subject of > Internet Governance at the U.N. Apparently responding to some suspicion > arising from his former position as China’s Ambassador to the U.N., and the > controversies about China’s oversight of that nation’s Internet resources, > he stated that he spoke as a U.N. employee. He stated that China had no real > interest in this matter and was not even present in the hall. "They don’t > care." > > He then read a six page statement, interspersed with personal observations. > I’ll endeavor to transcribe from the written statement beginning after the > history on page 3, under the heading "How The Review Process Will Unfold." > After reading the statement Mr. Sha took statements from Yemen, EU, Egypt, > Sri Lanka, Canada, U.S., U.K., France, Norway, ICC and some concluding > statements by Mr. Sha. > > From page 3 of the written statement [with my comments in brackets] - > > ------------------------------ > > How The Review Process Will Unfold > > When the IGF was created, it was given a lifespan of five years, after which > time Member States would review the desirability of its continuation. The > Secretary-General was asked to assist in this process by examining its > merits taking into account the views of its many participants. More > precisely, Member States, in paragraph 76 of the Tunis Agenda "ask the UN > Secretary General to examiner the desirability of the continuation of the > Forum, in formal consultation with Forum participants, within five years of > its creation, and to make recommendations to the UN Membership in this > regard." Those five years have now come to an end. > > The formal consultations were initiated by an online process… > > A total of 61 written submissions were received following these calls for > public comment, of which 40 responded to the online questionnaire. > Contributions were received from Governments… Comments were also received > from a number of individuals. > > In November 2009, I convened a formal consultation with IGF participants > during the fourth meeting of the Forum in Sharm El Sheikh, Egypt. During the > consultation 47 speakers… > > Eight statements of participants who were not given a speaking time slot due > to time constraints were posted online. In addition, two statement were > submitted after the consultations. > > The total number of contributions over the six month consultation period > from July to December 2009 was thus 118. > > Paragraph 35 of the Tunis Agenda enumerates four groups of stakeholders and > describes, in broad terms, the role that each might play in Internet > governance. They are: > > 1. Governments; > > 2. The private sector; > > 3. Civic society; > > 4. Intergovernmental and other international organizations. > > > > Member States also recognized "the valuable contributions by the academic > and technical communities within those stakeholder groups… > > Here, Member States have been very clear. The WSIS Declaration of Principles > adopted during the first phase of the Summit express a commitment to > building an inclusive, people-centered and development-oriented Information > Society for all. The Tunis Agenda, adopted during the second phase, > reinforced this understanding by calling for the establishment of a platform > for multistakeholder dialogue, the IGF, where voices could be heard. > > What stakeholders have said > > [This section enumerated six areas where participants made suggestions.] > > Submission of the Recommendations of the Secretary-General > > It is in the spirit of inclusiveness that the recommendations of the > Secretary-General must be prepared , taking into account the opinions > expressed by all stakeholder groups in the consultations. > > Based on Paragraph 76 of the Tunis Agenda, the note will be transmitted to > the 65th session of the General Assembly for consideration under item 17 of > the provisional agenda on information and communication technology for > development. > > The General Assembly will decide on the issue of the consultation of the > IGF. > > Recently, some Member States have expressed the desire that the note of the > Secretary-General on continuation of the IGF be submitted to the CSTD for > consideration. > > As you know, the agenda and the programme of the work of the CSTD were > decided by ECOSOC in its decision 2009/219. The decision did not request > that the Commission review the continuation of the IGF. Nor was there any > subsequent request for the submission of the recommendations of the > Secretary-General to the CSTD. > > In the provisional annotated agenda and organization of work issued early > this month under the symbol E/CN.16/2010/1, the matter of the continuation > of the IGF was nowhere mentioned in the annotated agenda of the CSTD. > > While CSTD is scheduled to consider WSIS follow up, it will address the > broad issue of the assessment of the five-year progress made in the > implementation of WSIS. > > Without a specific request from the CSTD, as requested in the decision of > ECOSOC, DESA is proceeding with the preparation of the recommendations of > the /Secretary-General, with the documentation timeline for the General > Assembly. [Here he emphasized the need and difficulty of translating into > the UN’s 6 languages.] > > The matter whether the CSTD will consider the recommendations of the > Secretary-General on the continuation of the IGF will therefore be a > decision by Member States. > > Regarding the note of the Secretary-General containing the recommendations > of the continuation of the IGF, UNDESA could circulate the note of the > Secretary-General during the 13th session of the CSTD in Geneva from 17-21 > May. [Here Mr. Sha emphasized the use of the word "could."] > > However, since the Secretariat is preparing the note according to the > documentation timeline of the General Assembly, the note will be only in > unedited form in English only. The official document on six languages will > not be available before then. As you know, the advance text itself must go > through editing, translation and production processes. > > So the issue before us is two-fold – a decision by member states as to > whether the recommendations of the Secretary-General should be submitted > first to CSTD; whether Member States could proceed with consideration of the > recommendations in the advance unedited form and not in six official > languages. > > At any rate I would be pleased to send a representative to CSTD to share > whatever information we can on the substance of the SGs recommendations, if > invited. > > Let me conclude by repeating that this briefing serves to inform you about > the process for preparation of the SGs recommendation… > > Mr. Sha then took statements from several entities. > > Yemen – presented a "Statement on Behalf of the Group of 77 and China." (See > http://www.g77.org/doc/ on Group of 77) After a preamble it made 6 points, > which I paraphrase: > > 1. The issue is important and must be addressed at the General Assembly > regardless of other fora that might also discuss it. > > 2. G77 and China believe IGF should be reviewed every 2-3 years. > > 3. IGF should focus, among other areas, "on how to resolve significant > public policy issues such as the unilateral control of the critical Internet > resources…" > > 4. The IGF should move beyond advice and provide advice to intergovernmental > bodies. > > 5. LDC’s should be more involved than in the past. > > 6. "the Tunis Agenda should be strictly followed, when reforming the IGF, so > as not to duplicate the work and mandates of other existing arrangements, > mechanisms, institutions or organizations." And the IGF should continue to > work under the auspices of the UN. > > EU- Offered strong support for another