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 (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-iab-idn-encoding-01) because (as Vint Cerf had initially pointed it out) they are outside of its charter. The IETF Applications AD raised those points that question the very basic principle of the IDNA architecture (as being IDN "in applications" and not, for example, as a single "IDNApplication"). As a result, that document was not considered by the IESG. This means that the: 4.1. Current IDNA concepts do not consider how to prevent resolution conflicts between different applications on the same machine. 4.2. Unpublished, as of yet, IDNA2008 permits developers to address Asian, and supports Arabic, needs (most of them at least). Usage of IDNA in other areas (IRIs, etc.) is not completed. 4.3. Unpublished, as of yet, IDNA2008 does not address some French, Latin, and other languages' orthotypographic needs. This implies that Project.FRA (and many other linguistic and multilinguistic projects) need an enhanced operational solution. 5. That solution is a DNS fully transparent, and 100% IDNA conformant, ML-DNS that we (as Internet Users, members of the Internet Users Contributing Group – iucg at ietf.org) have committed ourselves to propose and experiment. To that end, two additional works are to be carried out. In order to avoid the confusion that the ccNSO started to introduce concerning a possible future evolution of IDNA2008, and to emphasize the whole IDNA architectural stable continuity, we named them IDNA2010 and IDNA2012. 5.1. IDNA2010 (http://idna2010.org) is to document the IDNA user's side corresponding to the IDNA2008 Internet side. 5.2. IDNA2012 is to document the IDNA2008/IDNA2010 adminance (i.e. how they are to be deployed, maintained, and evolve). 6. We were fully open to Chair, AD, IESG, and other community interests including ICANN, which did not want to get involved, while Vint Cerf initially suggested that they might coordinate (we then underlined they are only a namespace cooperator with Internet Users and Industry DNS server operators): 6.1. We agreed with Vint Cerf to delay the IDNA2010 work in order to permit IDNA2008 to be clearly approved by the IESG. 6.2. We documented with the IESG (which indicated having actively considered it before approving the IDNA2008 documents as we requested it) how Project.FRA, and the 22,500 linguistic zones of the Multilinc multilinguistic test bed, will have to deploy, since they are kept outside of the ICANN Fast Track experimentation, as every other candidate (IDN)gTLD. 6.3. In this report to the IESG, I explained that I fully supported the approval of IDNA2008 but that I would appeal against this approval if it was not put into its whole context in order to give stakeholders time to consider the practical implications of IDNA together, before ICANN started its political technically closed Fast Track, no-experimentation, project. ICANN eventually indicated that they might reassess their position in the function of the appeal timing. 7. The reasons as to why there are two initial debates to carry out any decisions to be made is: 7.1. IDNA2010 sits outside of the IETF scope. Who is to document it: a new IETF area? or the iucg at ietf.org mailing list (Internet users contributing group)? or another SDO? The Web is documented by the W3C, and IUI is of similar importance. 7.2. IDNA2012 will necessarily discuss the governance of the unique Virtual Root Open Matrix (VROOM) in the context of a non-ICANN centric, non-Internet centric, but user-centric management of the namespaces with an entirely new and still unprotected economy of (IDN)gTLDs and a different context of the net and user centricities. 8. At this stage, the ISOC (IETF) side has not decided yet (through IAB and a possible appeal to its Chair), but the IESG has already 8.1. acknowledged that I: 8.1.1. support the publication of the IDNA2008 set of documents, 8.1.2. but wish that the documents had been published along with a specific complementary warning to the Internet community [by or upon the guidance of the IAB] , 8.1.3. asked it would have noted the new architectural opportunities that are available in IDNA2008, and warned of possible confusion until these opportunities are properly governed, 8.1.4. deemed necessary a disclaimer indicating that IDNA2008 should not be deployed or tested until coordinated usage documentation is produced. 8.2. in what they found no possible remedial action since the IESG does not direct the work of the IAB and 8.2.1. In rejecting this appeal, which does not suggest remedial action by the IESG, they actually found the appropriate action, since the next step of the appeal procedure permits me to obtain the IAB comment that we think the community needs, whatever this comment may be, in front of the very large amount of supporting material that I provided in order to "include a detailed and specific description of the facts of the dispute." (RFC 2026) 8.2.2. However, at the same time, the IESG observes that the appeal includes a plea for the Internet community to initiate some work. I, therefore, suggested the submission of an Internet-Draft and then to approach an appropriate Area Director to sponsor a BOF Session or sponsor the publication of the document, along RFC 5434. 8.3. The RFC 2026 calendar had so far been strictly respected: 8.3.1. ICANN wished to deploy IDNs. 8.3.2. IAB (RFC 4690) indicated that a revision of IDNA2003 was necessary. 8.3.3. IESG created the WG/IDNABIS to that end by giving the possibility to adapt its own Charter. 8.3.4. The WG reached a consensus within the limits of a slightly amended Charter. 8.3.5. That consensus exemplifies a set of fundamental changes in the Internet overall architecture that is outside the limits of the WG scope. 