From gurstein at gmail.com Mon May 31 23:02:59 2010
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Mon, 31 May 2010 20:02:59 -0700
Subject: [governance] FW: Message from GAID
Message-ID: <0B2CDE1C3AB94490A91A989C3E26303D@userPC>
In case anyone has been missing what the GAID has been up to...
M
-----Original Message-----
From: Global Alliance for ICT and Development [mailto:mail at un-gaid.ning.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 10:39 AM
To: GURSTEIN at GMAIL.COM
Subject: Message from GAID
Global Alliance for ICT and Development
United Nations Global Alliance for ICT and Development
A message to all members of Global Alliance for ICT and Development
Dear Members,
GAID Secretariat invites all the partners and community
members to engage actively in the series of online and physical consultation
process for the design and development of the eMDGs portal / ICT4MDGs
Matrix.
GAID web based open consultation forum on "GAID eMDGs Portal/ Matrix of ICT
Solutions for MDG " is now available and can be accessed online : GAID
Online Forum
- Message from the GAID Chairman
http://www.un-gaid.org/Portals/2/docs/ICT4MDG%20Matrix%20Project/TAG%20.25ap
r2010.pdf
- Participate and follow the online discussion on GAID
Forum :-
http://un-gaid.ning.com/forum/categories/gaid-ict4mdg/listForCategory
-
Participate in UN GAID Survey and submit
information on an ICT-based tool/solution to populate the Matrix
http://www.un-gaid.org/AdminTools/Surveys/tabid/988/ctl/TakeSurvey/mid/2540/
SurveyID/l8K03l5/Default.aspx
For more information please contact GAID Secretariat Email : gaid at un.org
Web: www.un-gaid.org
Thank You...!
GAID Secretariat
New York
Visit Global Alliance for ICT and Development at:
http://un-gaid.ning.com/?xg_source=msg_mes_network
To control which emails you receive on Global Alliance for ICT and
Development, click
here
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
For all list information and functions, see:
http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
From jeremy at ciroap.org Mon May 3 08:06:31 2010
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Mon, 3 May 2010 20:06:31 +0800
Subject: [governance] Suggested statement on MAG's future
Message-ID: <85794685-B722-46D5-9861-130A2F1085FA@ciroap.org>
Ginger and I have been silent on the drafting of a statement on the future of the MAG for its meeting on the 12th, in the hope that such a statement would emerge from the bottom up, but in order not to let the opportunity slip, allow me now to propose some text for discussion. There are six paragraphs. If you have an issue, please state which paragraph is of concern, and please make your suggestions as focussed as possible.
--- begins ---
The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) supports the maintenance of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), as the body that links the UN Secretariat to the stakeholder groups that are the joint sovereigns of Internet governance. We would like to see the democratic legitimacy and effectiveness of the MAG strengthened as it continues into a renewed term for the IGF.
To this end, in our statement for the February open consultation and MAG meetings, the IGC suggested that the composition of the MAG itself should be more evenly divided between the stakeholder groups. We also reported that many believe that the stakeholders should have a more direct role in the selection of MAG members, and that MAG discussions should continue to be made more transparent.
We also consider that care must be taken in balancing the respective roles of the Secretariat and the MAG. Whilst the United Nations Secretary-General is the titular leader of the IGF process, this is a formal appointment only. Rightful control of the IGF as a process or institution of Internet governance belongs ultimately to the stakeholders themselves. Therefore, the Secretariat's role ought to remain a purely facilitative and technical one.
In underlining this, the appropriate role of the MAG, as the only representative body of the stakeholders within the IGF process, becomes clear. Namely, it should be responsible for every decision that effects the substantive work of the IGF. This includes agenda setting, overseeing the preparation of briefing and synthesis documents, and reshaping the IGF's structure and working methods (such as the establishment of thematic working groups).
In the future, its role may go further still. Until now, the IGF has been largely just a forum for discussion. Looking to the future, the Secretary-General's report on the continuation of the IGF envisages that it may come to produce some form of recommendations. If so, the MAG will have a role in supporting that process too, likely in shaping the content of any statements that are to be issued in conformity with the consensus of the plenary forum.
Whatever the future may hold for the IGF, the MAG will be integral to it. This is why it is so important that the composition of the MAG is balanced, that the process of selection of its members satisfies the stakeholder groups from which they are drawn, that its operations are conducted with a high degree of transparency in order to ensure its accountability to the stakeholders at large, and that its legitimate role is not usurped.
--- ends ---
Perhaps time is too short for us to agree on this statement (extending the delay, I'm writing while away without Internet access), but let's try and see how far we get.
--
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 cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Mon May 3 10:43:49 2010
From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker)
Date: Mon, 3 May 2010 07:43:49 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] Suggested statement on MAG's future
In-Reply-To: <85794685-B722-46D5-9861-130A2F1085FA@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <945095.85128.qm@web83908.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
I probably am the only one but I can say I disagree with the whole premise that Jeremy has here. I do not believe the MAG is the best we can do for "representation of Stakeholders",,, if it is at all. And secondly I do not want it to have any more "power" or influence other than what good ideas it airs and produces.
We do not need another link in the beauracracy. What we need is to get more people to the table that have independent Ideas and are not beholding to interest groups( yes you can read that civil society) We need human representation not more club think.
--- On Mon, 5/3/10, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
From: Jeremy Malcolm
Subject: [governance] Suggested statement on MAG's future
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Date: Monday, May 3, 2010, 12:06 PM
Ginger and I have been silent on the drafting of a statement on the future of the MAG for its meeting on the 12th, in the hope that such a statement would emerge from the bottom up, but in order not to let the opportunity slip, allow me now to propose some text for discussion. There are six paragraphs. If you have an issue, please state which paragraph is of concern, and please make your suggestions as focussed as possible.
--- begins ---
The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) supports the maintenance of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), as the body that links the UN Secretariat to the stakeholder groups that are the joint sovereigns of Internet governance. We would like to see the democratic legitimacy and effectiveness of the MAG strengthened as it continues into a renewed term for the IGF.
To this end, in our statement for the February open consultation and MAG meetings, the IGC suggested that the composition of the MAG itself should be more evenly divided between the stakeholder groups. We also reported that many believe that the stakeholders should have a more direct role in the selection of MAG members, and that MAG discussions should continue to be made more transparent.
We also consider that care must be taken in balancing the respective roles of the Secretariat and the MAG. Whilst the United Nations Secretary-General is the titular leader of the IGF process, this is a formal appointment only. Rightful control of the IGF as a process or institution of Internet governance belongs ultimately to the stakeholders themselves. Therefore, the Secretariat's role ought to remain a purely facilitative and technical one.
In underlining this, the appropriate role of the MAG, as the only representative body of the stakeholders within the IGF process, becomes clear. Namely, it should be responsible for every decision that effects the substantive work of the IGF. This includes agenda setting, overseeing the preparation of briefing and synthesis documents, and reshaping the IGF's structure and working methods (such as the establishment of thematic working groups).
In the future, its role may go further still. Until now, the IGF has been largely just a forum for discussion. Looking to the future, the Secretary-General's report on the continuation of the IGF envisages that it may come to produce some form of recommendations. If so, the MAG will have a role in supporting that process too, likely in shaping the content of any statements that are to be issued in conformity with the consensus of the plenary forum.
Whatever the future may hold for the IGF, the MAG will be integral to it. This is why it is so important that the composition of the MAG is balanced, that the process of selection of its members satisfies the stakeholder groups from which they are drawn, that its operations are conducted with a high degree of transparency in order to ensure its accountability to the stakeholders at large, and that its legitimate role is not usurped.
--- ends ---
Perhaps time is too short for us to agree on this statement (extending the delay, I'm writing while away without Internet access), but let's try and see how far we get.
--
Jeremy Malcolm
Project Coordinator
Consumers International
Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East
Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
CI is 50
Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010.
Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer rights around the world.
http://www.consumersinternational.org/50
Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary.
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
For all list information and functions, see:
http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
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 May 3 12:08:02 2010
From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque)
Date: Mon, 03 May 2010 11:38:02 -0430
Subject: [governance] Suggested statement on MAG's future
In-Reply-To: <85794685-B722-46D5-9861-130A2F1085FA@ciroap.org>
References: <85794685-B722-46D5-9861-130A2F1085FA@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <4BDEF4E2.8040403@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 gurstein at gmail.com Mon May 3 13:15:12 2010
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Mon, 3 May 2010 10:15:12 -0700
Subject: [governance] FW: [Futurework] Possible risk from Internet changes
on May 5 - Security - Technology - News - iTnews.com.au
Message-ID: <213B21CDD72748CE93E224CC159236F4@userPC>
I have no idea about this... But I think this raises some interesting
questions from an "Internet governance" perspective such as what types of
alerts should be distributed, who should identify what alerts are
distributed and to whom i.e. where does the authority, responsibility and
accountability lie in these areas and is this sufficient and appropriate?
MBG
-----Original Message-----
From: futurework-bounces at lists.uwaterloo.ca
[mailto:futurework-bounces at lists.uwaterloo.ca] On Behalf Of Steve Kurtz
Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 9:17 AM
To: Futurework
Subject: [Futurework] Possible risk from Internet changes on May 5 -
Security - Technology - News - iTnews.com.au
http://www.itnews.com.au/News/173412,warning-why-your-internet-might-fail-on
-may-5.aspx
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
Futurework at lists.uwaterloo.ca
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
For all list information and functions, see:
http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Mon May 3 19:08:30 2010
From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa)
Date: Tue, 4 May 2010 04:08:30 +0500
Subject: [governance] Suggested statement on MAG's future
In-Reply-To: <4BDEF4E2.8040403@gmail.com>
References: <85794685-B722-46D5-9861-130A2F1085FA@ciroap.org>
<4BDEF4E2.8040403@gmail.com>
Message-ID:
I wonder where the other MAG members are. I would go with a statement
agreed by all the IGC MAG Members so that we have a combined mutual
stance to present and defend. This is a good starting point and I
would like us to continue this discussion till either we reach a final
statement or I would be willing to read the statement that is finally
available after edits even though we may not have a mutually agreed
wording due to the time constraint we may all face now.
Some repetition of text needs attention otherwise it is very close to
what was earlier discussed on the list. Good attempt Jeremy!
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 9:08 PM, Ginger Paque wrote:
> As Jeremy mentioned, as co-coordinators, we think we should facilitate IGC
> statements, not dictate them. Jeremy has drafted a statement based on
> discussions, and I strongly urge you all to opine. The IGC should use its
> strength wisely, but it should use it. We cannot be heard if we do not say
> anything.
>
> The OC meeting next week will focus on operational preparations for the IGF
> Vilnius, but if we have consensus on a statement for consideration by the
> MAG, we should make our voice heard.
>
> Please let us know what you think. Please also continue discussions. These
> help all of us define our positions, and allow MAG members to read your
> ideas.
>
> Thanks. Best, Ginger
>
> On 5/3/2010 7:36 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>
> Ginger and I have been silent on the drafting of a statement on the future
> of the MAG for its meeting on the 12th, in the hope that such a statement
> would emerge from the bottom up, but in order not to let the opportunity
> slip, allow me now to propose some text for discussion. There are six
> paragraphs. If you have an issue, please state which paragraph is of
> concern, and please make your suggestions as focussed as possible.
> --- begins ---
> The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) supports the maintenance of
> the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) of the Internet Governance Forum
> (IGF), as the body that links the UN Secretariat to the stakeholder groups
> that are the joint sovereigns of Internet governance. We would like to see
> the democratic legitimacy and effectiveness of the MAG strengthened as it
> continues into a renewed term for the IGF.
> To this end, in our statement for the February open consultation and MAG
> meetings, the IGC suggested that the composition of the MAG itself should be
> more evenly divided between the stakeholder groups. We also reported that
> many believe that the stakeholders should have a more direct role in the
> selection of MAG members, and that MAG discussions should continue to be
> made more transparent.
> We also consider that care must be taken in balancing the respective roles
> of the Secretariat and the MAG. Whilst the United Nations Secretary-General
> is the titular leader of the IGF process, this is a formal appointment only.
> Rightful control of the IGF as a process or institution of Internet
> governance belongs ultimately to the stakeholders themselves. Therefore,
> the Secretariat's role ought to remain a purely facilitative and technical
> one.
> In underlining this, the appropriate role of the MAG, as the only
> representative body of the stakeholders within the IGF process, becomes
> clear. Namely, it should be responsible for every decision that effects the
> substantive work of the IGF. This includes agenda setting, overseeing the
> preparation of briefing and synthesis documents, and reshaping the IGF's
> structure and working methods (such as the establishment of thematic working
> groups).
> In the future, its role may go further still. Until now, the IGF has been
> largely just a forum for discussion. Looking to the future, the
> Secretary-General's report on the continuation of the IGF envisages that it
> may come to produce some form of recommendations. If so, the MAG will have
> a role in supporting that process too, likely in shaping the content of any
> statements that are to be issued in conformity with the consensus of the
> plenary forum.
> Whatever the future may hold for the IGF, the MAG will be integral to it.
> This is why it is so important that the composition of the MAG is balanced,
> that the process of selection of its members satisfies the stakeholder
> groups from which they are drawn, that its operations are conducted with a
> high degree of transparency in order to ensure its accountability to the
> stakeholders at large, and that its legitimate role is not usurped.
> --- ends ---
> Perhaps time is too short for us to agree on this statement (extending the
> delay, I'm writing while away without Internet access), but let's try and
> see how far we get.
>
> --
>
> 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
>
--
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 dogwallah at gmail.com Tue May 4 01:32:15 2010
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Tue, 4 May 2010 08:32:15 +0300
Subject: [governance] FW: [Futurework] Possible risk from Internet
changes
In-Reply-To: <213B21CDD72748CE93E224CC159236F4@userPC>
References: <213B21CDD72748CE93E224CC159236F4@userPC>
Message-ID:
All,
12 of the 13 rootservers are now serving the DURZ, so if things are
working now they will almost certainly still be working on 5/5.
The sky is not falling!
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 8:15 PM, michael gurstein wrote:
> I have no idea about this... But I think this raises some interesting
> questions from an "Internet governance" perspective such as what types of
> alerts should be distributed
This is the text of the 5th alert that has gone out about this, I've
gotten it in ~half a dozen lists I am subbed to:
"Root Zone DNSSEC Deployment
Technical Status Update 2010-05-03
This is the fifth of a series of technical status updates intended
to inform a technical audience on progress in signing the root zone
of the DNS.
** The final transition to the DURZ will take place on
** J-Root, on 2010-05-05 between 1700--1900 UTC.
**
** After that maintenance all root servers will be serving the
** DURZ, and will generate larger responses to DNS
** queries that request DNSSEC information.
**
** If you experience technical problems or need to contact
** technical project staff, please send e-mail to rootsign at icann.org
** or call the ICANN DNS NOC at +1 310 301 5817, e-mail preferred
** if possible.
**
** See below for more details.
RESOURCES
Details of the project, including documentation published to date,
can be found at .
We'd like to hear from you. If you have feedback for us, please
send it to rootsign at icann.org.
DEPLOYMENT STATUS
The incremental deployment of DNSSEC in the Root Zone is being
carried out first by serving a Deliberately Unvalidatable Root Zone
(DURZ), and subsequently by a conventionally signed root zone.
Discussion of the approach can be found in the document "DNSSEC
Deployment for the Root Zone", as well as in the technical presentations
delivered at RIPE, NANOG, IETF and ICANN meetings.
Twelve of the thirteen root servers have already made the transition
to the DURZ. No harmful effects have been identified.
The final root server to make the transition, J-Root, will start
serving the DURZ in a maintenance window scheduled for 1700--1900
UTC on 2010-05-05.
Initial observations relating to this transition will be presented
and discussed at the DNS Working Group meeting at the RIPE meeting
in Prague on 2010-05-06.
PLANNED DEPLOYMENT SCHEDULE
Already completed:
2010-01-27: L starts to serve DURZ
2010-02-10: A starts to serve DURZ
2010-03-03: M, I start to serve DURZ
2010-03-24: D, K, E start to serve DURZ
2010-04-14: B, H, C, G, F start to serve DURZ
To come:
2010-05-05: J starts to serve DURZ
2010-07-01: Distribution of validatable, production, signed root
zone; publication of root zone trust anchor
(Please note that this schedule is tentative and subject to change
based on testing results or other unforeseen factors.)
A more detailed DURZ transition timetable with maintenance windows
can be found in the document "DNSSEC Deployment for the Root Zone",
the most recent draft of which can be found on the project web page
at ."
>, who should identify what alerts are
> distributed and to whom i.e. where does the authority, responsibility and
> accountability lie in these areas and is this sufficient and appropriate?
The ICANN DNSSEC signing team is the "who". ICANN and VeriSign have
the authority, responsibility and accountability.
I think it is sufficient and appropriate. Who would you suggest do it?
--
Cheers,
McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
For all list information and functions, see:
http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
From jeanette at wzb.eu Tue May 4 03:20:20 2010
From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Tue, 04 May 2010 08:20:20 +0100
Subject: [governance] Suggested statement on MAG's future
In-Reply-To: <85794685-B722-46D5-9861-130A2F1085FA@ciroap.org>
References: <85794685-B722-46D5-9861-130A2F1085FA@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <4BDFCAB4.3040407@wzb.eu>
Hi Jeremy,
thank you for the draft statement.
I have issues with the following sentences:
Whilst the United Nations Secretary-General is the titular leader of the
IGF process, this is a formal appointment only. Rightful control of the
IGF as a process or institution of Internet governance belongs
ultimately to the stakeholders themselves.
What does that mean, it is a formal appointment only. Have you, for
example, asked the secretariat if they also regard this appointment as
merely formal? I think you would be surprised. Also, I don't understand
the meaning of "rightful" in this context. Is it supposed to mean what
you or we find just or adequate? Then this should be made more clear.
Many of these issues we have discussed before and I can only repeat my
positions:
I don't think it is feasible and desirable for the stakeholders to
choose their members for the MAG. We need somebody sorting out issues of
regional and gender representation. Expertise is also an issue in this
context.
I am also not convinced that the MAG should get more authority. This
would raise problems of legitimacy and most likely bring the equality
between governments and other stakeholders in the MAG and the IGF in
general to an end.
Finally, the issue of transparency: The secretariat publishes a summary
of the MAG's discussions as a response to the request for more
transparency. If the caucus thinks this is not enough or doesn't do what
we need, perhaps we should be more specific than just repeating what we
have said for years?
jeanette
Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> Ginger and I have been silent on the drafting of a statement on the
> future of the MAG for its meeting on the 12th, in the hope that such a
> statement would emerge from the bottom up, but in order not to let the
> opportunity slip, allow me now to propose some text for discussion.
> There are six paragraphs. If you have an issue, please state which
> paragraph is of concern, and please make your suggestions as focussed as
> possible.
>
> --- begins ---
>
> The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) supports the maintenance of
> the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) of the Internet Governance
> Forum (IGF), as the body that links the UN Secretariat to the
> stakeholder groups that are the joint sovereigns of Internet governance.
> We would like to see the democratic legitimacy and effectiveness of the
> MAG strengthened as it continues into a renewed term for the IGF.
>
> To this end, in our statement for the February open consultation and MAG
> meetings, the IGC suggested that the composition of the MAG itself
> should be more evenly divided between the stakeholder groups. We also
> reported that many believe that the stakeholders should have a more
> direct role in the selection of MAG members, and that MAG discussions
> should continue to be made more transparent.
>
> We also consider that care must be taken in balancing the respective
> roles of the Secretariat and the MAG. Whilst the United Nations
> Secretary-General is the titular leader of the IGF process, this is a
> formal appointment only. Rightful control of the IGF as a process or
> institution of Internet governance belongs ultimately to the
> stakeholders themselves. Therefore, the Secretariat's role ought to
> remain a purely facilitative and technical one.
>
> In underlining this, the appropriate role of the MAG, as the only
> representative body of the stakeholders within the IGF process, becomes
> clear. Namely, it should be responsible for every decision that effects
> the substantive work of the IGF. This includes agenda setting,
> overseeing the preparation of briefing and synthesis documents, and
> reshaping the IGF's structure and working methods (such as the
> establishment of thematic working groups).