five years in its current form. The > CSTD should be directly involved in the process. They suggested that the > preliminary note’s "could" be circulated status be changed to "will." > > Egypt – They subscribe to Group of 77 plus China. Supports continuation of > IGF but its working methods need to be revised. Needs more financial support > for LDCs. Paragraph 71 has not been followed. > > Sri Lanka – Support continuation of IGF. > > Canada – Supports IGF continuation. > > U.S. – Statement by Michael Snowden, Advisor, Economic and Social Affairs. > Appreciate effort put forward by Mr. Sha. Echo previous statement. IGF has > been valuable. They second the hope that an early version of the SGs notes > can be circulated prior to CSTD. > > U.K. – 60252 asked ECOSOC to work with CSTD. Would like copy circulated > prior to CSTD. > > Mr. Sha Comment – As long as the General Assembly membership agrees that an > English-only version may circulate, he will enable it. But there must be a > unanimous call for this. > > France – Agreed with G 77 and China and EU. Wants it for the CSTD meeting > but language is an issue. [Here Mr. Sha praised France.] > > Norway – Asked about paragraph 71. Staff had to check this and this process > was to be undertaken by Council of Europe, ICANN, IETF, OECD, WIPO, W3C. He > referred to a SG progress report in 2008. > > Mr. Sha noted that he follows the General Assembly: > > 193 members of General Assembly > > 54 members of ECOSOC > > 43 members of CSTD. > > ICC (International Chamber of Commerce – Supports continuation of IGF. > > Mr. Sha – CSTD can be helpful but it can’t supplant the work of the General > Assembly. He needs a request from the CSTD, from the bureau [not sure which > that is] or an ad hoc group before he can release the draft SG note. He also > needs the non-English to say it is OK, or minimally not object. One > objection would probably stop him from releasing it. > > End of notes and comments. Tom Lowenhaupt. 2:06 AM. March 31, 2010. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t _________________________________________________________________ Hotmail: Free, trusted and rich email service. https://signup.live.com/signup.aspx?id=60969 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From toml at communisphere.com Wed Mar 31 03:49:58 2010 From: toml at communisphere.com (Thomas Lowenhaupt) Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 03:49:58 -0400 Subject: [governance] REVISED Notes from Under-Secretary-General Sha's References: Message-ID: <048d01cad0a6$c3e82540$7800a8c0@powuseren2ihcx> Correct, HOWEVER, there must also not be an objection to the release of the draft SG note from any member nation. Tha tis, it seemed to me that an objection from just one General Assembly member would result in the draft note not being released. Tom ----- Original Message ----- From: Yrjö Länsipuro To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2010 3:37 AM Subject: RE: [governance] REVISED Notes from Under-Secretary-General Sha's Dear Thomas, Thank you very much for this report. The CSTD Bureau consists of the Chair and four Vice-Chairs. Together, they represent all five UN regions. The present Chair is Switzerland, Vice-Chairs are El Salvador,Ghana,India and Slovakia. http://www.unctad.org/Templates/Page.asp?intItemID=4805&lang=1 So if I understood correctly, what Sha is saying is that if this group puts in a request, the document can/will be made available to the CSTD. Best, Yrjö > From: toml at communisphere.com > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 02:41:32 -0400 > Subject: [governance] REVISED Notes from Under-Secretary-General Sha's briefing on IGF at UN New York March 30 2010 > > Sorry for this REVISED version but I noticed that several ellipses ... were > stripped from my earlier version. > > Internet Governance – IGF Briefing by Under-Secretary-General Sha at UN > March 30, 2010 > > The briefing began at 3:15 PM at the new temporary building at UN > Headquarters in New York City. Under-Secretary- General for Economic and > Social Affairs Mr. Sha Zukang presided. > > Mr. Sha began with a statement about his early interest in Internet > Governance, stating that he was the first to bring up the subject of > Internet Governance at the U.N. Apparently responding to some suspicion > arising from his former position as China’s Ambassador to the U.N., and the > controversies about China’s oversight of that nation’s Internet resources, > he stated that he spoke as a U.N. employee. He stated that China had no real > interest in this matter and was not even present in the hall. "They don’t > care." > > He then read a six page statement, interspersed with personal observations. > I’ll endeavor to transcribe from the written statement beginning after the > history on page 3, under the heading "How The Review Process Will Unfold." > After reading the statement Mr. Sha took statements from Yemen, EU, Egypt, > Sri Lanka, Canada, U.S., U.K., France, Norway, ICC and some concluding > statements by Mr. Sha. > > From page 3 of the written statement [with my comments in brackets] - > > ------------------------------ > > How The Review Process Will Unfold > > When the IGF was created, it was given a lifespan of five years, after which > time Member States would review the desirability of its continuation. The > Secretary-General was asked to assist in this process by examining its > merits taking into account the views of its many participants. More > precisely, Member States, in paragraph 76 of the Tunis Agenda "ask the UN > Secretary General to examiner the desirability of the continuation of the > Forum, in formal consultation with Forum participants, within five years of > its creation, and to make recommendations to the UN Membership in this > regard." Those five years have now come to an end. > > The formal consultations were initiated by an online process… > > A total of 61 written submissions were received following these calls for > public comment, of which 40 responded to the online questionnaire. > Contributions were received from Governments… Comments were also received > from a number of individuals. > > In November 2009, I convened a formal consultation with IGF participants > during the fourth meeting of the Forum in Sharm El Sheikh, Egypt. During the > consultation 47 speakers… > > Eight statements of participants who were not given a speaking time slot due > to time constraints were posted online. In addition, two statement were > submitted after the consultations. > > The total number of contributions over the six month consultation period > from July to December 2009 was thus 118. > > Paragraph 35 of the Tunis Agenda enumerates four groups of stakeholders and > describes, in broad terms, the role that each might play in Internet > governance. They are: > > 1. Governments; > > 2. The private sector; > > 3. Civic society; > > 4. Intergovernmental and other international organizations. > > > > Member States also recognized "the valuable contributions by the academic > and technical communities within those stakeholder groups… > > Here, Member States have been very clear. The WSIS Declaration of Principles > adopted during the first phase of the Summit express a commitment to > building an inclusive, people-centered and development-oriented Information > Society for all. The Tunis Agenda, adopted during the second phase, > reinforced this understanding by calling for the establishment of a platform > for multistakeholder dialogue, the IGF, where voices could be heard. > > What stakeholders have said > > [This section enumerated six areas where participants made suggestions.] > > Submission of the Recommendations of the Secretary-General > > It is in the spirit