8.3.6. IESG approved the consensus while knowing that an appeal would be carried out concerning the impact of the architectural change that mainly concerns the IAB and the global community. 8.3.7. IDNA2008 publication is blocked by an appeal that IESG considers to belong to IAB. 8.3.8. The next step under way is my appeal to IAB. 8.3.9. The IAB response should have permitted the community to know whether IDNA2008 could be published and tested as it is (disregarding my concerns), or if a preliminary architectural, technical, governance, or adminance debate was necessary to preserve the Internet stability, as we believe, basing our belief on the only community test bed that was carried out along the ICANN-ICP-3 request and standards (Project.dot-root), and via our personal daily experience of navigating the Internet in using our very simple user centric ML-DNS prototype. 8.4. There are two actions to break the respect of that calendar: 8.4.1. The IESG advice above, which was also advised by Applications AD and the WG/IDNABIS Chair, was to publish a Draft. The reason why we did not want to publish a Draft is that we might poorly introduce and, therefore, delay or dangerously confuse what is simply a new reading of the existing architecture. This is why we consider it more secure to first obtain the IAB opinion and possible guidance. 8.4.2. The ICANN unilateral decision, in launching Fast Track before any concerted discussion with the Internet Users' side could be achieved after such an IAB technical guidance, has forced their de facto allies in the Internet dominant "ISOCANN enhanced cooperation" to take sides for what seems to amount to purely political and commercial reasons or possible lack of technical consideration, in favor of a technically unstable choice. 9. Because appeals are to be individual, the pressure that is being imposed on me in this way by ICANN is in violation of the ISOC/IETF appeal process as well as of the community trust, since Fast Track cannot refer to any newly published RFC to be tested. Therefore, its consequences only seem to undercut: 9.1. a grass-root move based upon a community based open, sound, secure architecture; and the competitive progress of the namespace that ICANN is supposed to foster. 9.2. a technical solution that will permit the quick, transparent, low cost, easy to understand deployment of hundreds of (IDN)gTLD candidates in a new phase of the Internet architecture and growth (that will also most probably be supported/sponsored by governments). 10. Delaying any further the debate on the ML-DNS, IUI, and their implications on the management of the namespace structure and economy would only dramatically increase the risks of confusion. 10.1. The only way for us to respond now is to proceed in considering the ISOCANN enhanced cooperation as the architectural "competitive option" that they actually chose to be in: 10.1. initiating a test project (Fats Track) which can test nothing new. 10.2. reserving it only to IDNccTLD, delaying (IDNgTLD) for years without any technical reason. 10.3. barring within IDNccTLDs the most technically demanding ones, i.e. the LATINcc/gTLDs. 10.2. This means for us to focus on the Internet Users' linguistic, innovative, and semantic much more dynamic Internet Users option. 10.2.1. The harm that a noncontextually and uncooperatively prepared innovation may create has delayed me for years. 10.2.2. However, we now see that it will most probably not exceed what would result from a continuation of the sole ISOCANN governance and adminance of the namespace, under an ICANN inadequate dominance and an impossible common understanding at this stage without a real clarification by the IAB contradiction, the WG/IDNABIS could not provide when the AD demanded it because it is out of the scope of its charter. 11. "Responsible experimentation is essential to the vitality of the Internet. Nor does it preclude the ultimate introduction of new architectures that may ultimately obviate the need for a unique, authoritative root. But the translation of experiments into production and the introduction of new architectures require community-based approaches, and are not compatible with individual efforts to gain proprietary advantage."(ICANN – ICP-3) As @large Internet Users, we made all what we could to help a community cooperation, debate and responsible approach. 11.1. france at large, the eldest ALS, was denied the right to join ALAC, 11.2. we were barred from participating in IDNA related ICANN working groups, 11.3. we are now bypassed in our legitimate respect of the ISOC/IETF appeal procedures. 12. The only responses to such an ICANN unilateral attitude are: 12.1. to give a last chance to a practical debate and show where the responsibility of the coming confusion lies in not interrupting the ISOC/IETF appeal process, so that the Internet Governance ISOCANN Enhanced Cooperation cannot claim that it did not know. 12.2. to engage in development and experimentation, in as much as ICANN permits it to the community, along the respect of the recommendations of ICANN's ICP-3 document, section "5. Experimentation". 