>
> In the future, its role may go further still. Until now, the IGF has
> been largely just a forum for discussion. Looking to the future, the
> Secretary-General's report on the continuation of the IGF envisages that
> it may come to produce some form of recommendations. If so, the MAG
> will have a role in supporting that process too, likely in shaping the
> content of any statements that are to be issued in conformity with the
> consensus of the plenary forum.
>
> Whatever the future may hold for the IGF, the MAG will be integral to
> it. This is why it is so important that the composition of the MAG is
> balanced, that the process of selection of its members satisfies the
> stakeholder groups from which they are drawn, that its operations are
> conducted with a high degree of transparency in order to ensure its
> accountability to the stakeholders at large, and that its legitimate
> role is not usurped.
>
> --- ends ---
>
> Perhaps time is too short for us to agree on this statement (extending
> the delay, I'm writing while away without Internet access), but let's
> try and see how far we get.
>
> --
>
> *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 dogwallah at gmail.com Tue May 4 03:36:35 2010
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Tue, 4 May 2010 10:36:35 +0300
Subject: [governance] Suggested statement on MAG's future
In-Reply-To: <85794685-B722-46D5-9861-130A2F1085FA@ciroap.org>
References: <85794685-B722-46D5-9861-130A2F1085FA@ciroap.org>
Message-ID:
Hi,
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 3:06 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> Ginger and I have been silent on the drafting of a statement on the future
> of the MAG for its meeting on the 12th, in the hope that such a statement
> would emerge from the bottom up, but in order not to let the opportunity
> slip, allow me now to propose some text for discussion. There are six
> paragraphs. If you have an issue, please state which paragraph is of
> concern, and please make your suggestions as focussed as possible.
> --- begins ---
> The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) supports the maintenance of
> the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) of the Internet Governance Forum
> (IGF), as the body that links the UN Secretariat to the stakeholder groups
> that are the joint sovereigns of Internet governance.
I don't see "stakeholder groups" as joint sovereigns of IG.
We would like to see
> the democratic legitimacy
Is the MAG supposed to be a democratic body?
and effectiveness of the MAG strengthened as it
> continues into a renewed term for the IGF.
> To this end, in our statement for the February open consultation and MAG
> meetings, the IGC suggested that the composition of the MAG itself should be
> more evenly divided between the stakeholder groups. We also reported that
> many believe that the stakeholders should have a more direct role in the
> selection of MAG members, and that MAG discussions should continue to be
> made more transparent.
> We also consider that care must be taken in balancing the respective roles
> of the Secretariat and the MAG. Whilst the United Nations Secretary-General
> is the titular leader of the IGF process, this is a formal appointment only.
> Rightful control of the IGF as a process or institution of Internet
> governance belongs ultimately to the stakeholders themselves. Therefore,
> the Secretariat's role ought to remain a purely facilitative and technical
> one.
> In underlining this, the appropriate role of the MAG, as the only
> representative body
Is it a representative body? I thought that MAG members acted in
personal capacities, no?
of the stakeholders within the IGF process, becomes
> clear. Namely, it should be responsible for every decision that effects the
> substantive work of the IGF.
Individual stakeholders, working in cooperation should be responsible
for decision making.
Is there substantive work of the IGF?
This includes agenda setting, overseeing the
> preparation of briefing and synthesis documents, and reshaping the IGF's
> structure and working methods (such as the establishment of thematic working
> groups).
> In the future, its role may go further still. Until now, the IGF has been
> largely just a forum for discussion. Looking to the future, the
> Secretary-General's report on the continuation of the IGF envisages that it
> may come to produce some form of recommendations. If so, the MAG will have
> a role in supporting that process too, likely in shaping the content of any
> statements that are to be issued in conformity with the consensus of the
> plenary forum.
> Whatever the future may hold for the IGF, the MAG will be integral to it.
> This is why it is so important that the composition of the MAG is balanced,
> that the process of selection of its members satisfies the stakeholder
> groups from which they are drawn, that its operations are conducted with a
> high degree of transparency in order to ensure its accountability to the
> stakeholders at large, and that its legitimate role is not usurped.
> --- ends ---
> Perhaps time is too short for us to agree on this statement (extending the
> delay, I'm writing while away without Internet access), but let's try and
> see how far we get.
Like Jeannette, I am also not "convinced" that the MAG should get more
authority.
--
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 yrjo_lansipuro at hotmail.com Tue May 4 04:26:12 2010
From: yrjo_lansipuro at hotmail.com (=?Windows-1252?B?WXJq9iBM5G5zaXB1cm8=?=)
Date: Tue, 4 May 2010 11:26:12 +0300
Subject: [governance] Suggested statement on MAG's future
Message-ID:
Dear all,
Thanks, Jeremy and Ginger, for the initiative.
I, too, think that the third para should be reformulated. I suggest the following:
The roles of the UNSG and MAG in controlling the IGF process should be re-examined in the light of he relevant articles of the Tunis agenda and of the IGF experience so far. While the UNSG has the overall authority over the IGF in terms of convening it (§72, §74), reporting on its operation (§75) and examining the desirability of its continuation (§76), the IGF in its working and function, will be multilateral,multi-stakeholder, democratic and transparent (§73). In post-Tunis practice, the MAG has evolved into the main actor managing the actual "working and function" of the IGF, ensuring "the complementarity between all stakeholders involved in this process - governments, business entities, civil society and intergovernmental organizations" (§73a)
Best,
Yrjö
> Date: Tue, 4 May 2010 08:20:20 +0100
> From: jeanette at wzb.eu
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; jeremy at ciroap.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] Suggested statement on MAG's future
>
> Hi Jeremy,
>
> thank you for the draft statement.
>
> I have issues with the following sentences:
>
> Whilst the United Nations Secretary-General is the titular leader of the
> IGF process, this is a formal appointment only. Rightful control of the
> IGF as a process or institution of Internet governance belongs
> ultimately to the stakeholders themselves.
>
> What does that mean, it is a formal appointment only. Have you, for
> example, asked the secretariat if they also regard this appointment as
> merely formal? I think you would be surprised. Also, I don't understand
> the meaning of "rightful" in this context. Is it supposed to mean what
> you or we find just or adequate? Then this should be made more clear.
>
> Many of these issues we have discussed before and I can only repeat my
> positions:
>
> I don't think it is feasible and desirable for the stakeholders to
> choose their members for the MAG. We need somebody sorting out issues of
> regional and gender representation. Expertise is also an issue in this
> context.
>
> I am also not convinced that the MAG should get more authority. This
> would raise problems of legitimacy and most likely bring the equality
> between governments and other stakeholders in the MAG and the IGF in
> general to an end.
>
> Finally, the issue of transparency: The secretariat publishes a summary
> of the MAG's discussions as a response to the request for more
> transparency. If the caucus thinks this is not enough or doesn't do what
> we need, perhaps we should be more specific than just repeating what we
> have said for years?
>
>
> jeanette
>
> Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> > Ginger and I have been silent on the drafting of a statement on the
> > future of the MAG for its meeting on the 12th, in the hope that such a
> > statement would emerge from the bottom up, but in order not to let the
> > opportunity slip, allow me now to propose some text for discussion.
> > There are six paragraphs. If you have an issue, please state which
> > paragraph is of concern, and please make your suggestions as focussed as
> > possible.
> >
> > --- begins ---
> >
> > The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) supports the maintenance of
> > the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) of the Internet Governance
> > Forum (IGF), as the body that links the UN Secretariat to the
> > stakeholder groups that are the joint sovereigns of Internet governance.
> > We would like to see the democratic legitimacy and effectiveness of the
> > MAG strengthened as it continues into a renewed term for the IGF.
> >
> > To this end, in our statement for the February open consultation and MAG
> > meetings, the IGC suggested that the composition of the MAG itself
> > should be more evenly divided between the stakeholder groups. We also
> > reported that many believe that the stakeholders should have a more
> > direct role in the selection of MAG members, and that MAG discussions
> > should continue to be made more transparent.
> >
> > We also consider that care must be taken in balancing the respective
> > roles of the Secretariat and the MAG. Whilst the United Nations
> > Secretary-General is the titular leader of the IGF process, this is a
> > formal appointment only. Rightful control of the IGF as a process or
> > institution of Internet governance belongs ultimately to the
> > stakeholders themselves. Therefore, the Secretariat's role ought to
> > remain a purely facilitative and technical one.
> >
> > In underlining this, the appropriate role of the MAG, as the only
> > representative body of the stakeholders within the IGF process, becomes
> > clear. Namely, it should be responsible for every decision that effects
> > the substantive work of the IGF. This includes agenda setting,
> > overseeing the preparation of briefing and synthesis documents, and
> > reshaping the IGF's structure and working methods (such as the
> > establishment of thematic working groups).
> >
> > In the future, its role may go further still. Until now, the IGF has
> > been largely just a forum for discussion. Looking to the future, the
> > Secretary-General's report on the continuation of the IGF envisages that
> > it may come to produce some form of recommendations. If so, the MAG
> > will have a role in supporting that process too, likely in shaping the
> > content of any statements that are to be issued in conformity with the
> > consensus of the plenary forum.
> >
> > Whatever the future may hold for the IGF, the MAG will be integral to
> > it. This is why it is so important that the composition of the MAG is
> > balanced, that the process of selection of its members satisfies the
> > stakeholder groups from which they are drawn, that its operations are
> > conducted with a high degree of transparency in order to ensure its
> > accountability to the stakeholders at large, and that its legitimate
> > role is not usurped.
> >
> > --- ends ---
> >
> > Perhaps time is too short for us to agree on this statement (extending
> > the delay, I'm writing while away without Internet access), but let's
> > try and see how far we get.
> >
> > --
> >
> > *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
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft’s powerful SPAM protection.
https://signup.live.com/signup.aspx?id=60969
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
For all list information and functions, see:
http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
From jeanette at wzb.eu Tue May 4 04:38:21 2010
From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Tue, 04 May 2010 09:38:21 +0100
Subject: [governance] Suggested statement on MAG's future
In-Reply-To:
References:
Message-ID: <4BDFDCFD.60102@wzb.eu>
Yes, this is nice! And perhaps we should be a bit less subtle towards
the end of this paragraph saying that the MAG has shown the feasibility
and positive effects of non-bureau like structures.
jeanette
Yrjö Länsipuro wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> Thanks, Jeremy and Ginger, for the initiative.
>
> I, too, think that the third para should be reformulated. I suggest the
> following:
>
> The roles of the UNSG and MAG in controlling the IGF process should be
> re-examined in the light of he relevant articles of the Tunis agenda and
> of the IGF experience so far. While the UNSG has the overall authority
> over the IGF in terms of convening it (§72, §74), reporting on its
> operation (§75) and examining the desirability of its continuation
> (§76), the IGF in its working and function, will be
> multilateral,multi-stakeholder, democratic and transparent (§73). In
> post-Tunis practice, the MAG has evolved into the main actor managing
> the actual "working and function" of the IGF, ensuring "the
> complementarity between all stakeholders involved in this process -
> governments, business entities, civil society and intergovernmental
> organizations" (§73a)
>
>
> Best,
>
> Yrjö
>
>
> > Date: Tue, 4 May 2010 08:20:20 +0100
> > From: jeanette at wzb.eu
> > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; jeremy at ciroap.org
> > Subject: Re: [governance] Suggested statement on MAG's future
> >
> > Hi Jeremy,
> >
> > thank you for the draft statement.
> >
> > I have issues with the following sentences:
> >
> > Whilst the United Nations Secretary-General is the titular leader of the
> > IGF process, this is a formal appointment only. Rightful control of the
> > IGF as a process or institution of Internet governance belongs
> > ultimately to the stakeholders themselves.
> >
> > What does that mean, it is a formal appointment only. Have you, for
> > example, asked the secretariat if they also regard this appointment as
> > merely formal? I think you would be surprised. Also, I don't understand
> > the meaning of "rightful" in this context. Is it supposed to mean what
> > you or we find just or adequate? Then this should be made more clear.
> >
> > Many of these issues we have discussed before and I can only repeat my
> > positions:
> >
> > I don't think it is feasible and desirable for the stakeholders to
> > choose their members for the MAG. We need somebody sorting out issues of
> > regional and gender representation. Expertise is also an issue in this
> > context.
> >
> > I am also not convinced that the MAG should get more authority. This
> > would raise problems of legitimacy and most likely bring the equality
> > between governments and other stakeholders in the MAG and the IGF in
> > general to an end.
> >
> > Finally, the issue of transparency: The secretariat publishes a summary
> > of the MAG's discussions as a response to the request for more
> > transparency. If the caucus thinks this is not enough or doesn't do what
> > we need, perhaps we should be more specific than just repeating what we
> > have said for years?
> >
> >
> > jeanette
> >
> > Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> > > Ginger and I have been silent on the drafting of a statement on the
> > > future of the MAG for its meeting on the 12th, in the hope that such a
> > > statement would emerge from the bottom up, but in order not to let the
> > > opportunity slip, allow me now to propose some text for discussion.
> > > There are six paragraphs. If you have an issue, please state which
> > > paragraph is of concern, and please make your suggestions as
> focussed as
> > > possible.
> > >
> > > --- begins ---
> > >
> > > The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) supports the maintenance of
> > > the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) of the Internet Governance
> > > Forum (IGF), as the body that links the UN Secretariat to the
> > > stakeholder groups that are the joint sovereigns of Internet
> governance.
> > > We would like to see the democratic legitimacy and effectiveness of
> the
> > > MAG strengthened as it continues into a renewed term for the IGF.
> > >
> > > To this end, in our statement for the February open consultation
> and MAG
> > > meetings, the IGC suggested that the composition of the MAG itself
> > > should be more evenly divided between the stakeholder groups. We also
> > > reported that many believe that the stakeholders should have a more
> > > direct role in the selection of MAG members, and that MAG discussions
> > > should continue to be made more transparent.
> > >
> > > We also consider that care must be taken in balancing the respective
> > > roles of the Secretariat and the MAG. Whilst the United Nations
> > > Secretary-General is the titular leader of the IGF process, this is a
> > > formal appointment only. Rightful control of the IGF as a process or
> > > institution of Internet governance belongs ultimately to the
> > > stakeholders themselves. Therefore, the Secretariat's role ought to
> > > remain a purely facilitative and technical one.
> > >
> > > In underlining this, the appropriate role of the MAG, as the only
> > > representative body of the stakeholders within the IGF process,
> becomes
> > > clear. Namely, it should be responsible for every decision that
> effects
> > > the substantive work of the IGF. This includes agenda setting,
> > > overseeing the preparation of briefing and synthesis documents, and
> > > reshaping the IGF's structure and working methods (such as the
> > > establishment of thematic working groups).
> > >
> > > In the future, its role may go further still. Until now, the IGF has
> > > been largely just a forum for discussion. Looking to the future, the
> > > Secretary-General's report on the continuation of the IGF envisages
> that
> > > it may come to produce some form of recommendations. If so, the MAG
> > > will have a role in supporting that process too, likely in shaping the
> > > content of any statements that are to be issued in conformity with the
> > > consensus of the plenary forum.
> > >
> > > Whatever the future may hold for the IGF, the MAG will be integral to
> > > it. This is why it is so important that the composition of the MAG is
> > > balanced, that the process of selection of its members satisfies the
> > > stakeholder groups from which they are drawn, that its operations are
> > > conducted with a high degree of transparency in order to ensure its
> > > accountability to the stakeholders at large, and that its legitimate
> > > role is not usurped.
> > >
> > > --- ends ---
> > >
> > > Perhaps time is too short for us to agree on this statement (extending
> > > the delay, I'm writing while away without Internet access), but let's
> > > try and see how far we get.
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > *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
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft’s powerful SPAM protection. Sign
> up 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
From pbekono at gmail.com Tue May 4 20:32:58 2010
From: pbekono at gmail.com (Pascal Bekono)
Date: Wed, 5 May 2010 01:32:58 +0100
Subject: [governance] Suggested statement on MAG's future
In-Reply-To: <4BDFCAB4.3040407@wzb.eu>
References: <85794685-B722-46D5-9861-130A2F1085FA@ciroap.org>
<4BDFCAB4.3040407@wzb.eu>
Message-ID:
Hi All,
Thanks Jeremy and Ginger for this interesting draft !
I fully agree with Jeannette's remarks.
Best,
~Pascal
2010/5/4 Jeanette Hofmann
> Hi Jeremy,
>
> thank you for the draft statement.
>
> I have issues with the following sentences:
>
>
> Whilst the United Nations Secretary-General is the titular leader of the
> IGF process, this is a formal appointment only. Rightful control of the IGF
> as a process or institution of Internet governance belongs ultimately to the
> stakeholders themselves.
>
> What does that mean, it is a formal appointment only. Have you, for
> example, asked the secretariat if they also regard this appointment as
> merely formal? I think you would be surprised. Also, I don't understand the
> meaning of "rightful" in this context. Is it supposed to mean what you or we
> find just or adequate? Then this should be made more clear.
>
> Many of these issues we have discussed before and I can only repeat my
> positions:
>
> I don't think it is feasible and desirable for the stakeholders to choose
> their members for the MAG. We need somebody sorting out issues of regional
> and gender representation. Expertise is also an issue in this context.
>
> I am also not convinced that the MAG should get more authority. This would
> raise problems of legitimacy and most likely bring the equality between
> governments and other stakeholders in the MAG and the IGF in general to an
> end.
>
> Finally, the issue of transparency: The secretariat publishes a summary of
> the MAG's discussions as a response to the request for more transparency. If
> the caucus thinks this is not enough or doesn't do what we need, perhaps we
> should be more specific than just repeating what we have said for years?
>
>
> jeanette
>
> Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>
>> Ginger and I have been silent on the drafting of a statement on the future
>> of the MAG for its meeting on the 12th, in the hope that such a statement
>> would emerge from the bottom up, but in order not to let the opportunity
>> slip, allow me now to propose some text for discussion. There are six
>> paragraphs. If you have an issue, please state which paragraph is of
>> concern, and please make your suggestions as focussed as possible.
>>
>> --- begins ---
>>
>> The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) supports the maintenance of the
>> Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) of the Internet Governance Forum
>> (IGF), as the body that links the UN Secretariat to the stakeholder groups
>> that are the joint sovereigns of Internet governance. We would like to see
>> the democratic legitimacy and effectiveness of the MAG strengthened as it
>> continues into a renewed term for the IGF.
>>
>> To this end, in our statement for the February open consultation and MAG
>> meetings, the IGC suggested that the composition of the MAG itself should be
>> more evenly divided between the stakeholder groups. We also reported that
>> many believe that the stakeholders should have a more direct role in the
>> selection of MAG members, and that MAG discussions should continue to be
>> made more transparent.
>>
>> We also consider that care must be taken in balancing the respective roles
>> of the Secretariat and the MAG. Whilst the United Nations Secretary-General
>> is the titular leader of the IGF process, this is a formal appointment only.
>> Rightful control of the IGF as a process or institution of Internet
>> governance belongs ultimately to the stakeholders themselves. Therefore,
>> the Secretariat's role ought to remain a purely facilitative and technical
>> one.
>>
>> In underlining this, the appropriate role of the MAG, as the only
>> representative body of the stakeholders within the IGF process, becomes
>> clear. Namely, it should be responsible for every decision that effects the
>> substantive work of the IGF. This includes agenda setting, overseeing the
>> preparation of briefing and synthesis documents, and reshaping the IGF's
>> structure and working methods (such as the establishment of thematic working
>> groups).
>>
>> In the future, its role may go further still. Until now, the IGF has been
>> largely just a forum for discussion. Looking to the future, the
>> Secretary-General's report on the continuation of the IGF envisages that it
>> may come to produce some form of recommendations. If so, the MAG will have
>> a role in supporting that process too, likely in shaping the content of any
>> statements that are to be issued in conformity with the consensus of the
>> plenary forum.
>>
>> Whatever the future may hold for the IGF, the MAG will be integral to it.