of inclusiveness that the recommendations of the > Secretary-General must be prepared , taking into account the opinions > expressed by all stakeholder groups in the consultations. > > Based on Paragraph 76 of the Tunis Agenda, the note will be transmitted to > the 65th session of the General Assembly for consideration under item 17 of > the provisional agenda on information and communication technology for > development. > > The General Assembly will decide on the issue of the consultation of the > IGF. > > Recently, some Member States have expressed the desire that the note of the > Secretary-General on continuation of the IGF be submitted to the CSTD for > consideration. > > As you know, the agenda and the programme of the work of the CSTD were > decided by ECOSOC in its decision 2009/219. The decision did not request > that the Commission review the continuation of the IGF. Nor was there any > subsequent request for the submission of the recommendations of the > Secretary-General to the CSTD. > > In the provisional annotated agenda and organization of work issued early > this month under the symbol E/CN.16/2010/1, the matter of the continuation > of the IGF was nowhere mentioned in the annotated agenda of the CSTD. > > While CSTD is scheduled to consider WSIS follow up, it will address the > broad issue of the assessment of the five-year progress made in the > implementation of WSIS. > > Without a specific request from the CSTD, as requested in the decision of > ECOSOC, DESA is proceeding with the preparation of the recommendations of > the /Secretary-General, with the documentation timeline for the General > Assembly. [Here he emphasized the need and difficulty of translating into > the UN’s 6 languages.] > > The matter whether the CSTD will consider the recommendations of the > Secretary-General on the continuation of the IGF will therefore be a > decision by Member States. > > Regarding the note of the Secretary-General containing the recommendations > of the continuation of the IGF, UNDESA could circulate the note of the > Secretary-General during the 13th session of the CSTD in Geneva from 17-21 > May. [Here Mr. Sha emphasized the use of the word "could."] > > However, since the Secretariat is preparing the note according to the > documentation timeline of the General Assembly, the note will be only in > unedited form in English only. The official document on six languages will > not be available before then. As you know, the advance text itself must go > through editing, translation and production processes. > > So the issue before us is two-fold – a decision by member states as to > whether the recommendations of the Secretary-General should be submitted > first to CSTD; whether Member States could proceed with consideration of the > recommendations in the advance unedited form and not in six official > languages. > > At any rate I would be pleased to send a representative to CSTD to share > whatever information we can on the substance of the SGs recommendations, if > invited. > > Let me conclude by repeating that this briefing serves to inform you about > the process for preparation of the SGs recommendation… > > Mr. Sha then took statements from several entities. > > Yemen – presented a "Statement on Behalf of the Group of 77 and China." (See > http://www.g77.org/doc/ on Group of 77) After a preamble it made 6 points, > which I paraphrase: > > 1. The issue is important and must be addressed at the General Assembly > regardless of other fora that might also discuss it. > > 2. G77 and China believe IGF should be reviewed every 2-3 years. > > 3. IGF should focus, among other areas, "on how to resolve significant > public policy issues such as the unilateral control of the critical Internet > resources…" > > 4. The IGF should move beyond advice and provide advice to intergovernmental > bodies. > > 5. LDC’s should be more involved than in the past. > > 6. "the Tunis Agenda should be strictly followed, when reforming the IGF, so > as not to duplicate the work and mandates of other existing arrangements, > mechanisms, institutions or organizations." And the IGF should continue to > work under the auspices of the UN. > > EU- Offered strong support for another five years in its current form. The > CSTD should be directly involved in the process. They suggested that the > preliminary note’s "could" be circulated status be changed to "will." > > Egypt – They subscribe to Group of 77 plus China. Supports continuation of > IGF but its working methods need to be revised. Needs more financial support > for LDCs. Paragraph 71 has not been followed. > > Sri Lanka – Support continuation of IGF. > > Canada – Supports IGF continuation. > > U.S. – Statement by Michael Snowden, Advisor, Economic and Social Affairs. > Appreciate effort put forward by Mr. Sha. Echo previous statement. IGF has > been valuable. They second the hope that an early version of the SGs notes > can be circulated prior to CSTD. > > U.K. – 60252 asked ECOSOC to work with CSTD. Would like copy circulated > prior to CSTD. > > Mr. Sha Comment – As long as the General Assembly membership agrees that an > English-only version may circulate, he will enable it. But there must be a > unanimous call for this. > > France – Agreed with G 77 and China and EU. Wants it for the CSTD meeting > but language is an issue. [Here Mr. Sha praised France.] > > Norway – Asked about paragraph 71. Staff had to check this and this process > was to be undertaken by Council of Europe, ICANN, IETF, OECD, WIPO, W3C. He > referred to a SG progress report in 2008. > > Mr. Sha noted that he follows the General Assembly: > > 193 members of General Assembly > > 54 members of ECOSOC > > 43 members of CSTD. > > ICC (International Chamber of Commerce – Supports continuation of IGF. > > Mr. Sha – CSTD can be helpful but it can’t supplant the work of the General > Assembly. He needs a request from the CSTD, from the bureau [not sure which > that is] or an ad hoc group before he can release the draft SG note. He also > needs the non-English to say it is OK, or minimally not object. One > objection would probably stop him from releasing it. > > End of notes and comments. Tom Lowenhaupt. 2:06 AM. March 31, 2010. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Hotmail: Free, trusted and rich email service. Get it now. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anriette at apc.org Wed Mar 31 05:50:58 2010 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 11:50:58 +0200 Subject: [governance] REVISED Notes from Under-Secretary-General Sha's In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A06A34@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <042601cad09d$34f932b0$7800a8c0@powuseren2ihcx> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A06A34@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <1270029058.3121.777.camel@anriette-laptop> Thanks very much for these notes, Thomas. I am fairly confident that the CSTD bureau will ask for the SG's report. And we should encourage them to. Who is plannning to attend, or participate remotely in the CSTD this year? APC plans to be there. Anriette On Wed, 2010-03-31 at 09:21 +0200, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: > Dear Thomas > > thanks very very much. > > wolfgang > > > ________________________________ > > Von: Thomas Lowenhaupt [mailto:toml at communisphere.com] > Gesendet: Mi 31.03.2010 08:41 > An: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Betreff: [governance] REVISED Notes from Under-Secretary-General Sha's briefing on IGF at UN New York March 30 2010 > > > > Sorry for this REVISED version but I noticed that several ellipses ... were > stripped from my earlier version. > > Internet Governance - IGF