AW: [governance] European Parliament report on Internet
JFC Morfin
jefsey at jefsey.com
Sat Mar 20 19:08:07 EDT 2010
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" <joe at mcnamee.eu>
> >
>
> Date: 19 March 2010 5:09:17 PM GMT+08:00
> >
>
> To: "'Jeremy Malcolm'" <jeremy at ciroap.org>
> >
>
> 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
><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 <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
> <http://www.consumersinternational.org/50>
> >
> > Read our email confidentiality notice
> <http://www.consumersinternational.org/Templates/Internal.asp?NodeID=100521&int1stParentNodeID=89765>
> . Don't print this email unless necessary.
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > [ 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
More information about the Governance
mailing list