>> This is why it is so important that the composition of the MAG is balanced,
>> that the process of selection of its members satisfies the stakeholder
>> groups from which they are drawn, that its operations are conducted with a
>> high degree of transparency in order to ensure its accountability to the
>> stakeholders at large, and that its legitimate role is not usurped.
>>
>> --- ends ---
>>
>> Perhaps time is too short for us to agree on this statement (extending the
>> delay, I'm writing while away without Internet access), but let's try and
>> see how far we get.
>>
>> --
>>
>> *Jeremy Malcolm
>> Project Coordinator*
>> Consumers International
>> Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East
>> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur,
>> Malaysia
>> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
>>
>> *CI is 50*
>> Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in
>> 2010.
>> Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer
>> rights around the world. _http://www.consumersinternational.org/50_
>>
>> Read our email confidentiality notice <
>> http://www.consumersinternational.org/Templates/Internal.asp?NodeID=100521&int1stParentNodeID=89765>.
>> Don't print this email unless necessary.
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
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 May 4 21:46:31 2010
From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker)
Date: Tue, 4 May 2010 18:46:31 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] FW: [Futurework] Possible risk from Internet
changes
In-Reply-To:
Message-ID: <397221.28733.qm@web83908.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Does this mean I have to give back all my survivalist and camo stuff? Does Ebay handle used tanks? Perhaps I should ask California's next gov. Meg Whitman - ex CEO.
--- On Tue, 5/4/10, McTim wrote:
From: McTim
Subject: Re: [governance] FW: [Futurework] Possible risk from Internet changes
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "michael gurstein"
Date: Tuesday, May 4, 2010, 5:32 AM
All,
12 of the 13 rootservers are now serving the DURZ, so if things are
working now they will almost certainly still be working on 5/5.
The sky is not falling!
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 8:15 PM, michael gurstein wrote:
> I have no idea about this... But I think this raises some interesting
> questions from an "Internet governance" perspective such as what types of
> alerts should be distributed
This is the text of the 5th alert that has gone out about this, I've
gotten it in ~half a dozen lists I am subbed to:
"Root Zone DNSSEC Deployment
Technical Status Update 2010-05-03
This is the fifth of a series of technical status updates intended
to inform a technical audience on progress in signing the root zone
of the DNS.
** The final transition to the DURZ will take place on
** J-Root, on 2010-05-05 between 1700--1900 UTC.
**
** After that maintenance all root servers will be serving the
** DURZ, and will generate larger responses to DNS
** queries that request DNSSEC information.
**
** If you experience technical problems or need to contact
** technical project staff, please send e-mail to rootsign at icann.org
** or call the ICANN DNS NOC at +1 310 301 5817, e-mail preferred
** if possible.
**
** See below for more details.
RESOURCES
Details of the project, including documentation published to date,
can be found at .
We'd like to hear from you. If you have feedback for us, please
send it to rootsign at icann.org.
DEPLOYMENT STATUS
The incremental deployment of DNSSEC in the Root Zone is being
carried out first by serving a Deliberately Unvalidatable Root Zone
(DURZ), and subsequently by a conventionally signed root zone.
Discussion of the approach can be found in the document "DNSSEC
Deployment for the Root Zone", as well as in the technical presentations
delivered at RIPE, NANOG, IETF and ICANN meetings.
Twelve of the thirteen root servers have already made the transition
to the DURZ. No harmful effects have been identified.
The final root server to make the transition, J-Root, will start
serving the DURZ in a maintenance window scheduled for 1700--1900
UTC on 2010-05-05.
Initial observations relating to this transition will be presented
and discussed at the DNS Working Group meeting at the RIPE meeting
in Prague on 2010-05-06.
PLANNED DEPLOYMENT SCHEDULE
Already completed:
2010-01-27: L starts to serve DURZ
2010-02-10: A starts to serve DURZ
2010-03-03: M, I start to serve DURZ
2010-03-24: D, K, E start to serve DURZ
2010-04-14: B, H, C, G, F start to serve DURZ
To come:
2010-05-05: J starts to serve DURZ
2010-07-01: Distribution of validatable, production, signed root
zone; publication of root zone trust anchor
(Please note that this schedule is tentative and subject to change
based on testing results or other unforeseen factors.)
A more detailed DURZ transition timetable with maintenance windows
can be found in the document "DNSSEC Deployment for the Root Zone",
the most recent draft of which can be found on the project web page
at ."
>, who should identify what alerts are
> distributed and to whom i.e. where does the authority, responsibility and
> accountability lie in these areas and is this sufficient and appropriate?
The ICANN DNSSEC signing team is the "who". ICANN and VeriSign have
the authority, responsibility and accountability.
I think it is sufficient and appropriate. Who would you suggest do it?
--
Cheers,
McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
For all list information and functions, see:
http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
For all list information and functions, see:
http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Tue May 4 21:57:36 2010
From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker)
Date: Tue, 4 May 2010 18:57:36 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] Suggested statement on MAG's future/ Affirmation of
Status Quo
In-Reply-To:
Message-ID: <132584.75985.qm@web83909.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
I concur in uneasiness over the portrayal of the UN position and authority.
I do not believe there should be any increase in authority of the MAG
I am confident and satisfied with the current method and result of choosing MAG membership.
I believe that worthwhile ideas from all sectors are proposed and discussed here and that the MAG is responsive in bringing them to the table.
At this time Internet Governance would not be qualitatively benefited by a more democratically representative body through the MAG.
(however if the stipend and legacy is large enough I will consider being anointed king)
--- On Wed, 5/5/10, Pascal Bekono wrote:
From: Pascal Bekono
Subject: Re: [governance] Suggested statement on MAG's future
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Jeanette Hofmann"
Date: Wednesday, May 5, 2010, 12:32 AM
Hi All,
Thanks Jeremy and Ginger for this interesting draft !
I fully agree with Jeannette's remarks.
Best,
~Pascal
2010/5/4 Jeanette Hofmann
Hi Jeremy,
thank you for the draft statement.
I have issues with the following sentences:
Whilst the United Nations Secretary-General is the titular leader of the IGF process, this is a formal appointment only. Rightful control of the IGF as a process or institution of Internet governance belongs ultimately to the stakeholders themselves.
What does that mean, it is a formal appointment only. Have you, for example, asked the secretariat if they also regard this appointment as merely formal? I think you would be surprised. Also, I don't understand the meaning of "rightful" in this context. Is it supposed to mean what you or we find just or adequate? Then this should be made more clear.
Many of these issues we have discussed before and I can only repeat my positions:
I don't think it is feasible and desirable for the stakeholders to choose their members for the MAG. We need somebody sorting out issues of regional and gender representation. Expertise is also an issue in this context.
I am also not convinced that the MAG should get more authority. This would raise problems of legitimacy and most likely bring the equality between governments and other stakeholders in the MAG and the IGF in general to an end.
Finally, the issue of transparency: The secretariat publishes a summary of the MAG's discussions as a response to the request for more transparency. If the caucus thinks this is not enough or doesn't do what we need, perhaps we should be more specific than just repeating what we have said for years?
jeanette
Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
Ginger and I have been silent on the drafting of a statement on the future of the MAG for its meeting on the 12th, in the hope that such a statement would emerge from the bottom up, but in order not to let the opportunity slip, allow me now to propose some text for discussion. There are six paragraphs. If you have an issue, please state which paragraph is of concern, and please make your suggestions as focussed as possible.
--- begins ---
The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) supports the maintenance of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), as the body that links the UN Secretariat to the stakeholder groups that are the joint sovereigns of Internet governance. We would like to see the democratic legitimacy and effectiveness of the MAG strengthened as it continues into a renewed term for the IGF.
To this end, in our statement for the February open consultation and MAG meetings, the IGC suggested that the composition of the MAG itself should be more evenly divided between the stakeholder groups. We also reported that many believe that the stakeholders should have a more direct role in the selection of MAG members, and that MAG discussions should continue to be made more transparent.
We also consider that care must be taken in balancing the respective roles of the Secretariat and the MAG. Whilst the United Nations Secretary-General is the titular leader of the IGF process, this is a formal appointment only. Rightful control of the IGF as a process or institution of Internet governance belongs ultimately to the stakeholders themselves. Therefore, the Secretariat's role ought to remain a purely facilitative and technical one.
In underlining this, the appropriate role of the MAG, as the only representative body of the stakeholders within the IGF process, becomes clear. Namely, it should be responsible for every decision that effects the substantive work of the IGF. This includes agenda setting, overseeing the preparation of briefing and synthesis documents, and reshaping the IGF's structure and working methods (such as the establishment of thematic working groups).
In the future, its role may go further still. Until now, the IGF has been largely just a forum for discussion. Looking to the future, the Secretary-General's report on the continuation of the IGF envisages that it may come to produce some form of recommendations. If so, the MAG will have a role in supporting that process too, likely in shaping the content of any statements that are to be issued in conformity with the consensus of the plenary forum.
Whatever the future may hold for the IGF, the MAG will be integral to it. This is why it is so important that the composition of the MAG is balanced, that the process of selection of its members satisfies the stakeholder groups from which they are drawn, that its operations are conducted with a high degree of transparency in order to ensure its accountability to the stakeholders at large, and that its legitimate role is not usurped.
--- ends ---
Perhaps time is too short for us to agree on this statement (extending the delay, I'm writing while away without Internet access), but let's try and see how far we get.
--
*Jeremy Malcolm
Project Coordinator*
Consumers International
Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East
Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
*CI is 50*
Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010.
Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer rights around the world. _http://www.consumersinternational.org/50_
Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary.
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
For all list information and functions, see:
http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
For all list information and functions, see:
http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
For all list information and functions, see:
http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Tue May 4 21:59:48 2010
From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker)
Date: Tue, 4 May 2010 18:59:48 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] Suggested statement on MAG's future
In-Reply-To:
Message-ID: <516668.43485.qm@web83912.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
A required "all in agreement" would necessitate a statement that is so compromised as to be meaningless.
--- On Mon, 5/3/10, Fouad Bajwa wrote:
From: Fouad Bajwa
Subject: Re: [governance] Suggested statement on MAG's future
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Ginger Paque"
Cc: "Jeremy Malcolm"
Date: Monday, May 3, 2010, 11:08 PM
I wonder where the other MAG members are. I would go with a statement
agreed by all the IGC MAG Members so that we have a combined mutual
stance to present and defend. This is a good starting point and I
would like us to continue this discussion till either we reach a final
statement or I would be willing to read the statement that is finally
available after edits even though we may not have a mutually agreed
wording due to the time constraint we may all face now.
Some repetition of text needs attention otherwise it is very close to
what was earlier discussed on the list. Good attempt Jeremy!
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 9:08 PM, Ginger Paque wrote:
> As Jeremy mentioned, as co-coordinators, we think we should facilitate IGC
> statements, not dictate them. Jeremy has drafted a statement based on
> discussions, and I strongly urge you all to opine. The IGC should use its
> strength wisely, but it should use it. We cannot be heard if we do not say
> anything.
>
> The OC meeting next week will focus on operational preparations for the IGF
> Vilnius, but if we have consensus on a statement for consideration by the
> MAG, we should make our voice heard.
>
> Please let us know what you think. Please also continue discussions. These
> help all of us define our positions, and allow MAG members to read your
> ideas.
>
> Thanks. Best, Ginger
>
> On 5/3/2010 7:36 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>
> Ginger and I have been silent on the drafting of a statement on the future
> of the MAG for its meeting on the 12th, in the hope that such a statement
> would emerge from the bottom up, but in order not to let the opportunity
> slip, allow me now to propose some text for discussion. There are six
> paragraphs. If you have an issue, please state which paragraph is of
> concern, and please make your suggestions as focussed as possible.
> --- begins ---
> The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) supports the maintenance of
> the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) of the Internet Governance Forum
> (IGF), as the body that links the UN Secretariat to the stakeholder groups
> that are the joint sovereigns of Internet governance. We would like to see
> the democratic legitimacy and effectiveness of the MAG strengthened as it
> continues into a renewed term for the IGF.
> To this end, in our statement for the February open consultation and MAG
> meetings, the IGC suggested that the composition of the MAG itself should be
> more evenly divided between the stakeholder groups. We also reported that
> many believe that the stakeholders should have a more direct role in the
> selection of MAG members, and that MAG discussions should continue to be
> made more transparent.
> We also consider that care must be taken in balancing the respective roles
> of the Secretariat and the MAG. Whilst the United Nations Secretary-General
> is the titular leader of the IGF process, this is a formal appointment only.
> Rightful control of the IGF as a process or institution of Internet
> governance belongs ultimately to the stakeholders themselves. Therefore,
> the Secretariat's role ought to remain a purely facilitative and technical
> one.
> In underlining this, the appropriate role of the MAG, as the only
> representative body of the stakeholders within the IGF process, becomes
> clear. Namely, it should be responsible for every decision that effects the
> substantive work of the IGF. This includes agenda setting, overseeing the
> preparation of briefing and synthesis documents, and reshaping the IGF's
> structure and working methods (such as the establishment of thematic working
> groups).
> In the future, its role may go further still. Until now, the IGF has been
> largely just a forum for discussion. Looking to the future, the
> Secretary-General's report on the continuation of the IGF envisages that it
> may come to produce some form of recommendations. If so, the MAG will have
> a role in supporting that process too, likely in shaping the content of any
> statements that are to be issued in conformity with the consensus of the
> plenary forum.
> Whatever the future may hold for the IGF, the MAG will be integral to it.
> This is why it is so important that the composition of the MAG is balanced,
> that the process of selection of its members satisfies the stakeholder
> groups from which they are drawn, that its operations are conducted with a
> high degree of transparency in order to ensure its accountability to the
> stakeholders at large, and that its legitimate role is not usurped.
> --- ends ---
> Perhaps time is too short for us to agree on this statement (extending the
> delay, I'm writing while away without Internet access), but let's try and
> see how far we get.
>
> --
>
> 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
>
--
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 jeremy at ciroap.org Wed May 5 01:01:05 2010
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Wed, 5 May 2010 13:01:05 +0800
Subject: [governance] Suggested statement on MAG's future
In-Reply-To: <4BDFCAB4.3040407@wzb.eu>
References: <85794685-B722-46D5-9861-130A2F1085FA@ciroap.org> <4BDFCAB4.3040407@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <940FF2BA-3133-42F4-A9F2-006862101002@ciroap.org>
On 04/05/2010, at 3:20 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
> Whilst the United Nations Secretary-General is the titular leader of the IGF process, this is a formal appointment only. Rightful control of the IGF as a process or institution of Internet governance belongs ultimately to the stakeholders themselves.
>
> What does that mean, it is a formal appointment only. Have you, for example, asked the secretariat if they also regard this appointment as merely formal? I think you would be surprised.
I don't think I would at all; that was rather the reason for making that point. :-) Having said that, Nitin Desai did once claim:
"the United Nations itself is not a player in Internet governance directly. And to that extent, the Secretary-General is a disinterested party. And to some extent I suppose somebody like me, who is his representative, is also seen as a disinterested party. Not a representative of any particular stakeholder group. But we have never thought of that as anything more than an interim measure till the thing stabilizes."
I wonder how soon after the IGF has stabilised, that the UN Secretariat will offer to cede control of it. :-)
> Also, I don't understand the meaning of "rightful" in this context. Is it supposed to mean what you or we find just or adequate? Then this should be made more clear.
It just means that per Tunis Agenda, Internet governance is to be "a transparent, democratic, and multilateral process, with the participation of governments, private sector, civil society and international organisations, in their respective roles".
> Many of these issues we have discussed before and I can only repeat my positions:
>
> I don't think it is feasible and desirable for the stakeholders to choose their members for the MAG. We need somebody sorting out issues of regional and gender representation. Expertise is also an issue in this context.
There is no reason why criteria of regional and gender balance, etc, could not be taken into account by a stakeholder-composed nominating committee/s just as easily as they can by the UNSG.
> I am also not convinced that the MAG should get more authority. This would raise problems of legitimacy and most likely bring the equality between governments and other stakeholders in the MAG and the IGF in general to an end.
To have achieved equality in an organisation that has no power is rather a pyrrhic victory. Since civil society has a measure of equality with other stakeholders in the IGF, we have a foot in the door and an excellent opportunity to incrementally widen it and thereby increase our influence on policy making for the Internet.
> Finally, the issue of transparency: The secretariat publishes a summary of the MAG's discussions as a response to the request for more transparency. If the caucus thinks this is not enough or doesn't do what we need, perhaps we should be more specific than just repeating what we have said for years?
It is not more specific because whenever more specific ideas have been proposed in the past (dual open+closed mailing lists, transcripts of meetings, etc), they have not met with consensus here. We could just take out any reference to transparency, but I think in general it is a good idea for us to keep this issue alive even if we can't agree on concrete measures to improve it.
--
Jeremy Malcolm
Project Coordinator
Consumers International
Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East
Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
CI is 50
Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010.
Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer rights around the world.
http://www.consumersinternational.org/50
Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary.
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
For all list information and functions, see:
http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
From jeremy at ciroap.org Wed May 5 02:12:34 2010
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Wed, 5 May 2010 14:12:34 +0800
Subject: [governance] Suggested statement on MAG's future
In-Reply-To:
References: <85794685-B722-46D5-9861-130A2F1085FA@ciroap.org>
Message-ID:
On 04/05/2010, at 3:36 PM, McTim wrote:
> I don't see "stakeholder groups" as joint sovereigns of IG.
Per my last message, this is just a paraaphrase of the Tunis Agenda.
>> We would like to see the democratic legitimacy
>
> Is the MAG supposed to be a democratic body?
> ...
> Is it a representative body? I thought that MAG members acted in
> personal capacities, no?
"Democratic" should be understood more broadly than "directly representative".
> of the stakeholders within the IGF process, becomes
>> clear. Namely, it should be responsible for every decision that effects the
>> substantive work of the IGF.
>
> Individual stakeholders, working in cooperation should be responsible
> for decision making.
>
> Is there substantive work of the IGF?
Coordinating the individual stakeholders' responses in a particular issue area can be taken as its substantive work at present, but the IGF as an institution may also have an independent work programme in future in delivering recommendations or messages or whatever they may be... this is not an to argue about whether it should or shouldn't do so, but if it does, there will be a role for the MAG there.
I will post another draft of the statement incorporating Yrjö's text, and anything else that I can glean from responses to the list, in a while.
--
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 gpaque at gmail.com Wed May 5 05:37:08 2010
From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque)
Date: Wed, 05 May 2010 05:07:08 -0430
Subject: [governance] NCSG charter comments FWD from NCUC list
Message-ID: <4BE13C44.7020100@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 jeremy at ciroap.org Wed May 5 22:29:37 2010
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Thu, 6 May 2010 10:29:37 +0800
Subject: [governance] SECOND DRAFT suggested statement on MAG's future
Message-ID: <1422D9D4-4272-4533-9E5F-C5D89221663E@ciroap.org>
This incorporates Yrjö's changes in place of the original paragraph 3, and moves some contested passages into [square brackets]. Additions will appear underlined in rich text email clients.
--- begins ---
The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) supports the maintenance of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), as the body that links the UN Secretariat to the stakeholder groups that are recognised by the Tunis Agenda as the joint sovereigns of Internet governance. The MAG has shown the feasibility and positive effects of non-bureau like structures. We would therefore like to see the democratic legitimacy and effectiveness of the MAG strengthened as it continues into a renewed term for the IGF.
To this end, in our statement for the February 2010 open consultation and MAG meetings, the IGC suggested that the composition of the MAG itself should be more evenly divided between the stakeholder groups. [We also reported that many believe that the stakeholders should have a more direct role in the selection of MAG members, and that MAG discussions should continue to be made more transparent.]
The roles of the UNSG and MAG in controlling the IGF process should be re-examined in the light of he relevant articles of the Tunis agenda and of the IGF experience so far. While the UNSG has the overall authority over the IGF in terms of convening it (§72, §74), reporting on its operation (§75) and examining the desirability of its continuation (§76), the IGF in its working and function, will be multilateral,multi-stakeholder, democratic and transparent (§73). In post-Tunis practice, the MAG has evolved into the main actor managing the actual "working and function" of the IGF, ensuring "the complementarity between all stakeholders involved in this process - governments, business entities, civil society and intergovernmental organizations" (§73a)
In underlining this, the appropriate role of the MAG, as the only representative body of the stakeholders within the IGF process, becomes clear. Namely, it should be responsible for every decision that effects the substantive work of the IGF. This includes agenda setting, overseeing the preparation of briefing and synthesis documents, and reshaping the IGF's structure and working methods (such as the establishment of thematic working groups).