Briefing by Under-Secretary-General Sha at UN > March 30, 2010 > > The briefing began at 3:15 PM at the new temporary building at UN > Headquarters in New York City. Under-Secretary- General for Economic and > Social Affairs Mr. Sha Zukang presided. > > Mr. Sha began with a statement about his early interest in Internet > Governance, stating that he was the first to bring up the subject of > Internet Governance at the U.N. Apparently responding to some suspicion > arising from his former position as China's Ambassador to the U.N., and the > controversies about China's oversight of that nation's Internet resources, > he stated that he spoke as a U.N. employee. He stated that China had no real > interest in this matter and was not even present in the hall. "They don't > care." > > He then read a six page statement, interspersed with personal observations. > I'll endeavor to transcribe from the written statement beginning after the > history on page 3, under the heading "How The Review Process Will Unfold." > After reading the statement Mr. Sha took statements from Yemen, EU, Egypt, > Sri Lanka, Canada, U.S., U.K., France, Norway, ICC and some concluding > statements by Mr. Sha. > > >From page 3 of the written statement [with my comments in brackets] - > > ------------------------------ > > How The Review Process Will Unfold > > When the IGF was created, it was given a lifespan of five years, after which > time Member States would review the desirability of its continuation. The > Secretary-General was asked to assist in this process by examining its > merits taking into account the views of its many participants. More > precisely, Member States, in paragraph 76 of the Tunis Agenda "ask the UN > Secretary General to examiner the desirability of the continuation of the > Forum, in formal consultation with Forum participants, within five years of > its creation, and to make recommendations to the UN Membership in this > regard." Those five years have now come to an end. > > The formal consultations were initiated by an online process... > > A total of 61 written submissions were received following these calls for > public comment, of which 40 responded to the online questionnaire. > Contributions were received from Governments... Comments were also received > from a number of individuals. > > In November 2009, I convened a formal consultation with IGF participants > during the fourth meeting of the Forum in Sharm El Sheikh, Egypt. During the > consultation 47 speakers... > > Eight statements of participants who were not given a speaking time slot due > to time constraints were posted online. In addition, two statement were > submitted after the consultations. > > The total number of contributions over the six month consultation period > from July to December 2009 was thus 118. > > Paragraph 35 of the Tunis Agenda enumerates four groups of stakeholders and > describes, in broad terms, the role that each might play in Internet > governance. They are: > > 1. Governments; > > 2. The private sector; > > 3. Civic society; > > 4. Intergovernmental and other international organizations. > > > > Member States also recognized "the valuable contributions by the academic > and technical communities within those stakeholder groups... > > Here, Member States have been very clear. The WSIS Declaration of Principles > adopted during the first phase of the Summit express a commitment to > building an inclusive, people-centered and development-oriented Information > Society for all. The Tunis Agenda, adopted during the second phase, > reinforced this understanding by calling for the establishment of a platform > for multistakeholder dialogue, the IGF, where voices could be heard. > > What stakeholders have said > > [This section enumerated six areas where participants made suggestions.] > > Submission of the Recommendations of the Secretary-General > > It is in the spirit of inclusiveness that the recommendations of the > Secretary-General must be prepared , taking into account the opinions > expressed by all stakeholder groups in the consultations. > > Based on Paragraph 76 of the Tunis Agenda, the note will be transmitted to > the 65th session of the General Assembly for consideration under item 17 of > the provisional agenda on information and communication technology for > development. > > The General Assembly will decide on the issue of the consultation of the > IGF. > > Recently, some Member States have expressed the desire that the note of the > Secretary-General on continuation of the IGF be submitted to the CSTD for > consideration. > > As you know, the agenda and the programme of the work of the CSTD were > decided by ECOSOC in its decision 2009/219. The decision did not request > that the Commission review the continuation of the IGF. Nor was there any > subsequent request for the submission of the recommendations of the > Secretary-General to the CSTD. > > In the provisional annotated agenda and organization of work issued early > this month under the symbol E/CN.16/2010/1, the matter of the continuation > of the IGF was nowhere mentioned in the annotated agenda of the CSTD. > > While CSTD is scheduled to consider WSIS follow up, it will address the > broad issue of the assessment of the five-year progress made in the > implementation of WSIS. > > Without a specific request from the CSTD, as requested in the decision of > ECOSOC, DESA is proceeding with the preparation of the recommendations of > the /Secretary-General, with the documentation timeline for the General > Assembly. [Here he emphasized the need and difficulty of translating into > the UN's 6 languages.] > > The matter whether the CSTD will consider the recommendations of the > Secretary-General on the continuation of the IGF will therefore be a > decision by Member States. > > Regarding the note of the Secretary-General containing the recommendations > of the continuation of the IGF, UNDESA could circulate the note of the > Secretary-General during the 13th session of the CSTD in Geneva from 17-21 > May. [Here Mr. Sha emphasized the use of the word "could."] > > However, since the Secretariat is preparing the note according to the > documentation timeline of the General Assembly, the note will be only in > unedited form in English only. The official document on six languages will > not be available before then. As you know, the advance text itself must go > through editing, translation and production processes. > > So the issue before us is two-fold - a decision by member states as to > whether the recommendations of the Secretary-General should be submitted > first to CSTD; whether Member States could proceed with consideration of the > recommendations in the advance unedited form and not in six official > languages. > > At any rate I would be pleased to send a representative to CSTD to share > whatever information we can on the substance of the SGs recommendations, if > invited. > > Let me conclude by repeating that this briefing serves to inform you about > the process for preparation of the SGs recommendation... > > Mr. Sha then took statements from several entities. > > Yemen - presented a "Statement on Behalf of the Group of 77 and China." (See > http://www.g77.org/doc/ on Group of 77) After a preamble it made 6 points, > which I paraphrase: > > 1. The issue is important and must be addressed at the General Assembly > regardless of other fora that might also discuss it. > > 2. G77 and China believe IGF should be reviewed every 2-3 years. > > 3. IGF should focus, among other areas, "on how to resolve significant > public policy issues such as the unilateral control of the critical Internet > resources..." > > 4. The IGF should move beyond advice and provide advice to