[In the future, its role may go further still. Until now, the IGF has been largely just a forum for discussion. Looking to the future, the Secretary-General's report on the continuation of the IGF envisages that it may come to produce some form of recommendations. If so, the MAG will have a role in supporting that process too, likely in shaping the content of any statements that are to be issued in conformity with the consensus of the plenary forum.]
Whatever the future may hold for the IGF, the MAG will be integral to it. This is why it is so important that the composition of the MAG is balanced, that the process of selection of its members satisfies the stakeholder groups from which they are drawn, that its operations are conducted with a high degree of transparency in order to ensure its accountability to the stakeholders at large, and that its legitimate role is not usurped.
--- ends ---
--
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 dogwallah at gmail.com Thu May 6 00:24:18 2010
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Thu, 6 May 2010 07:24:18 +0300
Subject: [governance] SECOND DRAFT suggested statement on MAG's future
In-Reply-To: <1422D9D4-4272-4533-9E5F-C5D89221663E@ciroap.org>
References: <1422D9D4-4272-4533-9E5F-C5D89221663E@ciroap.org>
Message-ID:
Jeremy,
On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 5:29 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> This incorporates Yrjö's changes in place of the original paragraph 3, and
> moves some contested passages into [square brackets]. Additions will appear
> underlined in rich text email clients.
> --- begins ---
> The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) supports the maintenance of
> the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) of the Internet Governance Forum
> (IGF), as the body that links the UN Secretariat to the stakeholder groups
> that are recognised by the Tunis Agenda as the joint sovereigns of Internet
> governance.
I still find this objectionable. While the stakeholder groups may be
considered joint sovereigns of the IGF, I do not see them as sovereign
over IG in general. Remember, the IGF talks about public policy
issues in IG, it doesn't actually "do" IG.
--
Cheers,
McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel
The MAG has shown the feasibility and positive effects of
> non-bureau like structures. We would therefore like to see the democratic
> legitimacy and effectiveness of the MAG strengthened as it continues into a
> renewed term for the IGF.
> To this end, in our statement for the February 2010 open consultation and
> MAG meetings, the IGC suggested that the composition of the MAG itself
> should be more evenly divided between the stakeholder groups. [We also
> reported that many believe that the stakeholders should have a more direct
> role in the selection of MAG members, and that MAG discussions should
> continue to be made more transparent.]
> The roles of the UNSG and MAG in controlling the IGF process should be
> re-examined in the light of he relevant articles of the Tunis agenda and of
> the IGF experience so far. While the UNSG has the overall authority over the
> IGF in terms of convening it (§72, §74), reporting on its operation (§75)
> and examining the desirability of its continuation (§76), the IGF in its
> working and function, will be multilateral,multi-stakeholder, democratic
> and transparent (§73). In post-Tunis practice, the MAG has evolved into the
> main actor managing the actual "working and function" of the IGF, ensuring
> "the complementarity between all stakeholders involved in this process
> - governments, business entities, civil society and
> intergovernmental organizations" (§73a)
> In underlining this, the appropriate role of the MAG, as the only
> representative body of the stakeholders within the IGF process, becomes
> clear. Namely, it should be responsible for every decision that effects the
> substantive work of the IGF. This includes agenda setting, overseeing the
> preparation of briefing and synthesis documents, and reshaping the IGF's
> structure and working methods (such as the establishment of thematic working
> groups).
> [In the future, its role may go further still. Until now, the IGF has been
> largely just a forum for discussion. Looking to the future, the
> Secretary-General's report on the continuation of the IGF envisages that it
> may come to produce some form of recommendations. If so, the MAG will have
> a role in supporting that process too, likely in shaping the content of any
> statements that are to be issued in conformity with the consensus of the
> plenary forum.]
> Whatever the future may hold for the IGF, the MAG will be integral to it.
> This is why it is so important that the composition of the MAG is balanced,
> that the process of selection of its members satisfies the stakeholder
> groups from which they are drawn, that its operations are conducted with a
> high degree of transparency in order to ensure its accountability to the
> stakeholders at large, and that its legitimate role is not usurped.
> --- ends ---
> --
>
> 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 ias_pk at yahoo.com Thu May 6 02:59:19 2010
From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah)
Date: Wed, 5 May 2010 23:59:19 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] SECOND DRAFT suggested statement on MAG's future
In-Reply-To: <1422D9D4-4272-4533-9E5F-C5D89221663E@ciroap.org>
References: <1422D9D4-4272-4533-9E5F-C5D89221663E@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <686294.45317.qm@web33002.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Dear Members of UN/IGF and IGC
With reference to the “SECOND DRAFT suggested statement on MAG's future”, please find a proposal for the reorganization of the membership of Internet Governance Forum for open discussion and consensus:
Instead of single group as MAG, I suggest at least three multi-stakeholder groups in IGF to discuss issues related to Internet
governance:-
1. Group A:
Representation of Governments of all Member Countries/Territories of the United Nations.
They will also be helpful for the implementation of the UN/IGF Policies, given guide-lines for rules and regulations (in their countries) and to arrange to provide Funds required for Implementation (IGF+ICT Policies) in context of Internet Governance.
2. Group B:
Representations of Technology Experts and Policy Implementer(s) from the Commercial and Non-Commercial Organizations, Institutions, Groups or Civil/Social Societies.
They will not only help to prepare best policies but also extend the policies and implementation process in the community up to the end user (public: citizen or netizen).
3. Group C:
Representatives of Public, Civil/Social Societies/Communities or Individuals as a User, where the IGF Policies Implementation will have direct impact.
Proposed membership ratio is 30%+30%+40% respectively.
The members of IGC may become part of these groups.
These three groups may have:
Tree different mailing List + Discussion Forum
and
One common mailing list and Discussion Forum
These groups will participate for policies development and implementation for Internet Governance.
There should be some positions of Directors & Chairman/President of the Groups and coordinators at UN/IGF and who will be permanently based at IGF Office.
Membership of these Groups may become open for all when this model is approved by the UNSG.
I hope that this proposed framework may resolve many issues and will have a very positive impact on the UN/IGF fundamental theme. At this stage forum “has no decision-making authority” or feedback implementation mechanism of the open discussions and consensus made at IGC/IGF forum which may be referred as “top to bottom influence of the internet governance policies“. This will also provide a decision making mechanism and implementation process through the representatives of the Governments, Private and Public Sectors.
Thanking you
Best Regards
Imran Ahmed Shah
[ICANNian since Oct'09]
[+92 300 4130617]
Advisor to
Urdu Internet Council
Urdu Internet Society
________________________________
From: Jeremy Malcolm
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Sent: Thu, 6 May, 2010 7:29:37
Subject: [governance] SECOND DRAFT suggested statement on MAG's future
This incorporates Yrjö's changes in place of the original paragraph 3, and moves some contested passages into [square brackets]. Additions will appear underlined in rich text email clients.
--- begins ---
The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) supports the maintenance of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), as the body that links the UN Secretariat to the stakeholder groups that are recognised by the Tunis Agenda as the joint sovereigns of Internet governance. The MAG has shown the feasibility and positive effects of non-bureau like structures. We would therefore like to see the democratic legitimacy and effectiveness of the MAG strengthened as it continues into a renewed term for the IGF.
To this end, in our statement for the February 2010 open consultation and MAG meetings, the IGC suggested that the composition of the MAG itself should be more evenly divided between the stakeholder groups. [We also reported that many believe that the stakeholders should have a more direct role in the selection of MAG members, and that MAG discussions should continue to be made more transparent.]
The roles of the UNSG and MAG in controlling the IGF process should be re-examined in the light of he relevant articles of the Tunis agenda and of the IGF experience so far. While the UNSG has the overall authority over the IGF in terms of convening it (§72, §74), reporting on its operation (§75) and examining the desirability of its continuation (§76), the IGF in its working and function, will be multilateral,multi-stakeholder, democratic and transparent (§73). In post-Tunis practice, the MAG has evolved into the main actor managing the actual "working and function" of the IGF, ensuring "the complementarity between all stakeholders involved in this process - governments, business entities, civil society and intergovernmental organizations" (§73a)
In underlining this, the appropriate role of the MAG, as the only representative body of the stakeholders within the IGF process, becomes clear. Namely, it should be responsible for every decision that effects the substantive work of the IGF. This includes agenda setting, overseeing the preparation of briefing and synthesis documents, and reshaping the IGF's structure and working methods (such as the establishment of thematic working groups).
[In the future, its role may go further still. Until now, the IGF has been largely just a forum for discussion. Looking to the future, the Secretary-General's report on the continuation of the IGF envisages that it may come to produce some form of recommendations. If so, the MAG will have a role in supporting that process too, likely in shaping the content of any statements that are to be issued in conformity with the consensus of the plenary forum.]
Whatever the future may hold for the IGF, the MAG will be integral to it. This is why it is so important that the composition of the MAG is balanced, that the process of selection of its members satisfies the stakeholder groups from which they are drawn, that its operations are conducted with a high degree of transparency in order to ensure its accountability to the stakeholders at large, and that its legitimate role is not usurped.
--- ends ---
--
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 Thu May 6 03:16:47 2010
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Thu, 6 May 2010 15:16:47 +0800
Subject: [governance] SECOND DRAFT suggested statement on MAG's future
In-Reply-To: <686294.45317.qm@web33002.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <1422D9D4-4272-4533-9E5F-C5D89221663E@ciroap.org> <686294.45317.qm@web33002.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <93B8C690-CFFC-43D4-8A8D-71A4883CA044@ciroap.org>
On 06/05/2010, at 2:59 PM, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote:
> With reference to the “SECOND DRAFT suggested statement on MAG's future”, please find a proposal for the reorganization of the membership of Internet Governance Forum for open discussion and consensus:
>
> Instead of single group as MAG, I suggest at least three multi-stakeholder groups in IGF to discuss issues related to Internet governance:-
Something like this has come up before. At the earliest stage of the IGF, before the Athens meeting, the Group of 77 and China proposed having three separate bureaus for each of the three main stakeholder groups.
The late Francis Muguet (through ENSTA and EUROLINC) put forward a similar proposal for a "four components" bureau, adding the technical community. And speaking for myself, I put forward something similar in my proposal for a "consociational bureau" for the IGF as developed in my thesis and the book that followed from it.
Having said all that, I don't think that there is currently much support for such ideas on this list. Even so, I think it is well worth actively discussing. I have personally believed for a long time that, in practical terms, it is only through such a lightly-separated structure that gives more autonomy to each of the stakeholder groups, that the IGF can move forward. (But I realise that I am in a minority about that.)
Maybe a step forward (regardless of the reception of your idea on this list) would be for you to post it as an individual as an input to the May open consultation and MAG meeting.
--
Jeremy Malcolm
Project Coordinator
Consumers International
Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East
Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
CI is 50
Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010.
Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer rights around the world.
http://www.consumersinternational.org/50
Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
For all list information and functions, see:
http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
From gpaque at gmail.com Fri May 7 06:21:23 2010
From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque)
Date: Fri, 07 May 2010 05:51:23 -0430
Subject: [governance] Fun for Friday morning... (Arabic Domain Name)
Message-ID: <4BE3E9A3.5050700@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 avri at acm.org Fri May 7 06:40:48 2010
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Fri, 7 May 2010 06:40:48 -0400
Subject: [governance] SECOND DRAFT suggested statement on MAG's future
In-Reply-To: <93B8C690-CFFC-43D4-8A8D-71A4883CA044@ciroap.org>
References: <1422D9D4-4272-4533-9E5F-C5D89221663E@ciroap.org> <686294.45317.qm@web33002.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <93B8C690-CFFC-43D4-8A8D-71A4883CA044@ciroap.org>
Message-ID:
On 6 May 2010, at 03:16, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> Maybe a step forward (regardless of the reception of your idea on this list) would be for you to post it as an individual as an input to the May open consultation and MAG meeting.
>
>
Hi,
I just wanted to point out that there not really a consultation in May, but rather a two day planning meeting which will be focused on planning for the program and the workshops. This is intended as a open working session like last years planning meeting.
On the third day, there will be a meeting of the MAG which I believe is open but which will not really be a consultation - its structure is up to the chair and MAG to decide at the time. I expect it to be more like a MAG meeting then a consultation.
While there may be some time for a few statements, I don't know yet, the best way to make sure the IGC's points get made is to have some of the MAG members who are also IGC members champion the proposal (or at least bring it up) within the MAG.
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 gpaque at gmail.com Fri May 7 08:25:21 2010
From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque)
Date: Fri, 07 May 2010 07:55:21 -0430
Subject: [governance] SECOND DRAFT suggested statement on MAG's future
In-Reply-To:
References: <1422D9D4-4272-4533-9E5F-C5D89221663E@ciroap.org> <686294.45317.qm@web33002.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <93B8C690-CFFC-43D4-8A8D-71A4883CA044@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <4BE406B1.2070805@paque.net>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
For all list information and functions, see:
http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
From gpaque at gmail.com Fri May 7 08:31:51 2010
From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque)
Date: Fri, 07 May 2010 08:01:51 -0430
Subject: [governance] IGF planning meeting next week: workshops, etc.
Message-ID: <4BE40837.2040104@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 ca at cafonso.ca Fri May 7 09:42:30 2010
From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso)
Date: Fri, 07 May 2010 10:42:30 -0300
Subject: [governance] Fun for Friday morning... (Arabic Domain Name)
In-Reply-To: <4BE3E9A3.5050700@gmail.com>
References: <4BE3E9A3.5050700@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4BE418C6.7050807@cafonso.ca>
This is indeed a great milestone!
Congrats to our Egyptian friends!
--c.a.
On 05/07/2010 07:21 AM, Ginger Paque wrote:
> Congratulations to the IG workers of the world!!
>
> Copy and paste this link in your address bar ... then press enter ...
>
> وزارة-الاتصالات.مصر
>
> it is the website of MCIT Egypt with an Arabic domain name!!!
>
> Congrats MCIT, Congrats Egypt, Congrats ICANN, Congrats world!!!
>
> Best, Ginger
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
For all list information and functions, see:
http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
From gpaque at gmail.com Fri May 7 10:01:16 2010
From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque)
Date: Fri, 07 May 2010 09:31:16 -0430
Subject: [governance] Friday morning... (Arabic Domain Name) Some
Background
In-Reply-To: <4BE418C6.7050807@cafonso.ca>
References: <4BE3E9A3.5050700@gmail.com> <4BE418C6.7050807@cafonso.ca>
Message-ID: <4BE41D2C.4080105@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 avri at acm.org Fri May 7 10:27:15 2010
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Fri, 7 May 2010 10:27:15 -0400
Subject: [governance] SECOND DRAFT suggested statement on MAG's future
In-Reply-To:
References: <1422D9D4-4272-4533-9E5F-C5D89221663E@ciroap.org> <686294.45317.qm@web33002.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <93B8C690-CFFC-43D4-8A8D-71A4883CA044@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <18FD94E4-0C75-45EA-91EB-A9A7A9C7C3EC@acm.org>
On 7 May 2010, at 06:40, Avri Doria wrote:
> On the third day, there will be a meeting of the MAG which I believe is open but which will not really be a consultation - its structure is up to the chair and MAG to decide at the time. I expect it to be more like a MAG meeting then a consultation.
I erred in the statement above.
The MAG meeting is closed as always.
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 bdelachapelle at gmail.com Fri May 7 11:05:44 2010
From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle)
Date: Fri, 7 May 2010 17:05:44 +0200
Subject: [governance] SECOND DRAFT suggested statement on MAG's future
In-Reply-To:
References: <1422D9D4-4272-4533-9E5F-C5D89221663E@ciroap.org>
<686294.45317.qm@web33002.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <93B8C690-CFFC-43D4-8A8D-71A4883CA044@ciroap.org>
Message-ID:
I don't think the MAG meeting on the third day will be open.
As for the notion of a multi-structured MAG, this would clearly reintroduce
silos in one of the rare structures that function in a collegial way.
Using constituencies for the selection of MAG members is one thing and some
thinking can be given to this, in order to reduce the importance of the
"black box". But once people are designated/nominated, isn't it better to
have them function as a single group ?
Best
Bertrand
On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 12:40 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
>
> On 6 May 2010, at 03:16, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>
> > Maybe a step forward (regardless of the reception of your idea on this
> list) would be for you to post it as an individual as an input to the May
> open consultation and MAG meeting.
> >
> >
>
> Hi,
>
> I just wanted to point out that there not really a consultation in May, but
> rather a two day planning meeting which will be focused on planning for the
> program and the workshops. This is intended as a open working session like
> last years planning meeting.
>
> On the third day, there will be a meeting of the MAG which I believe is
> open but which will not really be a consultation - its structure is up to
> the chair and MAG to decide at the time. I expect it to be more like a MAG
> meeting then a consultation.
>
> While there may be some time for a few statements, I don't know yet, the
> best way to make sure the IGC's points get made is to have some of the MAG
> members who are also IGC members champion the proposal (or at least bring it
> up) within the MAG.
>
> 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
>
--
____________________
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 ocl at gih.com Fri May 7 11:29:07 2010
From: ocl at gih.com (Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond)
Date: Fri, 07 May 2010 17:29:07 +0200
Subject: [governance] Friday morning... (Arabic Domain Name) Some
Background
In-Reply-To: <4BE41D2C.4080105@gmail.com>
References: <4BE3E9A3.5050700@gmail.com> <4BE418C6.7050807@cafonso.ca> <4BE41D2C.4080105@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4BE431C3.4010802@gih.com>
Thanks for the pointer, Ginger. A milestone indeed, but the paper below
is really out of date. It does not mention the extraordinary amount of
work that was done by volunteers in the IDNABIS IETF working group and
the work also done within ICANN.
Having witnessed so many of the workings of these milestone events
(including the coming on line of several countries), I sometimes wish
there was a "lost Internet heroes" hall of fame, to mention the hundreds
of volunteers who took their time to work on these matters, free of
charge, sometimes incurring expenses, instead of spending their time on
more ludic matters. I guess history in general is made up of these
individual experiences.
Milestones such as the one about IDNs being put in use, are the
celebrations of those individuals. Thank you all.
Kind regards,
Olivier
Le 07/05/2010 16:01, Ginger Paque a écrit :
> I did some searches, trying to better understand the background to
> today's milestone. I found a timeline by Prof. S. Subbiah (IGC member)
> on Ian Peter's (another IGC member and former co-coordinator) weblog.
>
> Published in May 2007, Ian introduced it like this:
>
> *"Thanks to Prof. S. Subbiah from Singapore for this excellent short
> history of the attempts to internationalise domain names.*
>
> *"There is much still to be done!"*
>
> http://ianpeter.wordpress.com/2007/05/10/history-of-internationalised-domain-names/
>
> History of IDN
>
> * 12/96: Martin Duerst’s original Internet Draft proposing UTF5 (the
> first incarnation of what is known today as ACE)- UTF-5 was first
> defined by Martin Duerst at the University of Zürich in [3]
> [4]
> [5]
>
> ( Subbiah comments: a precursor idea that was never implemented and
> would not have worked as proposed. Martin later collaborated with the
> Singapore team which was not aware of his previous suggestion til much
> later))
>
> * 03/98: Early Research on IDN at National University of Singapore
> (NUS), Center for Internet Research (formerly Internet Research and
> Development Unit – IRDU) led by Prof. Tan Tin Wee (IDN Project team –
> Lim Juay Kwang and Leong Kok Yong) and subsequently continued under a
> team at Bioinformatrix Pte. Ltd. (BIX Pte. Ltd.)
> - a NUS spin-off company led by Prof. S. Subbiah.
> * July 98: Geneva INET’98 conference with a BoF discussion on iDNS and
> APNG General Meeting and Working Group meeting.
> * 07/98: Asia Pacific Networking Group (APNG, now still in existence
> [6] and distinct from a gathering known as APSTAR
> [7]
> ) iDNS Working Group formed. [8]
>
> * 10/98: James Seng was
> recruited to lead further IDN development at BIX Pte. Ltd. by Prof. S.
> Subbiah.
> * 02/99: iDNS Testbed launched by BIX Pte. Ltd. under the auspicies of
> APNG with participation from CNNIC
> , JPNIC
> ,
> KRNIC, TWNIC, THNIC, HKNIC and SGNIC led by James Seng
> [9]
>
>
> * 02/99: Presentation of Report on IDN at Joint APNG-APTLD meeting, at
> APRICOT’99
> * 03/99: Endorsement of the IDN Report at APNG General Meeting 1 March
> 1999.
> * 06/99: Grant application by APNG jointly with the Centre for
> Internet Research (CIR), National University of Singapore, to the
> International Development Research Center (IDRC), a Canadian
> Government funded international organisation to work on IDN for IPv6.
> This APNG Project was funded under the Pan Asia R&D Grant administered
> on behalf of IDRC by the Canadian Committee on Occupational Health and
> Safety (CCOHS). Principal Investigator: Tan Tin Wee of National
> University of Singapore. [10]
>
> * 07/99 Tout, Walid R. (WALID Inc.) Filed IDNA patent application
> number US1999000358043 Method and system for internationalizing domain
> names. Published 2001-01-30 [11]
>
>
> * 07/99: [12]
> ;
> Renewed 2000 [13]
>
> Internet Draft on UTF5 by James Seng, Martin Duerst and Tan Tin Wee.
>
> * 08/99: APTLD and APNG forms a working group
> to look into IDN
> issues chaired by Kilnam Chon. [14]
>
> * 10/99: BIX Pte. Ltd. and National University of Singapore together
> with New York Venture Capital investors, General Atlantic Partners,
> spun-off the IDN effort into 2 new Singapore companies – i-DNS.net
> International Inc. and i-Email.net Pte. Ltd. that created the first
> commercial implementation of an IDN Solution for both domain names and
> IDN email addresses respectively.
> * 11/99: IETF IDN Birds-of-Feather
> in Washington was initiated by i-DNS.net at the request of IETF officials.
> * 12/99: i-DNS.net InternationalPte. Ltd. launched the first
> commercial IDN. It was in Taiwan and in Chinese characters under the
> top-level IDN TLD “.gongsi” (meaning loosely “.com”) with endorsement
> by the Minister of Communications of Taiwan and some major Taiwanese
> ISPs with reports of over 200 000 names sold in a week in Taiwan, Hong
> Kong, Singapore, Malaysia, China, Australia and USA.
> * Late 1999: Kilnam Chon initiates Task Force on IDNS which led to
> formation of MINC, the Multilingual Internet Names Consortium. [15]
>
> * 01/2000: IETF IDN Working Group
> formed chaired by James Seng
> and Marc Blanchet
>
> * 01/2000: The second ever commercial IDN launch was IDN TLDs in the
> Tamil Language, corresponding to .com, .net, .org, and .edu. These
> were launched in India with IT Ministry support by i-DNS.net
> International.
> * 02/2000: Multilingual Internet Names Consortium(MINC) Proposal BoF
> at IETF Adelaide. [16]
>
> * 03/2000: APRICOT 2000 Multilingual DNS session [17]
>
> * 04/2000: WALID Inc. (with IDNA patent pending application 6182148)
> started Registration & Resolving Multilingual Domain Names.
> * 05/2000: Interoperability Testing WG, MINC meeting. San Francisco,
> chaired by Bill Manning and Y.Yoneya 12 May 2000. [18]
>
> * 06/2000: Inaugural Launch of the Multilingual Internet Names
> Consortium (MINC) in Seoul [19] to drive the
> collaborative roll-out of IDN starting from the Asia Pacific.
> [20]
> * 07/2000: Joint Engineering TaskForce (JET) initiated in Yokohama to
> study technical issues led by JPNIC (K.Konishi)
> * 07/2000: Official Formation of CDNC Chinese Domain Name Consortium
> to resolve issues related to and to deploy Han Character domain names,
> founded by CNNIC, TWNIC, HKNIC and MONIC in May 2000. [21]
> [22]
>
>
> * 03/01: ICANN Board IDN Working
> Group formed
> * 07/01: Japanese Domain Name Association : JDNA Lauch Ceremony (July
> 13, 2001) in Tokyo, Japan.
> * 07/01: Urdu Internet Names System (July 28, 2001) in Islamabad,
> Pakistan, Organised Jointly by SDNP and MINC. [23]
>
> * 07/01: Presentation on IDN to the Committee Meeting of the Computer
> Science and Telecommunications Board, National Academies USA (JULY
> 11-13, 2001)at University of California School of Information
> Management and Systems, Berkeley, CA. [24]
>
> * 08/01: MINC presentation and outreach at the Asia Pacific Advanced
> Network annual conference, Penang, Malaysia 20th August 2001
> * 10/01: Joint MINC-CDNC Meeting in Beijing 18-20 October 2001
> * 11/01: ICANN IDN Committee formed
> * 12/01: Joint ITU-WIPO Symposium on Multilingual Domain Names
> organised in association with MINC, 6-7 Dec 2001, International
> Conference Center, Geneva.
> * 01/03: Free implementation of StringPrep, Punycode, and IDNA release
> in GNU Libidn.
>
> * 03/03: Publication of RFC 3454
> , RFC 3490
> , RFC 3491
> and RFC 3492
>
>
> * 06/03: Publication of ICANN IDN Guidelines for registries
>
> * 05/04: Publication of RFC 3743 ,
> Joint Engineering Team (JET) Guidelines for Internationalized Domain
> Names (IDN) Registration and Administration for Chinese, Japanese, and
> Korean
> * March 2005: First Study Group 17 of ITU-T meeting on
> Internationalized Domain Names [25]
>
> * April 2006: Study Group 17 meeting in Korea gave final approval to
> the Question on Internationalized Domain Names [26]
>
> * December 2006: ICANN meeting at São Paulo discusses status of lab
> tests of IDNs within the root.
>
>
>
> On 5/7/2010 9:12 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote:
>> This is indeed a great milestone!
>>
>> Congrats to our Egyptian friends!
>>
>> --c.a.
>>
>> On 05/07/2010 07:21 AM, Ginger Paque wrote:
>>> Congratulations to the IG workers of the world!!
>>>
>>> Copy and paste this link in your address bar ... then press enter ...
>>>
>>> وزارة-الاتصالات.مصر
>>>
>>> it is the website of MCIT Egypt with an Arabic domain name!!!
>>>
>>> Congrats MCIT, Congrats Egypt, Congrats ICANN, Congrats world!!!
>>>
>>> Best, Ginger
>>
--
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 ias_pk at yahoo.com Fri May 7 11:31:28 2010
From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah)
Date: Fri, 7 May 2010 08:31:28 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] SECOND DRAFT suggested statement on MAG's future
In-Reply-To: <4BE406B1.2070805@paque.net>
References: <1422D9D4-4272-4533-9E5F-C5D89221663E@ciroap.org> <686294.45317.qm@web33002.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <93B8C690-CFFC-43D4-8A8D-71A4883CA044@ciroap.org> <4BE406B1.2070805@paque.net>
Message-ID: <439316.79690.qm@web33006.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Respected Ginger Paque, Avri Doria and Jeremy Malcolm
Thank you very much for considering my contribution and to guide me the better way to submit my proposal into open discussion at May Meeting.
> Most important: We do not have a clear member consensus (in my mind).
With reference to the latest review comments and consultation of Ginger Paque, I fully agree with the importance of members consensus (IGC/ MAG and beyond) for the reorganization of the IGF structure to improve its functionality and usefulness.
> However, I do think that the most efficient presentation of ideas at this point is through individual MAG members,
> who can analyze and present these ideas at the MAG meeting on Wednesday.
I am not a MAG member yet, so I am losing the opportunity to avail this chance.
> If Jeremy and those who are working on a statement should discuss the best way of presenting this,
> whether as individuals to individual MAG members,
I am not sure about this, that who will be able to present this proposal in the current meeting,
If Jeremy or any other member is ready to present this proposal, I can arrange to draft the Document and Presentation before Wednesday. I would also try to incorporate the problems or limitations of the current setup and the benefits of the proposed structure.
> or as a call to the IGC Civil Society members of the MAG
> to review the points discussed and present them at the MAG meeting.
I would like to prefer your second advise to REQUEST to call for review and consensus among the IGC Civil Society members first.
I understand that it will take time to obtain input from most of the members, which may become possible after the meetings of next week.
Thanking you
Best Regards
Imran Ahmed Shah
0092 300 4130617
Hi everyone,
Avri and I discussed this, and I consulted with Markus as well. I see two major points here:
Most important: We do not have a clear member consensus (in my mind).
2nd: Avri's point that the planning meeting will not address this issue.
NOTE: if the IGC chooses to do so, we could request the floor and make the statement at the planning meeting. However, I do not think it is the most appropriate or effective way to deal with the issue.
Jeremy and others on the list have carried out a valuable discussion here, and this thoughtful work is NOT lost. It is important. However, I do think that the most efficient presentation of ideas at this point is through individual MAG members, who can analyze and present these ideas at the MAG meeting on Wednesday.
If Jeremy and those who are working on a statement should discuss the best way of presenting this, whether as individuals to individual MAG members, or as a call to the IGC Civil Society members of the MAG to review the points discussed and present them at the MAG meeting.
gp
On 5/7/2010 6:10 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
________________________________
From: Ginger Paque
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Sent: Fri, 7 May, 2010 17:25:21
Subject: Re: [governance] SECOND DRAFT suggested statement on MAG's future
On 6 May 2010, at 03:16, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>
>
>Maybe a step forward (regardless of the reception of your idea on this list) would be for you to post it as an individual as an input to the May open consultation and MAG meeting.
>>
>>
>>
>Hi,
>
>I just wanted to point out that there not really a consultation in May, but rather a two day planning meeting which will be focused on planning for the program and the workshops. This is intended as a open working session like last years planning meeting.
>
>On the third day, there will be a meeting of the MAG which I believe is open but which will not really be a consultation - its structure is up to the chair and MAG to decide at the time. I expect it to be more like a MAG meeting then a consultation.
>
>While there may be some time for a few statements, I don't know yet, the best way to make sure the IGC's points get made is to have some of the MAG members who are also IGC members champion the proposal (or at least bring it up) within the MAG.
>
>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 cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Fri May 7 11:41:36 2010
From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker)
Date: Fri, 7 May 2010 08:41:36 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] Friday morning... (Arabic Domain Name) Some
Background
In-Reply-To: <4BE41D2C.4080105@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <367371.16972.qm@web83914.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
I hope that people are taking note of this. It is extremely exciting and truly remarkable. I believe Prof. Subbiah does not go far enough. While many are not Christian or Jewish, there are accounts of a period around say pre-0 to about 100 AD when many claim a miracle of a language spoken that all could understand. Matter not the truth of those accounts -- the key is that they were so notable. Everyone can just imagine a world where language is not a barrier to understanding. The work in IDNs is a man made miracle and a small step for man yet a giant leap for mankind. Just imagine!!* Think about it, this is a huge milestone in coming to fruition that dream of the 1948 UN GA of true Universal Human Dignity which today should be read here: http://www.un.org/ar/documents/udhr/
*"Imagine" Just add this stanza: Imagine there is no language, If all spoke just the same, It is not hard to do, no need to shout or scream, we all know what you mean
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okd3hLlvvLw&feature=related
--- On Fri, 5/7/10, Ginger Paque wrote:
From: Ginger Paque
Subject: Re: [governance] Friday morning... (Arabic Domain Name) Some Background
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Date: Friday, May 7, 2010, 2:01 PM
I did some searches, trying to better understand the background to today's milestone. I found a timeline by Prof. S. Subbiah (IGC member) on Ian Peter's (another IGC member and former co-coordinator) weblog.
Published in May 2007, Ian introduced it like this:
"Thanks to Prof. S. Subbiah from Singapore for this excellent short history of the attempts to internationalise domain names.
"There is much still to be done!"http://ianpeter.wordpress.com/2007/05/10/history-of-internationalised-domain-names/
History of IDN
* 12/96: Martin Duerst’s original Internet Draft proposing UTF5 (the first incarnation of what is known today as ACE)- UTF-5 was first defined by Martin Duerst at the University of Zürich in [3] [4]
[5]
( Subbiah comments: a precursor idea that was never implemented and would not have worked as proposed. Martin later collaborated with the Singapore team which was not aware of his previous suggestion til much later))
* 03/98: Early Research on IDN at National University of Singapore (NUS), Center for Internet Research (formerly Internet Research and Development Unit – IRDU) led by Prof. Tan Tin Wee (IDN Project team – Lim Juay Kwang and Leong Kok Yong) and subsequently continued under a team at Bioinformatrix Pte. Ltd. (BIX Pte. Ltd.)
- a NUS spin-off company led by Prof. S. Subbiah.
* July 98: Geneva INET’98 conference with a BoF discussion on iDNS and APNG General Meeting and Working Group meeting.
* 07/98: Asia Pacific Networking Group (APNG, now still in existence [6] and distinct from a gathering known as APSTAR
[7]
) iDNS Working Group formed. [8]
* 10/98: James Seng was recruited to lead further IDN development at BIX Pte. Ltd. by Prof. S. Subbiah.
* 02/99: iDNS Testbed launched by BIX Pte. Ltd. under the auspicies of APNG with participation from CNNIC
, JPNIC ,
KRNIC, TWNIC, THNIC, HKNIC and SGNIC led by James Seng [9]
* 02/99: Presentation of Report on IDN at Joint APNG-APTLD meeting, at APRICOT’99
* 03/99: Endorsement of the IDN Report at APNG General Meeting 1 March 1999.
* 06/99: Grant application by APNG jointly with the Centre for Internet Research (CIR), National University of Singapore, to the International Development Research Center (IDRC), a Canadian Government funded international organisation to work on IDN for IPv6. This APNG Project was funded under the Pan Asia R&D Grant administered on behalf of IDRC by the Canadian Committee on Occupational Health and Safety (CCOHS). Principal Investigator: Tan Tin Wee of National University of Singapore. [10]
* 07/99 Tout, Walid R. (WALID Inc.) Filed IDNA patent application number US1999000358043 Method and system for internationalizing domain names. Published 2001-01-30 [11]
* 07/99: [12] ; Renewed 2000 [13]
Internet Draft on UTF5 by James Seng, Martin Duerst and Tan Tin Wee.
* 08/99: APTLD and APNG forms a working group to look into IDN
issues chaired by Kilnam Chon. [14]
* 10/99: BIX Pte. Ltd. and National University of Singapore together with New York Venture Capital investors, General Atlantic Partners, spun-off the IDN effort into 2 new Singapore companies – i-DNS.net International Inc. and i-Email.net Pte. Ltd. that created the first commercial implementation of an IDN Solution for both domain names and IDN email addresses respectively.
* 11/99: IETF IDN Birds-of-Feather in Washington was initiated by i-DNS.net at the request of IETF officials.
* 12/99: i-DNS.net InternationalPte. Ltd. launched the first commercial IDN. It was in Taiwan and in Chinese characters under the top-level IDN TLD “.gongsi” (meaning loosely “.com”) with endorsement by the Minister of Communications of Taiwan and some major Taiwanese ISPs with reports of over 200 000 names sold in a week in Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore, Malaysia, China, Australia and USA.
* Late 1999: Kilnam Chon initiates Task Force on IDNS which led to formation of MINC, the Multilingual Internet Names Consortium. [15]
* 01/2000: IETF IDN Working Group formed chaired by James Seng
and Marc Blanchet
* 01/2000: The second ever commercial IDN launch was IDN TLDs in the Tamil Language, corresponding to .com, .net, .org, and .edu. These were launched in India with IT Ministry support by i-DNS.net International.
* 02/2000: Multilingual Internet Names Consortium(MINC) Proposal BoF at IETF Adelaide. [16]
* 03/2000: APRICOT 2000 Multilingual DNS session [17]
* 04/2000: WALID Inc. (with IDNA patent pending application 6182148) started Registration & Resolving Multilingual Domain Names.
* 05/2000: Interoperability Testing WG, MINC meeting. San Francisco, chaired by Bill Manning and Y.Yoneya 12 May 2000. [18]
* 06/2000: Inaugural Launch of the Multilingual Internet Names Consortium (MINC) in Seoul [19] to drive the collaborative roll-out of IDN starting from the Asia Pacific.
[20]
* 07/2000: Joint Engineering TaskForce (JET) initiated in Yokohama to study technical issues led by JPNIC (K.Konishi)
* 07/2000: Official Formation of CDNC Chinese Domain Name Consortium to resolve issues related to and to deploy Han Character domain names, founded by CNNIC, TWNIC, HKNIC and MONIC in May 2000. [21] [22]
* 03/01: ICANN Board IDN Working Group formed
* 07/01: Japanese Domain Name Association : JDNA Lauch Ceremony (July 13, 2001) in Tokyo, Japan.
* 07/01: Urdu Internet Names System (July 28, 2001) in Islamabad, Pakistan, Organised Jointly by SDNP and MINC. [23]
* 07/01: Presentation on IDN to the Committee Meeting of the Computer Science and Telecommunications Board, National Academies USA (JULY 11-13, 2001)at University of California School of Information Management and Systems, Berkeley, CA. [24]
* 08/01: MINC presentation and outreach at the Asia Pacific Advanced Network annual conference, Penang, Malaysia 20th August 2001
* 10/01: Joint MINC-CDNC Meeting in Beijing 18-20 October 2001
* 11/01: ICANN IDN Committee formed
* 12/01: Joint ITU-WIPO Symposium on Multilingual Domain Names organised in association with MINC, 6-7 Dec 2001, International Conference Center, Geneva.
* 01/03: Free implementation of StringPrep, Punycode, and IDNA release in GNU Libidn.
* 03/03: Publication of RFC 3454
, RFC 3490
, RFC 3491
and RFC 3492
* 06/03: Publication of ICANN IDN Guidelines for registries
* 05/04: Publication of RFC 3743 , Joint Engineering Team (JET) Guidelines for Internationalized Domain Names (IDN) Registration and Administration for Chinese, Japanese, and Korean
* March 2005: First Study Group 17 of ITU-T meeting on Internationalized Domain Names [25]
* April 2006: Study Group 17 meeting in Korea gave final approval to the Question on Internationalized Domain Names [26]
* December 2006: ICANN meeting at São Paulo discusses status of lab tests of IDNs within the root.
On 5/7/2010 9:12 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote:
This is indeed a great milestone!
Congrats to our Egyptian friends!
--c.a.
On 05/07/2010 07:21 AM, Ginger Paque wrote:
Congratulations to the IG workers of the world!!
Copy and paste this link in your address bar ... then press enter ...
وزارة-الاتصالات.مصر
it is the website of MCIT Egypt with an Arabic domain name!!!
Congrats MCIT, Congrats Egypt, Congrats ICANN, Congrats world!!!
Best, Ginger
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
For all list information and functions, see:
http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
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 Fri May 7 11:45:40 2010
From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque)
Date: Fri, 07 May 2010 11:15:40 -0430
Subject: [governance] Friday morning... (Arabic Domain Name) Some
Background
In-Reply-To: <4BE431C3.4010802@gih.com>
References: <4BE3E9A3.5050700@gmail.com> <4BE418C6.7050807@cafonso.ca> <4BE41D2C.4080105@gmail.com> <4BE431C3.4010802@gih.com>
Message-ID: <4BE435A4.8040107@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 cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Fri May 7 11:54:22 2010
From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker)
Date: Fri, 7 May 2010 08:54:22 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] SECOND DRAFT suggested statement on MAG's future
In-Reply-To: <439316.79690.qm@web33006.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <911665.11673.qm@web83904.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Dear esteemed Imran Ahmed Shah,
In this work of Internet Governance you will often produce great work and yet not get to have a formal presentation. It is very good that you explore and take advantage of any opportunity to "avail" yourself of a forum.