intergovernmental > bodies. > > 5. LDC's should be more involved than in the past. > > 6. "the Tunis Agenda should be strictly followed, when reforming the IGF, so > as not to duplicate the work and mandates of other existing arrangements, > mechanisms, institutions or organizations." And the IGF should continue to > work under the auspices of the UN. > > EU- Offered strong support for another five years in its current form. The > CSTD should be directly involved in the process. They suggested that the > preliminary note's "could" be circulated status be changed to "will." > > Egypt - They subscribe to Group of 77 plus China. Supports continuation of > IGF but its working methods need to be revised. Needs more financial support > for LDCs. Paragraph 71 has not been followed. > > Sri Lanka - Support continuation of IGF. > > Canada - Supports IGF continuation. > > U.S. - Statement by Michael Snowden, Advisor, Economic and Social Affairs. > Appreciate effort put forward by Mr. Sha. Echo previous statement. IGF has > been valuable. They second the hope that an early version of the SGs notes > can be circulated prior to CSTD. > > U.K. - 60252 asked ECOSOC to work with CSTD. Would like copy circulated > prior to CSTD. > > Mr. Sha Comment - As long as the General Assembly membership agrees that an > English-only version may circulate, he will enable it. But there must be a > unanimous call for this. > > France - Agreed with G 77 and China and EU. Wants it for the CSTD meeting > but language is an issue. [Here Mr. Sha praised France.] > > Norway - Asked about paragraph 71. Staff had to check this and this process > was to be undertaken by Council of Europe, ICANN, IETF, OECD, WIPO, W3C. He > referred to a SG progress report in 2008. > > Mr. Sha noted that he follows the General Assembly: > > 193 members of General Assembly > > 54 members of ECOSOC > > 43 members of CSTD. > > ICC (International Chamber of Commerce - Supports continuation of IGF. > > Mr. Sha - CSTD can be helpful but it can't supplant the work of the General > Assembly. He needs a request from the CSTD, from the bureau [not sure which > that is] or an ad hoc group before he can release the draft SG note. He also > needs the non-English to say it is OK, or minimally not object. One > objection would probably stop him from releasing it. > > End of notes and comments. Tom Lowenhaupt. 2:06 AM. March 31, 2010. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ anriette esterhuysen - executive director association for progressive communications p o box 29755 melville - south africa 2109 anriette at apc.org - tel/fax + 27 11 726 1692 http://www.apc.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Wed Mar 31 06:31:01 2010 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 11:31:01 +0100 Subject: [governance] REVISED Notes from Under-Secretary-General Sha's In-Reply-To: <1270029058.3121.777.camel@anriette-laptop> References: <042601cad09d$34f932b0$7800a8c0@powuseren2ihcx> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A06A34@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <1270029058.3121.777.camel@anriette-laptop> Message-ID: <0QvdtqhlRysLFAAW@perry.co.uk> In message <1270029058.3121.777.camel at anriette-laptop>, at 11:50:58 on Wed, 31 Mar 2010, Anriette Esterhuysen writes >Who is plannning to attend, or participate remotely in the CSTD this >year? > >APC plans to be there. I will be there (as I was last year). "In the morning of the second day, the Commission will hear and discuss the Report of the Secretary-General on WSIS follow-up, followed by the introduction and discussion of the report of the Secretary General on Enhanced Cooperation. In the afternoon, a discussion on the outcomes of the IGF meeting in Sharm El Sheikh will be held. etc http://www.unctad.org/Templates/Page.asp?intItemID=5327&lang=1 -- 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 ca at cafonso.ca Wed Mar 31 07:31:21 2010 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 08:31:21 -0300 Subject: [governance] [Fwd: Launch of CSO Net - the Civil Society Network] Message-ID: <4BB33289.9070506@cafonso.ca> Just received this from Mr Sha. --c.a. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Launch of CSO Net - the Civil Society Network Resent-Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 16:13:59 -0300 (BRT) Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 13:50:43 -0400 From: DESA NGO Branch Dear NGO Community, With an increasing number of civil society organizations seeking consultative status with the Economic and Social Council, the NGO Branch of the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA), is increasingly being called upon to engage with these organizations worldwide on a wide range of issues on the United Nation's development agenda. There is now a growing demand from organizations from both the developed and developing countries to contribute to the UN's economic and social agenda, including to the internationally agreed development goals. In order to facilitate this engagement and provide a suitable platform for civil society, I am pleased to announce that UNDESA has launched a knowledge-based, open networking platform called CSO Net - the Civil Society Network, which is designed to facilitate interaction among civil society groups worldwide, Member States and UN system agencies. The aim is to: share and promote best practices in the field of economic and social development; establish innovative and collaborative development solutions; facilitate partnerships among the users of the portal; and promote interactive discussions through online forums on issues of immediate relevance to the UN's agenda. This portal can be accessed at http://www.un.org/ecosoc/csonet. I invite you to visit the portal and explore ways that your organization can contribute to and engage effectively with the NGO Branch and the United Nations system as a whole. The multiple features of the portal provide numerous tools, sources of information and news about civil society and the UN that are designed, as much to inform you about the UN's work, and as much as to highlight and facilitate civil society contribution to the UN's development goals. We look forward to reinforcing our partnership with civil society in order to deliver on our global commitments. To that end, I very much look forward to your suggestions, feedback and recommendations on the use of this portal and the way forward. Yours sincerely, Sha Zukang Under-Secretary-General Department of Economic and Social Affairs United Nations -- 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 ca at cafonso.ca Wed Mar 31 07:32:10 2010 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 08:32:10 -0300 Subject: [governance] WG: Launch of CSO Net - the Civil Society Network In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A06A35@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A06A35@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <4BB332BA.5030001@cafonso.ca> Ops, sorry, I have just sent it to the list as well. --c.a. Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > FYI > > This is what I (and probably many others) got today from UNDESA. > > Wolfgang > > > ________________________________ > > Von: DESA NGO Branch [mailto:ngonews at un.org] > Gesendet: Di 30.03.2010 19:50 > An: wolfgang at imv.au.dk > Betreff: Launch of CSO Net - the Civil Society Network > > > > Dear NGO Community, > > With an increasing number of civil society organizations seeking consultative status with the Economic and Social Council, the NGO Branch of the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA), is increasingly being called upon to engage with these organizations worldwide on a wide range of issues on the United Nation's development agenda. There is now a growing demand from organizations from both the developed and developing countries to contribute to the UN's economic and social agenda, including to the internationally agreed development goals. > > In order to facilitate this engagement and provide a suitable platform for civil society, I am pleased to announce that UNDESA has launched a knowledge-based, open networking platform called CSO Net - the Civil Society Network, which is designed to facilitate interaction among civil society groups worldwide, Member States and UN system agencies. The aim is to: share and promote best practices in the field of economic and social development; establish innovative and collaborative development solutions; facilitate partnerships among the users of the portal; and promote interactive discussions through online forums on issues of immediate relevance to the UN's agenda. This portal can be accessed at http://www.un.org/ecosoc/csonet . > > I invite you to visit the portal and explore ways that your organization can contribute to and engage effectively with the NGO Branch and the United Nations system as a whole. The multiple features of the portal provide numerous tools, sources of information and news about civil society and the UN that are designed, as much to inform you about the UN's work, and as much as to highlight and facilitate civil society contribution to the UN's development goals. We look forward to reinforcing our partnership with civil society in order to deliver on our global commitments. To that end, I very much look forward to your suggestions, feedback and recommendations on the use of this portal and the way forward. > > > Yours sincerely, > > Sha Zukang > Under-Secretary-General > Department of Economic and Social Affairs > United Nations > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 fouadbajwa at gmail.com Wed Mar 31 07:52:48 2010 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 16:52:48 +0500 Subject: [governance] [Fwd: Launch of CSO Net - the Civil Society Network] In-Reply-To: <4BB26DBE.5000300@gmail.com> References: <4BB26DBE.5000300@gmail.com> Message-ID: Basically this is sort of an interactive information website for CSOs/NGOs in consultative status with the UN through ECOSOC. An existing organization that is legally registered in its country of origin for a period of two or more years and has yearly financial audit/balance sheets can apply to the UN for this status and contribute to this space. Once an organization forwards its application through an associated system for membership, the request is forwarded to the ECOSOC meeting that meets a couple of times every year and they take decisions to whom they should grant the consultative status. Once the organizations comes in consultative status, the UN issues ground passes/entry cards to the designated organization representatives that can be used to access to various UN offices across the globe. Parminder may be able to share more on this. I think if IGC would want to go this route, it might have to get registered legally, that means an on ground office somewhere like I proposed in Geneva earlier once, and the produce its yearly reports and audited financial statements and then IGC can get consultative status with the UN or there may be another possibility to get it because of the IGF. The website is an information gateway for exiting members. I think I can't find a link to get registered as a contributor so its restricted to existing member organizations. Best Fouad On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 2:31 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: > > FYI > > Can we discuss what people know about this? > > This looks interesting to follow up by individual organizations, possibly for the IGC itself? > > I have not yet looked into this, am passing on for research and discussion. > > Best, Ginger > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Launch of CSO Net - the Civil Society Network > Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 13:50:43 -0400 > From: DESA NGO Branch > To: VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu > > Dear NGO Community, > > With an increasing number of civil society organizations seeking consultative status with the Economic and Social Council, the NGO Branch of the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA), is increasingly being called upon to engage with these organizations worldwide on a wide range of issues on the United Nation’s development agenda. There is now a growing demand from organizations from both the developed and developing countries to contribute to the UN’s economic and social agenda, including to the internationally agreed development goals. > > In order to facilitate this engagement and provide a suitable platform for civil society, I am pleased to announce that UNDESA has launched a knowledge-based, open networking platform called CSO Net - the Civil Society Network, which is designed to facilitate interaction among civil society groups worldwide, Member States and UN system agencies. The aim is to: share and promote best practices in the field of economic and social development; establish innovative and collaborative development solutions; facilitate partnerships among the users of the portal; and promote interactive discussions through online forums on issues of immediate relevance to the UN’s agenda. This portal can be accessed at http://www.un.org/ecosoc/csonet. > > I invite you to visit the portal and explore ways that your organization can contribute to and engage effectively with the NGO Branch and the United Nations system as a whole. The multiple features of the portal provide numerous tools, sources of information and news about civil society and the UN that are designed, as much to inform you about the UN’s work, and as much as to highlight and facilitate civil society contribution to the UN’s development goals. We look forward to reinforcing our partnership with civil society in order to deliver on our global commitments. To that end, I very much look forward to your suggestions, feedback and recommendations on the use of this portal and the way forward. > > Yours sincerely, > > Sha Zukang > Under-Secretary-General > Department of Economic and Social Affairs > United Nations > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Mar 31 08:19:11 2010 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 08:19:11 -0400 Subject: [governance] [Fwd: Launch of CSO Net - the Civil Society In-Reply-To: References: <4BB26DBE.5000300@gmail.com>, Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6D8F@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> I don't think IGC should bother with this. The creation of the organizational overhead needed to comply with ECOSOC recognition rules is burdnesome and unnecessary, and only creates an apparatus that could be captured and abused down the road. --MM ________________________________________ From: Fouad Bajwa [fouadbajwa at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2010 7:52 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ginger Paque Subject: Re: [governance] [Fwd: Launch of CSO Net - the Civil Society Network] Basically this is sort of an interactive information website for CSOs/NGOs in consultative status with the UN through ECOSOC. An existing organization that is legally registered in its country of origin for a period of two or more years and has yearly financial audit/balance sheets can apply to the UN for this status and contribute to this space. Once an organization forwards its application through an associated system for membership, the request is forwarded to the ECOSOC meeting that meets a couple of times