But it is perhaps most important that you keep up the hard work and publish it where you can without expectations that someone or group will hold it up in honor. No matter what course follows your ideas they have been planted in the minds of many and therefor incorporated in their viewpoints and knowledge base. This may not seem reward or kudos or results enough, but it is always the cumulations of hard unnoted work like yours that changes our world, for the better.
Perhaps a small thankyou from a no one like me, will mean nothing but maybe help to encourage further contributions. Thank you.
--- On Fri, 5/7/10, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote:
From: Imran Ahmed Shah
Subject: Re: [governance] SECOND DRAFT suggested statement on MAG's future
To: "Ginger Paque" , "Jeremy Malcolm" , "Avri Doria"
Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Imran Ahmed Shah"
Date: Friday, May 7, 2010, 3:31 PM
Respected Ginger Paque, Avri Doria and Jeremy Malcolm
Thank you very much for considering my contribution and to guide me the better way to submit my proposal into open discussion at May Meeting.
> Most important: We do not have a clear member consensus (in my mind).
With reference to the latest review comments and consultation of Ginger Paque, I fully agree with the importance of members consensus (IGC/ MAG and beyond) for the reorganization of the IGF structure to improve its functionality and usefulness.
> However, I do think that the most efficient presentation of ideas at this point is through individual MAG members,
> who can analyze and present these ideas at the MAG meeting on Wednesday.
I am not a MAG member yet, so I am losing the opportunity to avail this chance.
> If Jeremy and those who are working on a statement should discuss the best way of presenting this,
> whether as individuals to individual MAG members,
I am not sure about this, that who will be able to present this proposal in the current meeting,
If Jeremy or any other member is ready to present this proposal, I can arrange to draft the Document and Presentation before Wednesday. I would also try to incorporate the problems or limitations of the current setup and the benefits of the proposed structure.
> or as a call to the IGC Civil Society members of the MAG
> to review the points discussed and present them at the MAG meeting.
I would like to prefer your second advise to REQUEST to call for review and consensus among the IGC Civil Society members first.
I understand that it will take time to obtain input from most of the members, which may become possible after the meetings of next week.
Thanking you
Best Regards
Imran Ahmed Shah
0092 300 4130617
From: Ginger Paque
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Sent: Fri, 7 May, 2010 17:25:21
Subject: Re: [governance] SECOND DRAFT suggested statement on MAG's future
Hi everyone,
Avri and I discussed this, and I consulted with Markus as well. I see two major points here:
Most important: We do not have a clear member consensus (in my mind).
2nd: Avri's point that the planning meeting will not address this issue.
NOTE: if the IGC chooses to do so, we could request the floor and make the statement at the planning meeting. However, I do not think it is the most appropriate or effective way to deal with the issue.
Jeremy and others on the list have carried out a valuable discussion here, and this thoughtful work is NOT lost. It is important. However, I do think that the most efficient presentation of ideas at this point is through individual MAG members, who can analyze and present these ideas at the MAG meeting on Wednesday.
If Jeremy and those who are working on a statement should discuss the best way of presenting this, whether as individuals to individual MAG members, or as a call to the IGC Civil Society members of the MAG to review the points discussed and present them at the MAG meeting.
gp
On 5/7/2010 6:10 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
On 6 May 2010, at 03:16, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
Maybe a step forward (regardless of the reception of your idea on this list) would be for you to post it as an individual as an input to the May open consultation and MAG meeting.
Hi,
I just wanted to point out that there not really a consultation in May, but rather a two day planning meeting which will be focused on planning for the program and the workshops. This is intended as a open working session like last years planning meeting.
On the third day, there will be a meeting of the MAG which I believe is open but which will not really be a consultation - its structure is up to the chair and MAG to decide at the time. I expect it to be more like a MAG meeting then a consultation.
While there may be some time for a few statements, I don't know yet, the best way to make sure the IGC's points get made is to have some of the MAG members who are also IGC members champion the proposal (or at least bring it up) within the MAG.
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
-----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 ias_pk at yahoo.com Fri May 7 11:57:31 2010
From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah)
Date: Fri, 7 May 2010 08:57:31 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] SECOND DRAFT suggested statement on MAG's future
In-Reply-To:
References: <1422D9D4-4272-4533-9E5F-C5D89221663E@ciroap.org> <686294.45317.qm@web33002.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <93B8C690-CFFC-43D4-8A8D-71A4883CA044@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <77672.1187.qm@web33006.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Hi Bertrand,
> As for the notion of a multi-structured MAG, this would clearly reintroduce silos in one of the rare structures that function in a collegial way.
> Using constituencies for the selection of MAG members is one thing and some thinking can be given to this,
> in order to reduce the importance of the "black box".
I am taking about the usefulness of the IGF by its re-organization, providing them permanent staff and directors and functional workgroups who must define the mechanism to the implementation of the Policies, Ethics, Good Governances, about the Internet at global level. Which Policies? Good Governance? or Ethics? Principles? Ideology? Concern? . . . . that you discuss during one to one MAG meetings or at discussion forums like IGC. Experts will not only be acting as an advisory source for UN but will also be able to advise / guide Governments and Nations.
I would appreciate if you can propose the methodologies to increase the usefulness of the IGF and to extend its circle.
> But once people are designated/nominated, isn't it better to have them function as a single group ?
I agree with your point to make the members functional (by giving them relative responsibilities and authorities).
Thanks
Imran Ahmed Shah
________________________________
From: Bertrand de La Chapelle
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Avri Doria
Sent: Fri, 7 May, 2010 20:05:44
Subject: Re: [governance] SECOND DRAFT suggested statement on MAG's future
I don't think the MAG meeting on the third day will be open.
As for the notion of a multi-structured MAG, this would clearly reintroduce silos in one of the rare structures that function in a collegial way.
Using constituencies for the selection of MAG members is one thing and some thinking can be given to this, in order to reduce the importance of the "black box". But once people are designated/nominated, isn't it better to have them function as a single group ?
Best
Bertrand
On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 12:40 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
>On 6 May 2010, at 03:16, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>
>> Maybe a step forward (regardless of the reception of your idea on this list) would be for you to post it as an individual as an input to the May open consultation and MAG meeting.
>>
>>
>
>Hi,
>
>I just wanted to point out that there not really a consultation in May, but rather a two day planning meeting which will be focused on planning for the program and the workshops. This is intended as a open working session like last years planning meeting.
>
>On the third day, there will be a meeting of the MAG which I believe is open but which will not really be a consultation - its structure is up to the chair and MAG to decide at the time. I expect it to be more like a MAG meeting then a consultation.
>
>While there may be some time for a few statements, I don't know yet, the best way to make sure the IGC's points get made is to have some of the MAG members who are also IGC members champion the proposal (or at least bring it up) within the MAG.
>
>
>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
--
____________________
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 ias_pk at yahoo.com Fri May 7 12:05:50 2010
From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah)
Date: Fri, 7 May 2010 09:05:50 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] SECOND DRAFT suggested statement on MAG's future
In-Reply-To: <911665.11673.qm@web83904.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
References: <911665.11673.qm@web83904.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <188972.67087.qm@web33001.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Dear Eric Dierker, Thank you encourage me.
Regards
Imran Ahmed Shah
________________________________
From: Eric Dierker
To: Ginger Paque ; Jeremy Malcolm ; Avri Doria ; governance at lists.cpsr.org; Imran Ahmed Shah
Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Imran Ahmed Shah
Sent: Fri, 7 May, 2010 20:54:22
Subject: Re: [governance] SECOND DRAFT suggested statement on MAG's future
Dear esteemed Imran Ahmed Shah,
In this work of Internet Governance you will often produce great work and yet not get to have a formal presentation. It is very good that you explore and take advantage of any opportunity to "avail" yourself of a forum.
But it is perhaps most important that you keep up the hard work and publish it where you can without expectations that someone or group will hold it up in honor. No matter what course follows your ideas they have been planted in the minds of many and therefor incorporated in their viewpoints and knowledge base. This may not seem reward or kudos or results enough, but it is always the cumulations of hard unnoted work like yours that changes our world, for the better.
Perhaps a small thankyou from a no one like me, will mean nothing but maybe help to encourage further contributions. Thank you.
--- On Fri, 5/7/10, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote:
>From: Imran Ahmed Shah
>Subject: Re: [governance] SECOND DRAFT suggested statement on MAG's future
>To: "Ginger Paque" , "Jeremy Malcolm" , "Avri Doria"
>Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Imran Ahmed Shah"
>Date: Friday, May 7, 2010, 3:31 PM
>
>
>Respected Ginger Paque, Avri Doria and Jeremy Malcolm
>Hi everyone,
>
>Avri and I discussed this, and I consulted with Markus as well. I see two major points here:
>
>Most important: We do not have a clear member consensus (in my mind).
>
>2nd: Avri's point that the planning meeting will not address this issue.
>
>NOTE: if the IGC chooses to do so, we could request the floor and make the statement at the planning meeting. However, I do not think it is the most appropriate or effective way to deal with the issue.
>
>Jeremy and others on the list have carried out a valuable discussion here, and this thoughtful work is NOT lost. It is important. However, I do think that the most efficient presentation of ideas at this point is through individual MAG members, who can analyze and present these ideas at the MAG meeting on Wednesday.
>
>If Jeremy and those who are working on a statement should discuss the best way of presenting this, whether as individuals to individual MAG members, or as a call to the IGC Civil Society members of the MAG to review the points discussed and present them at the MAG meeting.
>
>gp
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>On 5/7/2010 6:10 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
>
>Thank you very much for considering my contribution and to guide me the better way to submit my proposal into open discussion at May Meeting.
>
>> Most important: We do not have a clear member consensus (in my mind).
>With reference to the latest review comments and consultation of Ginger Paque, I fully agree with the importance of members consensus (IGC/ MAG and beyond) for the reorganization of the IGF structure to improve its functionality and usefulness.
>
>> However, I do think that the most efficient presentation of ideas at this point is through individual MAG members,
>> who can analyze and present these ideas at the MAG meeting on Wednesday.
>
>I am not a MAG member yet, so I am losing the opportunity to avail this chance.
>
>> If Jeremy and those who are working on a statement should discuss the best way of presenting this,
>> whether as individuals to individual MAG members,
>
>I am not sure about this, that who will be able to present this proposal in the current meeting,
>If Jeremy or any other member is ready to present this proposal, I can arrange to draft the Document and Presentation before Wednesday. I would also try to incorporate the problems or limitations of the current setup and the benefits of the proposed structure.
>
>> or as a call to the IGC Civil Society members of the MAG
>> to review the points discussed and present them at the MAG meeting.
>
>I would like to prefer your second advise to REQUEST to call for review and consensus among the IGC Civil Society members first.
>I understand that it will take time to obtain input from most of the members, which may become possible after the meetings of next week.
>
>Thanking you
>
>Best Regards
>
>Imran Ahmed Shah
>0092 300 4130617
>
________________________________
>From: Ginger Paque
>To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>Sent: Fri, 7 May, 2010 17:25:21
>Subject: Re: [governance] SECOND DRAFT suggested statement on MAG's future
>
>On 6 May 2010, at 03:16, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>>
>>
>>Maybe a step forward (regardless of the reception of your idea on this list) would be for you to post it as an individual as an input to the May open consultation and MAG meeting.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Hi,
>>
>>I just wanted to point out that there not really a consultation in May, but rather a two day planning meeting which will be focused on planning for the program and the workshops. This is intended as a open working session like last years planning meeting.
>>
>>On the third day, there will be a meeting of the MAG which I believe is open but which will not really be a consultation - its structure is up to the chair and MAG to decide at the time. I expect it to be more like a MAG meeting then a consultation.
>>
>>While there may be some time for a few statements, I don't know yet, the best way to make sure the IGC's points get made is to have some of the MAG members who are also IGC members champion the proposal (or at least bring it up) within the MAG.
>>
>>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
>>
>-----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 subbiah at i-dns.net Fri May 7 14:12:13 2010
From: subbiah at i-dns.net (S. Subbiah)
Date: Fri, 07 May 2010 11:12:13 -0700
Subject: [governance] Friday morning... (Arabic Domain Name) Some
Background
In-Reply-To: <4BE435A4.8040107@paque.net>
References: <4BE3E9A3.5050700@gmail.com> <4BE418C6.7050807@cafonso.ca> <4BE41D2C.4080105@gmail.com> <4BE431C3.4010802@gih.com> <4BE435A4.8040107@paque.net>
Message-ID: <4BE457FD.1080800@i-dns.net>
Thank you all for pointing out the early history of modern IDN since its
inception in 1997 in Singapore. And it is indeed great that ICANN has
moved us a step forward in this 13 year saga finally. It is also true
that the history posted is only upto 2007 and since then much work has
been done by IDNABIS at IETF and also within ICANN.
But I would like to put this in context for the record using some
highlights. In 1999 after ICANN Chair was approached (after both IDN abd
IDNemail were developed and tested in Asian labs in hundreds of
languages) the response was "Please go learn English". Then Asians from
a dozen countries (the same CNNIC, TWNIC, JPNIC etc as today)
particpated in a year long Asia-wide testbed that I oversaw. By then,
collective expense was well over a few million dollars and a hundred
people working on implementations and testing across Asia. Ironically
news of this spread beyond Asia and I recall a Prof. Zoman (formerly
head of Saudi NIC - the same that launched today) contacted us and we
responded that we did not have finances yet to accomodate non-Asian
scripts for now. Ditto Russian interest. After a year, commercial
deployment via i-dns.net (a Singapore university spin-off that I
co-founded) began based on an in-country-resolution only approach (with
downloadable plug-ins for out of country) starting in 1999 with a
Minister's approval in Taiwan. Just then IETF took an interest, after
having shown little interest the year before and started on its much
delayed path to IDNA in 2003 with the Singapore team playing a
leadership role. In 2000 and 2001 at least 15 in-country full IDN.IDN
deployments in much of the IDN world (example Chinese, India, Israel,
Russia, Thailand, Korea etc) were launched with local Information or in
some cases Prime Ministers in attendance. Thousands of articles were
published in the world's best journals/tv in the native langauges as
well as mainstream English media - much of the links are in the
press-room at www.i-dns.net.
Then Verisign licensed this technology and went ahead to launch
half-IDN and half-ASCII hybrid domains - IDN.ascii - in late 2000. It
was only then ICANN had no choice but to enter the IDN issue. While
unable to stop the Verisign launch at the last minute, they basically
neutered IDN.ascii by forcing it to be only usable via plug-ins. A
million people who bought names never got it to work. There was never an
apology from anyone in the West to all the millions in the East who
bought them. Many registars went bankrupt and there were goverment fraud
investigations in Korea relating to these Korean.ascii names. Finally
for the few who hung on renewing the names, they worked in 2007 and 2008
when Microsoft and others fixed their browsers - and that had little to
do with ICANN.
With ICANN's entry and committees to look into IDN.IDN in 2001 the
locally-deployed world paused its efforts (thru highly active
coordinating establishments like MINC and even some interest from ITU).
They took ICANN's commitments to coordinate this at face value and also
simultaneoulsy waited for the perenially almost-ready IDNA standard from
IETF. Then things dragged and ICANN was busy with its own internal
non-third world issues. Neverthless it continued to mouth commitment
while in reality it lost interest in IDN.IDN citing various relatively
minor excuses (most of these of its own making).
The human cost was fairly enormous - some of the other IDN companies
that had emerged globally went bankrupt - we took a big hit (even within
Verisign most of the IDN went through large turnover and changes),
people lost jobs, risk-taking early-adopter country-nic chiefs and
politicans got fired, people postponed having children, many marriages
dissolved. By my estimate collectively to date about US$200 million in
today's dollars was lost by investors - perhaps as much as $100M on the
Singapore side (I raised much of it). While not belittling those with
relatively safe jobs who spend enormous time particpating in efforts
like IDNBIS often in their spare time, I would like to point out that
these personal sacrifices/losses are likley to be outshadowed by the
just-mentioned human cost.
By 2004 some of these in-country efforts had fizzled but a few in the
stronger countries grew stronger while ICANN its safe to say pretended
not to notice. Countries like China that badly needed it decided to grow
their in-country deployments toward 100% usability within. By 2005/6
they had hundreds of millions of users being able to use the hundreds of
thousands of issued full IDN.IDNs. Ironically, at one point even in
Egypt, a commercial Arabic.arabic launch with local ISPs, with Ministry
knowledge was usable by 60% of Internet users by 2002 and still now
(gTLDs, not the now announced IDN ccTLD). By 2007 - significant use
relative to the country-size existed with upwards of 70% region-wide
usability (users who could resolve it without a plugin) existed in a few
countries - like China, Korea, Israel, even 2 small Gulf arabic
countries etc. These accounted for at least 25% of the world's
population that truly needs IDN.IDN and live in non-latin script
countries. (This non-ICANN sanctioned efforts reach may have since grown
from 25% and closer to 40% of the IDN.IDN needy with more launches ahead
of ICANN). When the well-established Chinese effort was "discovered" by
Western media in 2007, ICANN's embarrased response was to say it was
techncially not true to the media. It was quickly disproven by impartial
Western Internet engineer researchers who tested - but these accounts
received only limited media coverage. Finally this embarrasment and the
sure knowledge that large isalnds have already gone off to do their own
thing and it would be difficult to bring them back, spurred ICANN's
final interest in IDN in 2007/8.
Even then ICANN found it impossible to get its act together as fast as
it had promised and it has taken until mid-2010 to put just the first
stage of the first part into action - the fast-track within ccTLDs. The
slow track is many years away and the gTLD space is even further away
owing to ICANN's inisistence policy-wise to merge new ASCII gTLDS
(mostly not needed urgently beyond what we already have) with new IDN
TLDs (long needed urgently). It is this period from 2007 that is
well-documented and publicised by ICANN that is missing in the "outdated
write-up". IDNABIS was re-activated at IETF to improve the IDNS 2003
standrad that even then at birth was knowingly made techncially
less-restrivtive since the engineers did not wish to define how it was
deployed politically. But ICANN used that in 2003 to launch further
IDN.ascii deploymnents but crucially without enforcing the policy
recomendations from IETF. And yes thereby causing a big mess, that now
the IETFBIS group had to go in and clean up and make the standard more
restrictive, along with other things. It was necessary work and thank
you. Interestingly all the non-ICANN deployments since 1999 have always
deployed IDN in a technically more restrictive manner than IDNA's
recomendation or ICANN's deployment and this mess was and is mostly
avoided. Everyone knows ICANN botched the deployment and that history
(we have 2 million plus names out there that they cannot take back with
these potential problems) and the need for "backward comnatibility" is
still making current deployment strategy less than ideal.
However the main concept and approach to IDN is unchanged from the
original Singapore invention in 1997 and ICANN's refusal to consider
putting it in the root in early 1999 at ICANN's first meeting. While it
was improved on the margins, the deployment by ICANN post 2003 standard
was abominable and the problems would not have been any worse than if
the original without improvements had been inserted in root in 1999 in
some languages. The gains for culture and language around the world
would have far offset any problems. We helped lose a generation of
native non-latin script speaking ability to English/Internet while
waiting for ICANN to acknowledge the relatively obvious.
So yes its a great day for the world - but its been a great day for
sometime in China and elsewhere for years. It is simply inexcusable to
start its main press release on its site saying "For the first time in
the history of the Internet.... ". (see www.icann.org). Especailly since
ICANN's role has been at best mixed and arguably amongst all the players
involved ICANN was the one who delayed it the most (when it should have
been the other way around). At any rate an organisation that insists on
airbrushing and hiding the truth and not admitting the facts has in my
opinion a dubious future. And it continues to take credit by vagueness
and misinformation. A running joke in the Asian IDN community where a
bunch of pan-Asian nerds (Indian, Chinese, Malaysian, Korean, Japanese
and other engineers) came together from all over Asia as never before
and actually contributed an Internet or IT standard without Western help
is that IDN was invented by a Western blonde.
The irony of it all.
But still another great day for IDN - a term I coined - and a great day
for the real reason why so many primarily Asians and other non-Latin
speakers went well before ICANN with IDNs: Some for money/fame but all
for the desire driven by much pride to make their own language relavant
for themselves and their relatives and countrymen who did not have the
privilege to learn English.