every year and they take decisions to whom they should grant the consultative status. Once the organizations comes in consultative status, the UN issues ground passes/entry cards to the designated organization representatives that can be used to access to various UN offices across the globe. Parminder may be able to share more on this. I think if IGC would want to go this route, it might have to get registered legally, that means an on ground office somewhere like I proposed in Geneva earlier once, and the produce its yearly reports and audited financial statements and then IGC can get consultative status with the UN or there may be another possibility to get it because of the IGF. The website is an information gateway for exiting members. I think I can't find a link to get registered as a contributor so its restricted to existing member organizations. Best Fouad On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 2:31 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: > > FYI > > Can we discuss what people know about this? > > This looks interesting to follow up by individual organizations, possibly for the IGC itself? > > I have not yet looked into this, am passing on for research and discussion. > > Best, Ginger > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Launch of CSO Net - the Civil Society Network > Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 13:50:43 -0400 > From: DESA NGO Branch > To: VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu > > Dear NGO Community, > > With an increasing number of civil society organizations seeking consultative status with the Economic and Social Council, the NGO Branch of the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA), is increasingly being called upon to engage with these organizations worldwide on a wide range of issues on the United Nation’s development agenda. There is now a growing demand from organizations from both the developed and developing countries to contribute to the UN’s economic and social agenda, including to the internationally agreed development goals. > > In order to facilitate this engagement and provide a suitable platform for civil society, I am pleased to announce that UNDESA has launched a knowledge-based, open networking platform called CSO Net - the Civil Society Network, which is designed to facilitate interaction among civil society groups worldwide, Member States and UN system agencies. The aim is to: share and promote best practices in the field of economic and social development; establish innovative and collaborative development solutions; facilitate partnerships among the users of the portal; and promote interactive discussions through online forums on issues of immediate relevance to the UN’s agenda. This portal can be accessed at http://www.un.org/ecosoc/csonet. > > I invite you to visit the portal and explore ways that your organization can contribute to and engage effectively with the NGO Branch and the United Nations system as a whole. The multiple features of the portal provide numerous tools, sources of information and news about civil society and the UN that are designed, as much to inform you about the UN’s work, and as much as to highlight and facilitate civil society contribution to the UN’s development goals. We look forward to reinforcing our partnership with civil society in order to deliver on our global commitments. To that end, I very much look forward to your suggestions, feedback and recommendations on the use of this portal and the way forward. > > Yours sincerely, > > Sha Zukang > Under-Secretary-General > Department of Economic and Social Affairs > United Nations > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Wed Mar 31 11:45:13 2010 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 20:45:13 +0500 Subject: [governance] [Fwd: Launch of CSO Net - the Civil Society In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6D8F@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <4BB26DBE.5000300@gmail.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6D8F@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: I was just responding to the question asked :o) -- FB On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 5:19 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > I don't think IGC should bother with this. The creation of the organizational overhead needed to comply with ECOSOC recognition rules is burdnesome and unnecessary, and only creates an apparatus that could be captured and abused down the road. > > --MM > > ________________________________________ > From: Fouad Bajwa [fouadbajwa at gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2010 7:52 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ginger Paque > Subject: Re: [governance] [Fwd: Launch of CSO Net - the Civil Society Network] > > Basically this is sort of an interactive information website for > CSOs/NGOs in consultative status with the UN through ECOSOC. An > existing organization that is legally registered in its country of > origin for a period of two or more years and has yearly financial > audit/balance sheets can apply to the UN for this status and > contribute to this space. > > Once an organization forwards its application through an associated > system for membership, the request is forwarded to the ECOSOC meeting > that meets a couple of times every year and they take decisions to > whom they should grant the consultative status. > > Once the organizations comes in consultative status, the UN issues > ground passes/entry cards to the designated organization > representatives that can be used to access to various UN offices > across the globe. Parminder may be able to share more on this. > > I think if IGC would want to go this route, it might have to get > registered legally, that means an on ground office somewhere like I > proposed in Geneva earlier once, and the produce its yearly reports > and audited financial statements and then IGC can get consultative > status with the UN or there may be another possibility to get it > because of the IGF. > > The website is an information gateway for exiting members. I think I > can't find a link to get registered as a contributor so its restricted > to existing member organizations. > > Best > > Fouad > > On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 2:31 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: >> >> FYI >> >> Can we discuss what people know about this? >> >> This looks interesting to follow up by individual organizations, possibly for the IGC itself? >> >> I have not yet looked into this, am passing on for research and discussion. >> >> Best, Ginger >> >> -------- Original Message -------- >> Subject: Launch of CSO Net - the Civil Society Network >> Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 13:50:43 -0400 >> From: DESA NGO Branch >> To: VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu >> >> Dear NGO Community, >> >> With an increasing number of civil society organizations seeking consultative status with the Economic and Social Council, the NGO Branch of the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA), is increasingly being called upon to engage with these organizations worldwide on a wide range of issues on the United Nation’s development agenda. There is now a growing demand from organizations from both the developed and developing countries to contribute to the UN’s economic and social agenda, including to the internationally agreed development goals. >> >> In order to facilitate this engagement and provide a suitable platform for civil society, I am pleased to announce that UNDESA has launched a knowledge-based, open networking platform called CSO Net - the Civil Society Network, which is