And again thank you for pointing out the early history.
Cheers
Subbiah
Ginger Paque wrote:
> Indeed, it is 2007 Olivier :) If anyone has an updated timeline,
> please post it! Thanks. gp
>
> On 5/7/2010 10:59 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
>
>> Thanks for the pointer, Ginger. A milestone indeed, but the paper
>> below is really out of date. It does not mention the extraordinary
>> amount of work that was done by volunteers in the IDNABIS IETF
>> working group and the work also done within ICANN.
>>
>> Having witnessed so many of the workings of these milestone events
>> (including the coming on line of several countries), I sometimes wish
>> there was a "lost Internet heroes" hall of fame, to mention the
>> hundreds of volunteers who took their time to work on these matters,
>> free of charge, sometimes incurring expenses, instead of spending
>> their time on more ludic matters. I guess history in general is made
>> up of these individual experiences.
>>
>> Milestones such as the one about IDNs being put in use, are the
>> celebrations of those individuals. Thank you all.
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> Olivier
>>
>> Le 07/05/2010 16:01, Ginger Paque a écrit :
>>
>>> I did some searches, trying to better understand the background to
>>> today's milestone. I found a timeline by Prof. S. Subbiah (IGC
>>> member) on Ian Peter's (another IGC member and former
>>> co-coordinator) weblog.
>>>
>>> Published in May 2007, Ian introduced it like this:
>>>
>>> *"Thanks to Prof. S. Subbiah from Singapore for this excellent short
>>> history of the attempts to internationalise domain names.*
>>>
>>> *"There is much still to be done!"*
>>>
>>> http://ianpeter.wordpress.com/2007/05/10/history-of-internationalised-domain-names/
>>>
>>> History of IDN
>>>
>>> * 12/96: Martin Duerst’s original Internet Draft proposing UTF5 (the
>>> first incarnation of what is known today as ACE)- UTF-5 was first
>>> defined by Martin Duerst at the University of Zürich in [3]
>>> [4]
>>> [5]
>>>
>>> ( Subbiah comments: a precursor idea that was never implemented and
>>> would not have worked as proposed. Martin later collaborated with
>>> the Singapore team which was not aware of his previous suggestion
>>> til much later))
>>>
>>> * 03/98: Early Research on IDN at National University of Singapore
>>> (NUS), Center for Internet Research (formerly Internet Research and
>>> Development Unit – IRDU) led by Prof. Tan Tin Wee (IDN Project team
>>> – Lim Juay Kwang and Leong Kok Yong) and subsequently continued
>>> under a team at Bioinformatrix Pte. Ltd. (BIX Pte. Ltd.)
>>> - a NUS spin-off company led by Prof. S. Subbiah.
>>> * July 98: Geneva INET’98 conference with a BoF discussion on iDNS
>>> and APNG General Meeting and Working Group meeting.
>>> * 07/98: Asia Pacific Networking Group (APNG, now still in existence
>>> [6] and distinct from a gathering known as APSTAR
>>> [7]
>>> ) iDNS Working Group formed. [8]
>>>
>>> * 10/98: James Seng was
>>> recruited to lead further IDN development at BIX Pte. Ltd. by Prof.
>>> S. Subbiah.
>>> * 02/99: iDNS Testbed launched by BIX Pte. Ltd. under the auspicies
>>> of APNG with participation from CNNIC
>>> , JPNIC
>>> ,
>>> KRNIC, TWNIC, THNIC, HKNIC and SGNIC led by James Seng
>>> [9]
>>>
>>>
>>> * 02/99: Presentation of Report on IDN at Joint APNG-APTLD meeting,
>>> at APRICOT’99
>>> * 03/99: Endorsement of the IDN Report at APNG General Meeting 1
>>> March 1999.
>>> * 06/99: Grant application by APNG jointly with the Centre for
>>> Internet Research (CIR), National University of Singapore, to the
>>> International Development Research Center (IDRC), a Canadian
>>> Government funded international organisation to work on IDN for
>>> IPv6. This APNG Project was funded under the Pan Asia R&D Grant
>>> administered on behalf of IDRC by the Canadian Committee on
>>> Occupational Health and Safety (CCOHS). Principal Investigator: Tan
>>> Tin Wee of National University of Singapore. [10]
>>>
>>> * 07/99 Tout, Walid R. (WALID Inc.) Filed IDNA patent application
>>> number US1999000358043 Method and system for internationalizing
>>> domain names. Published 2001-01-30 [11]
>>>
>>>
>>> * 07/99: [12]
>>> ;
>>> Renewed 2000 [13]
>>>
>>> Internet Draft on UTF5 by James Seng, Martin Duerst and Tan Tin Wee.
>>>
>>> * 08/99: APTLD and APNG forms a working group
>>> to look into IDN
>>> issues chaired by Kilnam Chon. [14]
>>>
>>> * 10/99: BIX Pte. Ltd. and National University of Singapore together
>>> with New York Venture Capital investors, General Atlantic Partners,
>>> spun-off the IDN effort into 2 new Singapore companies – i-DNS.net
>>> International Inc. and i-Email.net Pte. Ltd. that created the first
>>> commercial implementation of an IDN Solution for both domain names
>>> and IDN email addresses respectively.
>>> * 11/99: IETF IDN
>>> Birds-of-Feather in Washington was initiated by i-DNS.net at the
>>> request of IETF officials.
>>> * 12/99: i-DNS.net InternationalPte. Ltd. launched the first
>>> commercial IDN. It was in Taiwan and in Chinese characters under the
>>> top-level IDN TLD “.gongsi” (meaning loosely “.com”) with
>>> endorsement by the Minister of Communications of Taiwan and some
>>> major Taiwanese ISPs with reports of over 200 000 names sold in a
>>> week in Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore, Malaysia, China, Australia and
>>> USA.
>>> * Late 1999: Kilnam Chon initiates Task Force on IDNS which led to
>>> formation of MINC, the Multilingual Internet Names Consortium. [15]
>>>
>>> * 01/2000: IETF IDN Working
>>> Group formed chaired by James Seng
>>> and Marc Blanchet
>>>
>>> * 01/2000: The second ever commercial IDN launch was IDN TLDs in the
>>> Tamil Language, corresponding to .com, .net, .org, and .edu. These
>>> were launched in India with IT Ministry support by i-DNS.net
>>> International.
>>> * 02/2000: Multilingual Internet Names Consortium(MINC) Proposal BoF
>>> at IETF Adelaide. [16]
>>>
>>> * 03/2000: APRICOT 2000 Multilingual DNS session [17]
>>>
>>> * 04/2000: WALID Inc. (with IDNA patent pending application 6182148)
>>> started Registration & Resolving Multilingual Domain Names.
>>> * 05/2000: Interoperability Testing WG, MINC meeting. San Francisco,
>>> chaired by Bill Manning and Y.Yoneya 12 May 2000. [18]
>>>
>>> * 06/2000: Inaugural Launch of the Multilingual Internet Names
>>> Consortium (MINC) in Seoul [19] to drive the
>>> collaborative roll-out of IDN starting from the Asia Pacific.
>>> [20]
>>> * 07/2000: Joint Engineering TaskForce (JET) initiated in Yokohama
>>> to study technical issues led by JPNIC (K.Konishi)
>>> * 07/2000: Official Formation of CDNC Chinese Domain Name Consortium
>>> to resolve issues related to and to deploy Han Character domain
>>> names, founded by CNNIC, TWNIC, HKNIC and MONIC in May 2000. [21]
>>> [22]
>>>
>>>
>>> * 03/01: ICANN Board IDN
>>> Working Group formed
>>> * 07/01: Japanese Domain Name Association : JDNA Lauch Ceremony
>>> (July 13, 2001) in Tokyo, Japan.
>>> * 07/01: Urdu Internet Names System (July 28, 2001) in Islamabad,
>>> Pakistan, Organised Jointly by SDNP and MINC. [23]
>>>
>>> * 07/01: Presentation on IDN to the Committee Meeting of the
>>> Computer Science and Telecommunications Board, National Academies
>>> USA (JULY 11-13, 2001)at University of California School of
>>> Information Management and Systems, Berkeley, CA. [24]
>>>
>>> * 08/01: MINC presentation and outreach at the Asia Pacific Advanced
>>> Network annual conference, Penang, Malaysia 20th August 2001
>>> * 10/01: Joint MINC-CDNC Meeting in Beijing 18-20 October 2001
>>> * 11/01: ICANN IDN Committee formed
>>> * 12/01: Joint ITU-WIPO Symposium on Multilingual Domain Names
>>> organised in association with MINC, 6-7 Dec 2001, International
>>> Conference Center, Geneva.
>>> * 01/03: Free implementation of StringPrep, Punycode, and IDNA
>>> release in GNU Libidn.
>>>
>>> * 03/03: Publication of RFC 3454
>>> , RFC 3490
>>> , RFC 3491
>>> and RFC 3492
>>>
>>>
>>> * 06/03: Publication of ICANN IDN Guidelines for registries
>>>
>>> * 05/04: Publication of RFC 3743
>>> , Joint Engineering Team (JET)
>>> Guidelines for Internationalized Domain Names (IDN) Registration and
>>> Administration for Chinese, Japanese, and Korean
>>> * March 2005: First Study Group 17 of ITU-T meeting on
>>> Internationalized Domain Names [25]
>>>
>>> * April 2006: Study Group 17 meeting in Korea gave final approval to
>>> the Question on Internationalized Domain Names [26]
>>>
>>> * December 2006: ICANN meeting at São Paulo discusses status of lab
>>> tests of IDNs within the root.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 5/7/2010 9:12 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote:
>>>
>>>> This is indeed a great milestone!
>>>>
>>>> Congrats to our Egyptian friends!
>>>>
>>>> --c.a.
>>>>
>>>> On 05/07/2010 07:21 AM, Ginger Paque wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Congratulations to the IG workers of the world!!
>>>>>
>>>>> Copy and paste this link in your address bar ... then press enter ...
>>>>>
>>>>> وزارة-الاتصالات.مصر
>>>>>
>>>>> it is the website of MCIT Egypt with an Arabic domain name!!!
>>>>>
>>>>> Congrats MCIT, Congrats Egypt, Congrats ICANN, Congrats world!!!
>>>>>
>>>>> Best, Ginger
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>--
>>Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
>>http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
>>
>>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
>For all list information and functions, see:
> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
For all list information and functions, see:
http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Fri May 7 17:37:39 2010
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Sat, 08 May 2010 07:37:39 +1000
Subject: [governance] Friday morning... (Arabic Domain Name) Some
In-Reply-To: <4BE457FD.1080800@i-dns.net>
Message-ID:
Thanks Subbiah for this update and part of history. I recall Vint Cerf at
ICANN 2001 in Melbourne saying, as ICANN Chair, "English is the lingua
franca of the Internet" And I recall many people lining up to speak at the
public microphone at the board meeting, in some sort of protest, in any
language other than English while a bemused board looked on.
Internet governance moves in slow and mysterious ways! But yes, it is good
that we finally got there "officially" even if for many we got there a long
time ago.
Ian Peter
> From: "S. Subbiah"
> Reply-To: , "S. Subbiah"
> Date: Fri, 07 May 2010 11:12:13 -0700
> To: , Ginger Paque
> Subject: Re: [governance] Friday morning... (Arabic Domain Name) Some
> Background
>
>
> Thank you all for pointing out the early history of modern IDN since its
> inception in 1997 in Singapore. And it is indeed great that ICANN has
> moved us a step forward in this 13 year saga finally. It is also true
> that the history posted is only upto 2007 and since then much work has
> been done by IDNABIS at IETF and also within ICANN.
>
> But I would like to put this in context for the record using some
> highlights. In 1999 after ICANN Chair was approached (after both IDN abd
> IDNemail were developed and tested in Asian labs in hundreds of
> languages) the response was "Please go learn English". Then Asians from
> a dozen countries (the same CNNIC, TWNIC, JPNIC etc as today)
> particpated in a year long Asia-wide testbed that I oversaw. By then,
> collective expense was well over a few million dollars and a hundred
> people working on implementations and testing across Asia. Ironically
> news of this spread beyond Asia and I recall a Prof. Zoman (formerly
> head of Saudi NIC - the same that launched today) contacted us and we
> responded that we did not have finances yet to accomodate non-Asian
> scripts for now. Ditto Russian interest. After a year, commercial
> deployment via i-dns.net (a Singapore university spin-off that I
> co-founded) began based on an in-country-resolution only approach (with
> downloadable plug-ins for out of country) starting in 1999 with a
> Minister's approval in Taiwan. Just then IETF took an interest, after
> having shown little interest the year before and started on its much
> delayed path to IDNA in 2003 with the Singapore team playing a
> leadership role. In 2000 and 2001 at least 15 in-country full IDN.IDN
> deployments in much of the IDN world (example Chinese, India, Israel,
> Russia, Thailand, Korea etc) were launched with local Information or in
> some cases Prime Ministers in attendance. Thousands of articles were
> published in the world's best journals/tv in the native langauges as
> well as mainstream English media - much of the links are in the
> press-room at www.i-dns.net.
>
> Then Verisign licensed this technology and went ahead to launch
> half-IDN and half-ASCII hybrid domains - IDN.ascii - in late 2000. It
> was only then ICANN had no choice but to enter the IDN issue. While
> unable to stop the Verisign launch at the last minute, they basically
> neutered IDN.ascii by forcing it to be only usable via plug-ins. A
> million people who bought names never got it to work. There was never an
> apology from anyone in the West to all the millions in the East who
> bought them. Many registars went bankrupt and there were goverment fraud
> investigations in Korea relating to these Korean.ascii names. Finally
> for the few who hung on renewing the names, they worked in 2007 and 2008
> when Microsoft and others fixed their browsers - and that had little to
> do with ICANN.
>
> With ICANN's entry and committees to look into IDN.IDN in 2001 the
> locally-deployed world paused its efforts (thru highly active
> coordinating establishments like MINC and even some interest from ITU).
> They took ICANN's commitments to coordinate this at face value and also
> simultaneoulsy waited for the perenially almost-ready IDNA standard from
> IETF. Then things dragged and ICANN was busy with its own internal
> non-third world issues. Neverthless it continued to mouth commitment
> while in reality it lost interest in IDN.IDN citing various relatively
> minor excuses (most of these of its own making).
>
> The human cost was fairly enormous - some of the other IDN companies
> that had emerged globally went bankrupt - we took a big hit (even within
> Verisign most of the IDN went through large turnover and changes),
> people lost jobs, risk-taking early-adopter country-nic chiefs and
> politicans got fired, people postponed having children, many marriages
> dissolved. By my estimate collectively to date about US$200 million in
> today's dollars was lost by investors - perhaps as much as $100M on the
> Singapore side (I raised much of it). While not belittling those with
> relatively safe jobs who spend enormous time particpating in efforts
> like IDNBIS often in their spare time, I would like to point out that
> these personal sacrifices/losses are likley to be outshadowed by the
> just-mentioned human cost.
>
> By 2004 some of these in-country efforts had fizzled but a few in the
> stronger countries grew stronger while ICANN its safe to say pretended
> not to notice. Countries like China that badly needed it decided to grow
> their in-country deployments toward 100% usability within. By 2005/6
> they had hundreds of millions of users being able to use the hundreds of
> thousands of issued full IDN.IDNs. Ironically, at one point even in
> Egypt, a commercial Arabic.arabic launch with local ISPs, with Ministry
> knowledge was usable by 60% of Internet users by 2002 and still now
> (gTLDs, not the now announced IDN ccTLD). By 2007 - significant use
> relative to the country-size existed with upwards of 70% region-wide
> usability (users who could resolve it without a plugin) existed in a few
> countries - like China, Korea, Israel, even 2 small Gulf arabic
> countries etc. These accounted for at least 25% of the world's
> population that truly needs IDN.IDN and live in non-latin script
> countries. (This non-ICANN sanctioned efforts reach may have since grown
> from 25% and closer to 40% of the IDN.IDN needy with more launches ahead
> of ICANN). When the well-established Chinese effort was "discovered" by
> Western media in 2007, ICANN's embarrased response was to say it was
> techncially not true to the media. It was quickly disproven by impartial
> Western Internet engineer researchers who tested - but these accounts
> received only limited media coverage. Finally this embarrasment and the
> sure knowledge that large isalnds have already gone off to do their own
> thing and it would be difficult to bring them back, spurred ICANN's
> final interest in IDN in 2007/8.
>
> Even then ICANN found it impossible to get its act together as fast as
> it had promised and it has taken until mid-2010 to put just the first
> stage of the first part into action - the fast-track within ccTLDs. The
> slow track is many years away and the gTLD space is even further away
> owing to ICANN's inisistence policy-wise to merge new ASCII gTLDS
> (mostly not needed urgently beyond what we already have) with new IDN
> TLDs (long needed urgently). It is this period from 2007 that is
> well-documented and publicised by ICANN that is missing in the "outdated
> write-up". IDNABIS was re-activated at IETF to improve the IDNS 2003
> standrad that even then at birth was knowingly made techncially
> less-restrivtive since the engineers did not wish to define how it was
> deployed politically. But ICANN used that in 2003 to launch further
> IDN.ascii deploymnents but crucially without enforcing the policy
> recomendations from IETF. And yes thereby causing a big mess, that now
> the IETFBIS group had to go in and clean up and make the standard more
> restrictive, along with other things. It was necessary work and thank
> you. Interestingly all the non-ICANN deployments since 1999 have always
> deployed IDN in a technically more restrictive manner than IDNA's
> recomendation or ICANN's deployment and this mess was and is mostly
> avoided. Everyone knows ICANN botched the deployment and that history
> (we have 2 million plus names out there that they cannot take back with
> these potential problems) and the need for "backward comnatibility" is
> still making current deployment strategy less than ideal.
>
> However the main concept and approach to IDN is unchanged from the
> original Singapore invention in 1997 and ICANN's refusal to consider
> putting it in the root in early 1999 at ICANN's first meeting. While it
> was improved on the margins, the deployment by ICANN post 2003 standard
> was abominable and the problems would not have been any worse than if
> the original without improvements had been inserted in root in 1999 in
> some languages. The gains for culture and language around the world
> would have far offset any problems. We helped lose a generation of
> native non-latin script speaking ability to English/Internet while
> waiting for ICANN to acknowledge the relatively obvious.
>
> So yes its a great day for the world - but its been a great day for
> sometime in China and elsewhere for years. It is simply inexcusable to
> start its main press release on its site saying "For the first time in
> the history of the Internet.... ". (see www.icann.org). Especailly since
> ICANN's role has been at best mixed and arguably amongst all the players
> involved ICANN was the one who delayed it the most (when it should have
> been the other way around). At any rate an organisation that insists on
> airbrushing and hiding the truth and not admitting the facts has in my
> opinion a dubious future. And it continues to take credit by vagueness
> and misinformation. A running joke in the Asian IDN community where a
> bunch of pan-Asian nerds (Indian, Chinese, Malaysian, Korean, Japanese
> and other engineers) came together from all over Asia as never before
> and actually contributed an Internet or IT standard without Western help
> is that IDN was invented by a Western blonde.
>
> The irony of it all.
>
> But still another great day for IDN - a term I coined - and a great day
> for the real reason why so many primarily Asians and other non-Latin
> speakers went well before ICANN with IDNs: Some for money/fame but all
> for the desire driven by much pride to make their own language relavant
> for themselves and their relatives and countrymen who did not have the
> privilege to learn English.
>
> And again thank you for pointing out the early history.
>
> Cheers
>
> Subbiah
>
> Ginger Paque wrote:
>
>> Indeed, it is 2007 Olivier :) If anyone has an updated timeline,
>> please post it! Thanks. gp
>>
>> On 5/7/2010 10:59 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks for the pointer, Ginger. A milestone indeed, but the paper
>>> below is really out of date. It does not mention the extraordinary
>>> amount of work that was done by volunteers in the IDNABIS IETF
>>> working group and the work also done within ICANN.
>>>
>>> Having witnessed so many of the workings of these milestone events
>>> (including the coming on line of several countries), I sometimes wish
>>> there was a "lost Internet heroes" hall of fame, to mention the
>>> hundreds of volunteers who took their time to work on these matters,
>>> free of charge, sometimes incurring expenses, instead of spending
>>> their time on more ludic matters. I guess history in general is made
>>> up of these individual experiences.
>>>
>>> Milestones such as the one about IDNs being put in use, are the
>>> celebrations of those individuals. Thank you all.
>>>
>>> Kind regards,
>>>
>>> Olivier
>>>
>>> Le 07/05/2010 16:01, Ginger Paque a écrit :
>>>
>>>> I did some searches, trying to better understand the background to
>>>> today's milestone. I found a timeline by Prof. S. Subbiah (IGC
>>>> member) on Ian Peter's (another IGC member and former
>>>> co-coordinator) weblog.
>>>>
>>>> Published in May 2007, Ian introduced it like this:
>>>>
>>>> *"Thanks to Prof. S. Subbiah from Singapore for this excellent short
>>>> history of the attempts to internationalise domain names.*
>>>>
>>>> *"There is much still to be done!"*
>>>>
>>>> http://ianpeter.wordpress.com/2007/05/10/history-of-internationalised-domai
>>>> n-names/
>>>>
>>>> History of IDN
>>>>
>>>> * 12/96: Martin Duerst’s original Internet Draft proposing UTF5 (the
>>>> first incarnation of what is known today as ACE)- UTF-5 was first
>>>> defined by Martin Duerst at the University of Zürich in [3]
>>>> >>> n-00.txt>[4]
>>>> [5]
>>>>
>>>> ( Subbiah comments: a precursor idea that was never implemented and
>>>> would not have worked as proposed. Martin later collaborated with
>>>> the Singapore team which was not aware of his previous suggestion
>>>> til much later))
>>>>
>>>> * 03/98: Early Research on IDN at National University of Singapore
>>>> (NUS), Center for Internet Research (formerly Internet Research and
>>>> Development Unit – IRDU) led by Prof. Tan Tin Wee (IDN Project team
>>>> – Lim Juay Kwang and Leong Kok Yong) and subsequently continued
>>>> under a team at Bioinformatrix Pte. Ltd. (BIX Pte. Ltd.)
>>>> - a NUS spin-off company led by Prof. S. Subbiah.
>>>> * July 98: Geneva INET’98 conference with a BoF discussion on iDNS
>>>> and APNG General Meeting and Working Group meeting.
>>>> * 07/98: Asia Pacific Networking Group (APNG, now still in existence
>>>> [6] and distinct from a gathering known as APSTAR
>>>> [7]
>>>> ) iDNS Working Group formed. [8]
>>>>
>>>> * 10/98: James Seng was
>>>> recruited to lead further IDN development at BIX Pte. Ltd. by Prof.
>>>> S. Subbiah.
>>>> * 02/99: iDNS Testbed launched by BIX Pte. Ltd. under the auspicies
>>>> of APNG with participation from CNNIC
>>>> , JPNIC
>>>> ,
>>>> KRNIC, TWNIC, THNIC, HKNIC and SGNIC led by James Seng
>>>> [9]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> * 02/99: Presentation of Report on IDN at Joint APNG-APTLD meeting,
>>>> at APRICOT’99
>>>> * 03/99: Endorsement of the IDN Report at APNG General Meeting 1
>>>> March 1999.
>>>> * 06/99: Grant application by APNG jointly with the Centre for
>>>> Internet Research (CIR), National University of Singapore, to the
>>>> International Development Research Center (IDRC), a Canadian
>>>> Government funded international organisation to work on IDN for
>>>> IPv6. This APNG Project was funded under the Pan Asia R&D Grant
>>>> administered on behalf of IDRC by the Canadian Committee on
>>>> Occupational Health and Safety (CCOHS). Principal Investigator: Tan
>>>> Tin Wee of National University of Singapore. [10]
>>>>
>>>> * 07/99 Tout, Walid R. (WALID Inc.) Filed IDNA patent application
>>>> number US1999000358043 Method and system for internationalizing
>>>> domain names. Published 2001-01-30 [11]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> * 07/99: [12]
>>>> >>> .txt>;
>>>> Renewed 2000 [13]
>>>> >>> ence/draft/draft-jseng-utf5-01.txt>
>>>> Internet Draft on UTF5 by James Seng, Martin Duerst and Tan Tin Wee.
>>>>
>>>> * 08/99: APTLD and APNG forms a working group
>>>> to look into IDN
>>>> issues chaired by Kilnam Chon. [14]
>>>>
>>>> * 10/99: BIX Pte. Ltd. and National University of Singapore together
>>>> with New York Venture Capital investors, General Atlantic Partners,
>>>> spun-off the IDN effort into 2 new Singapore companies – i-DNS.net
>>>> International Inc. and i-Email.net Pte. Ltd. that created the first
>>>> commercial implementation of an IDN Solution for both domain names
>>>> and IDN email addresses respectively.
>>>> * 11/99: IETF IDN
>>>> Birds-of-Feather in Washington was initiated by i-DNS.net at the
>>>> request of IETF officials.
>>>> * 12/99: i-DNS.net InternationalPte. Ltd. launched the first
>>>> commercial IDN. It was in Taiwan and in Chinese characters under the
>>>> top-level IDN TLD “.gongsi” (meaning loosely “.com”) with
>>>> endorsement by the Minister of Communications of Taiwan and some
>>>> major Taiwanese ISPs with reports of over 200 000 names sold in a
>>>> week in Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore, Malaysia, China, Australia and
>>>> USA.
>>>> * Late 1999: Kilnam Chon initiates Task Force on IDNS which led to
>>>> formation of MINC, the Multilingual Internet Names Consortium. [15]
>>>>
>>>> * 01/2000: IETF IDN Working
>>>> Group formed chaired by James Seng
>>>> and Marc Blanchet
>>>>
>>>> * 01/2000: The second ever commercial IDN launch was IDN TLDs in the
>>>> Tamil Language, corresponding to .com, .net, .org, and .edu. These
>>>> were launched in India with IT Ministry support by i-DNS.net
>>>> International.
>>>> * 02/2000: Multilingual Internet Names Consortium(MINC) Proposal BoF
>>>> at IETF Adelaide. [16]
>>>>
>>>> * 03/2000: APRICOT 2000 Multilingual DNS session [17]
>>>>
>>>> * 04/2000: WALID Inc. (with IDNA patent pending application 6182148)
>>>> started Registration & Resolving Multilingual Domain Names.
>>>> * 05/2000: Interoperability Testing WG, MINC meeting. San Francisco,
>>>> chaired by Bill Manning and Y.Yoneya 12 May 2000. [18]
>>>> >>> .htm>
>>>> * 06/2000: Inaugural Launch of the Multilingual Internet Names
>>>> Consortium (MINC) in Seoul [19] to drive the
>>>> collaborative roll-out of IDN starting from the Asia Pacific.
>>>> [20]
>>>> * 07/2000: Joint Engineering TaskForce (JET) initiated in Yokohama
>>>> to study technical issues led by JPNIC (K.Konishi)
>>>> * 07/2000: Official Formation of CDNC Chinese Domain Name Consortium
>>>> to resolve issues related to and to deploy Han Character domain
>>>> names, founded by CNNIC, TWNIC, HKNIC and MONIC in May 2000. [21]
>>>> [22]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> * 03/01: ICANN Board IDN
>>>> Working Group formed
>>>> * 07/01: Japanese Domain Name Association : JDNA Lauch Ceremony
>>>> (July 13, 2001) in Tokyo, Japan.
>>>> * 07/01: Urdu Internet Names System (July 28, 2001) in Islamabad,
>>>> Pakistan, Organised Jointly by SDNP and MINC. [23]
>>>>
>>>> * 07/01: Presentation on IDN to the Committee Meeting of the
>>>> Computer Science and Telecommunications Board, National Academies
>>>> USA (JULY 11-13, 2001)at University of California School of
>>>> Information Management and Systems, Berkeley, CA. [24]
>>>>
>>>> * 08/01: MINC presentation and outreach at the Asia Pacific Advanced
>>>> Network annual conference, Penang, Malaysia 20th August 2001
>>>> * 10/01: Joint MINC-CDNC Meeting in Beijing 18-20 October 2001
>>>> * 11/01: ICANN IDN Committee formed
>>>> * 12/01: Joint ITU-WIPO Symposium on Multilingual Domain Names
>>>> organised in association with MINC, 6-7 Dec 2001, International
>>>> Conference Center, Geneva.
>>>> * 01/03: Free implementation of StringPrep, Punycode, and IDNA
>>>> release in GNU Libidn.
>>>>
>>>> * 03/03: Publication of RFC 3454
>>>> , RFC 3490
>>>> , RFC 3491
>>>> and RFC 3492
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> * 06/03: Publication of ICANN IDN Guidelines for registries
>>>>
>>>> * 05/04: Publication of RFC 3743
>>>> , Joint Engineering Team (JET)
>>>> Guidelines for Internationalized Domain Names (IDN) Registration and
>>>> Administration for Chinese, Japanese, and Korean
>>>> * March 2005: First Study Group 17 of ITU-T meeting on
>>>> Internationalized Domain Names [25]
>>>>
>>>> * April 2006: Study Group 17 meeting in Korea gave final approval to
>>>> the Question on Internationalized Domain Names [26]
>>>> >>> x>
>>>> * December 2006: ICANN meeting at São Paulo discusses status of lab
>>>> tests of IDNs within the root.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 5/7/2010 9:12 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> This is indeed a great milestone!
>>>>>
>>>>> Congrats to our Egyptian friends!
>>>>>
>>>>> --c.a.
>>>>>
>>>>> On 05/07/2010 07:21 AM, Ginger Paque wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Congratulations to the IG workers of the world!!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Copy and paste this link in your address bar ... then press enter ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> وزارة-الاتصالات.مصر
>>>>>>
>>>>>> it is the website of MCIT Egypt with an Arabic domain name!!!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Congrats MCIT, Congrats Egypt, Congrats ICANN, Congrats world!!!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best, Ginger
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
>>> http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
>>>
>>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
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 Fri May 7 19:21:16 2010
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Fri, 7 May 2010 19:21:16 -0400
Subject: [governance] Decommission Internet Governance Domains
In-Reply-To:
References:
Message-ID:
On 24 Apr 2010, at 10:19, Yehuda Katz wrote:
>
> * Domain name: Expiration: *
> -------------------------------------------------- --
> igcaucus.com 2010-06-18
note, i have been maintaining, i.e. paying for, igcaucus.org on behalf of the IGC for a few years now. i just renewed it for 2 years. i also have igcaucus.net unused - it is set to expire but i have it on automatic renewal. unless someone else wants, i am willing to hold and support igcaucus.com in trust for the IGC as well.
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 gpaque at gmail.com Fri May 7 19:33:04 2010
From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque)
Date: Fri, 07 May 2010 19:03:04 -0430
Subject: [governance] Decommission Internet Governance Domains
In-Reply-To:
References:
Message-ID: <4BE4A330.2010100@gmail.com>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
For all list information and functions, see:
http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Fri May 7 20:48:24 2010
From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa)
Date: Sat, 8 May 2010 05:48:24 +0500
Subject: [governance] IGF planning meeting next week: workshops, etc.
In-Reply-To: <4BE40837.2040104@gmail.com>
References: <4BE40837.2040104@gmail.com>
Message-ID:
Hi Ginger and Everyone,
Thanks for the update and I will be there to assist Ginger and IGC
members anytime during the meetings as in earlier meetings!
Dynamic Coalitions, Workshop Organizers or any other short and to the
point statements may be shared anytime through our emails addresses or
my skype: fouadbajwa.
Take care!
On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 5:31 PM, Ginger Paque wrote:
> I will be at the IGF planning meeting in Geneva next week, Monday and
> Tuesday. This meeting will directly address organization and planning for
> the IGF 2010 in Vilnius.
>
> While the IGC does not have a statement or direct intervention planned, any
> organizers of workshops that have questions or concerns should email me
> privately if they would like me to take any details up in their name at the
> meeting.
>
> Any dynamic coalition or other group that would like their planning points
> made is welcome to send me a detailed message, and I will do my best to
> present their position in their name, not in the name of the IGC.
>
> If the organizers of the IGC workshops would like any particular points
> addressed on our workshops, please also let me know by private email.
>
> Links for remote participation will be published on the IGF site. I will be
> present on the remote platform to facilitate any appropriate remote
> intervention.
>
> I will be available on Skype at gingerpaque.
>
> 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
>
--
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 fouadbajwa at gmail.com Fri May 7 21:13:32 2010
From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa)
Date: Sat, 8 May 2010 06:13:32 +0500
Subject: [governance] MAG Mandate Renewal and press release
Message-ID:
Just an update. We have been informed that a press release was issued
in New York yesterday announcing the renewal of the MAG mandate. The
communiqué and the list of the MAG Members are posted on the IGF Web
site at http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/magabout.
The following new members have been added: Jorge, Alvaro, Ambassador
Manuel Dengo, Permanent Representative of Costa Rica to the United
Nations Office at Geneva. The out going members were Miguel and
Richard. The press release of the renewal is here:
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs//2010/pi1936.doc.htm
--
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 yehudakatz at mailinator.com Sat May 8 11:33:48 2010
From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (Yehuda Katz)
Date: Sat, 8 May 2010 08:33:48 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] Decommission Internet Governance Domains
In-Reply-To: DC527D2B-0D70-4E9B-AFF8-75C5D8A6B610@acm.org
Message-ID:
Avri,
Here is the cut list:
Domain Expiration
igforum.eu 2010-05-13
igcaucus.com 2010-06-18
igforum.info 2010-06-26
igforum.org 2010-06-26
igforum.com 2010-08-01
ungis.com 2010-08-21
ungis.net 2010-08-21
-
If you initiate the Transfer Request, I presume that it will come from:
GoDaddy.com, Inc. (R91-LROR), otherwise set up an account with Key Systems
DD24, and I will push.
I will then authorize the Transfer.
Suggest you do it soon , time is running out, spare some room for errors.
Katz
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
For all list information and functions, see:
http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
From jefsey at jefsey.com Sun May 9 15:30:06 2010
From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin)
Date: Sun, 09 May 2010 21:30:06 +0200
Subject: [governance] Friday morning... (Arabic Domain Name) Some
In-Reply-To:
References: <4BE457FD.1080800@i-dns.net>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20100508235359.0649cad0@jefsey.com>
Thanks to Ginger Paque, Ian Peter, and S. Subbiah for reminding us
all about this Internet saga.
In addition, I just want to remind you, however, that:
- USA first operated public Katakana services with KDD (Japan) in
1983, in using Tymnet and then X.75 protocols.
- ICANN is politically toying with the international community since
there is currently _no_ IDN standard by the IETF yet (not published).
- the IETF WG/IDNABIS IDNA2008 consensus was found over an "a minima"
consensus concerning the users' side requirements, which eventually
the IESG did not want to even consider.
- the currently IESG approved IDNA2008 architecture is under appeal
(next step is to the IAB) because it is _perfect_ (except that it
does not support Latin languages) on its Network side, however no
IESG disclaimer has ever explained that it is not documented yet, and
it is opposed by the IAB, on its users' side. The IESG response
(first step of the appeal) advised to consider a BoF (proposing a new
WG) on the issue.
What ICANN actually does is to pretend that it still controls the
Internet Domain Names (IDNs) in preventing scores of (IDN)gTLDs to be
added to the root. In favoring a few non-ASCII IDNccTLD:
- ICANN actually technically (and commercially) discriminates on the
basis of the wrong reasons against structured private projects, in
legal violation with its by-laws.
- behaving like an Internet global Monopoly, it forces LATINgTLDs
projects, like the one I chair (PROJECT.FRA), to find an independent
technical solution (even for testing), since IDNA2008 does not
support yet French's (and the other Latin languages') orthotypography.
This amounts to unfair competion to more than 500 gTLD, LATINgTLD and
IDNgTLD projetcs, and disloyal commercial behavior at the expense of
the entire Internet Community.
For those interested, I have provided a more detailed explanation in the annex.
Cheers.
jfc
-----
The launch of the ICANN Mad Track
The situation is as follows:
1. When we started the IETF WG/IDNABIS, I asked (on behalf of several
linguistic mailing lists) if the target was for the Internet to work
better, or also for the users' needs to be addressed. I described
these users' need as an "ML-DNS providing non-ASCII users the same
QoS as the DNS does to ASCII users".
1.1. Vint Cerf (Chair of the WG/IDNABIS) was very clear: the charter
did not speak of users, but of making the Internet work better and of
being compatible with former RFCs (IDNA2003).
1.2. I then committed, on behalf of a francophone group that is
interested in e-multilinguistics, francophone, and architectural TLD
projects (later on nicknamed "Jefsey's disciples" by Martin Dürst, or JEDIs).
1.2.1. - to support the WG/IDNABIS effort along its charter.
1.2.2. - to build an ML-DNS atop of it.
1.3. Unless indicated otherwise, when "we" is used in this memo it is
referring to these @large supported "JEDIs". Their announced project
is to bring to the Internet the additional services that are
necessary to support an semiotic stratum (intersem) that is
interested in meaning, such as the Internet stratum being interested
in content, and the telecom stratum being interested in digital
signals. Their plan includes four experimental "externets" (global
virtual open networks within the world digital ecosystem [WDE]) that
are supported by:
1.3.1. Projet.FRA: a francophone zone of which the namespace will
serve as the taxonomy of an open public ontology in order to explore
semantic addressing system (SAS).
1.3.2. Multilinc: a multilinguistics (in the meaning of linguistic
cybernetics) test bed, supporting more than 25,000 linguistic zones.
1.3.3. Perfida: a project to explore RFID applications in order to
investigate the Internet of things vs. the Internet of thoughts areas.
1.3.4. MDRS (Metadata Distributed Registries System), i.e. the an ISO
11179 conformant metastructure for the Intersem.
2. The WG life has been tense on some occasions. The difficulty was
to determine how to match the linguistic diversity while respecting
the users' empowerment. This was also the case because it was meant
to exemplify how the Internet architecture supports diversity, and
its "presentation layer" (which is architecturally intrinsic to
multilinguistic support but not documented in the Internet approach).
There were two possibilities here:
2.1. - increasing the technical core's capacity (tables, protocols,
DNS, etc.) as the IETF has always done in the past.
2.2. - supporting multiplicity, as something intelligent, i.e. at the
fringes. There were three possible fringes then:
2.2.1. on the Internet side, i.e. in the protocols. The charter
objected to it, but a technical control of usage was technically very
tempting for some industry leaders and large SSDOs.
2.2.2. on the user side. This was eventually consensually agreed as
it also permitted the last possibility:
2.2.3. in between, i.e. in a new architectural domain that we called
IUI (Internet Use Interface) and that is now to be well identified
and documented, but by whom?
3. IDNA2008 definitely chose to say that it MUST be "multiplicity at
the fringes". This implies that fringes SHOULD do what nameprep did
in IDNA2003. Then, it should require to give at least one example of
what application developers MIGHT do. This "unusual"
"MUST/SHOULD/MIGHT" areas description was carried out as follows:
3.1. the IETF WG/IDNABIS consensually defined the IDNA2008 unaltered
way that the Internet DNS will behave. This is stability for the
Internet "intrastructure" (i.e. protocols, parameters, BCPs, etc.)
documented (RFC 3935) by the IETF:
3.1.1. No change in DNS, and no (mapping) intelligence inside the
Internet to particularly accommodate IDNs.
3.1.2. Independence from Unicode versions.
3.2. This provided a stable, proven, reliable, and already deployed
quasi perfect basis.
3.2.1. This with the exception, however, that in still being bound to
Unicode it does not support orthotypography [a correct semantic use
of typography]: for example, Latin majuscules metadata is lost.
3.2.2. Consensus could be found because a description of the way
users COULD proceed on the fringes (proving feasibility) was
consensually adopted. This was the "Mapping" document.
3.2.3. We documented
(http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-iucg-punyplus-03 ) what we MIGHT do
to overcome the lost metadata issue.
4. However, IDNA2008 failed to address IAB's key points
(