designed to facilitate interaction among civil society groups worldwide, Member States and UN system agencies. The aim is to: share and promote best practices in the field of economic and social development; establish innovative and collaborative development solutions; facilitate partnerships among the users of the portal; and promote interactive discussions through online forums on issues of immediate relevance to the UN’s agenda. This portal can be accessed at http://www.un.org/ecosoc/csonet. >> >> I invite you to visit the portal and explore ways that your organization can contribute to and engage effectively with the NGO Branch and the United Nations system as a whole. The multiple features of the portal provide numerous tools, sources of information and news about civil society and the UN that are designed, as much to inform you about the UN’s work, and as much as to highlight and facilitate civil society contribution to the UN’s development goals. We look forward to reinforcing our partnership with civil society in order to deliver on our global commitments. To that end, I very much look forward to your suggestions, feedback and recommendations on the use of this portal and the way forward. >> >> Yours sincerely, >> >> Sha Zukang >> Under-Secretary-General >> Department of Economic and Social Affairs >> United Nations ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Mar 31 11:52:34 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 11:22:34 -0430 Subject: [governance] [Fwd: Launch of CSO Net - the Civil Society In-Reply-To: References: <4BB26DBE.5000300@gmail.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6D8F@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4BB36FC2.5000709@gmail.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From goldstein.roxana at gmail.com Wed Mar 31 12:36:20 2010 From: goldstein.roxana at gmail.com (Roxana Goldstein) Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 13:36:20 -0300 Subject: [governance] [Fwd: Launch of CSO Net - the Civil Society In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6D8F@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <4BB26DBE.5000300@gmail.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6D8F@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: hi all, I think that what is important in relation to this is that IGC should include in its agenda the events related to this network, in order to have positions that individual organisations of this caucus could carry to the consultative processes. I am part of the ICT for development network, and have included my organisation to this icso network, I hope we can meet there! Best, Roxana 2010/3/31 Milton L Mueller > I don't think IGC should bother with this. The creation of the > organizational overhead needed to comply with ECOSOC recognition rules is > burdnesome and unnecessary, and only creates an apparatus that could be > captured and abused down the road. > > --MM > > ________________________________________ > From: Fouad Bajwa [fouadbajwa at gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2010 7:52 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ginger Paque > Subject: Re: [governance] [Fwd: Launch of CSO Net - the Civil Society > Network] > > Basically this is sort of an interactive information website for > CSOs/NGOs in consultative status with the UN through ECOSOC. An > existing organization that is legally registered in its country of > origin for a period of two or more years and has yearly financial > audit/balance sheets can apply to the UN for this status and > contribute to this space. > > Once an organization forwards its application through an associated > system for membership, the request is forwarded to the ECOSOC meeting > that meets a couple of times every year and they take decisions to > whom they should grant the consultative status. > > Once the organizations comes in consultative status, the UN issues > ground passes/entry cards to the designated organization > representatives that can be used to access to various UN offices > across the globe. Parminder may be able to share more on this. > > I think if IGC would want to go this route, it might have to get > registered legally, that means an on ground office somewhere like I > proposed in Geneva earlier once, and the produce its yearly reports > and audited financial statements and then IGC can get consultative > status with the UN or there may be another possibility to get it > because of the IGF. > > The website is an information gateway for exiting members. I think I > can't find a link to get registered as a contributor so its restricted > to existing member organizations. > > Best > > Fouad > > On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 2:31 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: > > > > FYI > > > > Can we discuss what people know about this? > > > > This looks interesting to follow up by individual organizations, possibly > for the IGC itself? > > > > I have not yet looked into this, am passing on for research and > discussion. > > > > Best, Ginger > > > > -------- Original Message -------- > > Subject: Launch of CSO Net - the Civil Society Network > > Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 13:50:43 -0400 > > From: DESA NGO Branch > > To: VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu > > > > Dear NGO Community, > > > > With an increasing number of civil society organizations seeking > consultative status with the Economic and Social Council, the NGO Branch of > the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA), is > increasingly being called upon to engage with these organizations worldwide > on a wide range of issues on the United Nation’s development agenda. There > is now a growing demand from organizations from both the developed and > developing countries to contribute to the UN’s economic and social agenda, > including to the internationally agreed development goals. > > > > In order to facilitate this engagement and provide a suitable platform > for civil society, I am pleased to announce that UNDESA has launched a > knowledge-based, open networking platform called CSO Net - the Civil Society > Network, which is designed to facilitate interaction among civil society > groups worldwide, Member States and UN system agencies. The aim is to: share > and promote best practices in the field of economic and social development; > establish innovative and collaborative development solutions; facilitate > partnerships among the users of the portal; and promote interactive > discussions through online forums on issues of immediate relevance to the > UN’s agenda. This portal can be accessed at > http://www.un.org/ecosoc/csonet. > > > > I invite you to visit the portal and explore ways that your organization > can contribute to and engage effectively with the NGO Branch and the United > Nations system as a whole. The multiple features of the portal provide > numerous tools, sources of information and news about civil society and the > UN that are designed, as much to inform you about the UN’s work, and as much > as to highlight and facilitate civil society contribution to the UN’s > development goals. We look forward to reinforcing our partnership with civil > society in order to deliver on our global commitments. To that end, I very > much look forward to your suggestions, feedback and recommendations on the > use of this portal and the way forward. > > > > Yours sincerely, > > > > Sha Zukang > > Under-Secretary-General > > Department of Economic and Social Affairs > > United Nations > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: > http://translate.google.com/translate_t____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t