12.3. to try to reduce the confusion that experimental or commercial alternatives might introduce, in not documenting our architectural options before they have been fully experimented; then documenting them as public domain through the bodies that could emerge to assume their open adminance and IETF Drafts. jfc -------------- 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 10 03:35:11 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 03:05:11 -0430 Subject: [governance] Link to video and chat for IGF Planning Meeting in Geneva Message-ID: <4BE7B72F.2040504@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 gpaque at gmail.com Mon May 10 04:22:06 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 03:52:06 -0430 Subject: [governance] IGF Planning meeting Hashtag: #igf10 Message-ID: <4BE7C22E.5030201@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 shailam at yahoo.com Mon May 10 09:12:43 2010 From: shailam at yahoo.com (shaila mistry) Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 06:12:43 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Link to video and chat for IGF Planning Meeting in Geneva In-Reply-To: <4BE7B72F.2040504@gmail.com> References: <4BE7B72F.2040504@gmail.com> Message-ID: <493919.37703.qm@web55202.mail.re4.yahoo.com> Hi Ginger When I click on this , it is asking for a user name and password. Help Shaila Life is too short ....challenge the rules Forgive quickly ... love truly ...and tenderly Laugh constantly.....and never stop dreaming! ________________________________ From: Ginger Paque To: "governance at lists.cpsr.org" Sent: Mon, May 10, 2010 12:35:11 AM Subject: [governance] Link to video and chat for IGF Planning Meeting in Geneva Hi everyone, The link to the vido and chat for the IGF planning meetings today and tomorrow is: http://nubes.lscube.org/live?lid=3 Interventions can be sent by email to: may2010igfconsult at intgovforum.org I will be on Skype gingerpaque as well. Best, Ginger -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gpaque at gmail.com Mon May 10 09:25:36 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 08:55:36 -0430 Subject: [governance] Link to video and chat for IGF Planning Meeting In-Reply-To: <493919.37703.qm@web55202.mail.re4.yahoo.com> References: <4BE7B72F.2040504@gmail.com> <493919.37703.qm@web55202.mail.re4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4BE80950.8070409@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 katitza at eff.org Mon May 10 10:49:36 2010 From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 16:49:36 +0200 Subject: [governance] Link to video and chat for IGF Planning Meeting In-Reply-To: <4BE80950.8070409@paque.net> References: <4BE7B72F.2040504@gmail.com> <493919.37703.qm@web55202.mail.re4.yahoo.com> <4BE80950.8070409@paque.net> Message-ID: <4BE81D00.2010504@eff.org> Thanks Ginger. I am in the "remote observation" website!!!! ;-) I just landed to Geneva but my bags are not with me. Sigh. I need to make my claim before I can go to the meeting. May be, it will be too late today. Let me know if there are some plans for dinner.... Thanks Katitza On 5/10/10 3:25 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > *Try this link, which should not need a username or password. If it > does, please skype me at gingerpaque http://nubes.lscube.org/live?lid=1* > > On 5/10/2010 8:42 AM, shaila mistry wrote: >> Hi Ginger >> When I click on this , it is asking for a user name and password. >> Help >> Shaila >> >> *Life is too short ....challenge the rules*** >> >> *Forgive quickly ... love truly ...and tenderly*** >> >> *Laugh constantly.....and never stop dreaming! *** >> >> >> >> >> * >> * >> >> >> * >> * >> >> >> >> * >> ** >> ** >> * >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> *From:* Ginger Paque >> *To:* "governance at lists.cpsr.org" >> *Sent:* Mon, May 10, 2010 12:35:11 AM >> *Subject:* [governance] Link to video and chat for IGF Planning >> Meeting in Geneva >> >> Hi everyone, >> >> The link to the vido and chat for the IGF planning meetings today and >> tomorrow is: >> >> http://nubes.lscube.org/live?lid=3 >> >> Interventions can be sent by email to: >> may2010igfconsult at intgovforum.org >> >> I will be on Skype gingerpaque as well. >> >> Best, Ginger -- Katitza Rodriguez International Rights Director Electronic Frontier Foundation katitza at eff.org katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email) Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990 -------------- 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 Mon May 10 11:16:09 2010 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 08:16:09 -0700 (PDT) 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: <659979.30665.qm@web33006.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Thanks Ginger, Yes, I would like to include my contribution to the recently announced activation of IDN.IDN ccTLD in the registry Root System of IANA. It is I, who proposed and convinced ICANN to remove the limitations of two letters’ abbreviation for proposed name script/string for a IDN ccTLD, that enabled all countries and territories of the world (who use  non-Latin base script of their official language) to apply for a meaningful abbreviation or full name of the country as IDN ccTLD. Otherwise, it could be only وزارة-الاتصالات.مصwith assigning two characters to Egypt for their Arabic IDN ccTLD as ”.مص” instead of ”.مصر”. Great thanks to Allah, who given me the chance and power to convince ICANN’s Workgroups to alter their policies & procedures that has become integral part of the recently implemented policies and IDN.IDN cc/gTLDs. My contributions includes efforts to convince ICANN’s Workgroup for the followings: 1.            To REMOVE the restriction and limitation of two Characters for new IDN ccTLD's naming script. {So, finally IDN ccTLD Fast Track offers minimum 2 characters (U-Label) and up to 63 characters (A-Labels)}. 2.            New proposed IDN ccTLD's naming script should be a meaningful word in their local Language. ({Meaningfulness has also become necessary for string evaluation criteria} 3.            For reduction of the cost of the new ccTLDs {which is now US$26,000 or even applicant can apply for waiver of this fee}. 4.            Start a Urdu Wiki with IDN naming script, it was opened in second round and on second level to Persian Wiki. 5.            Also another proposal is also accepted regarding gTLDs application fee to be charged in different rounds of evaluation to enablement (4 Rounds). The looser of one round will not be going to pay the cost of the next round. Conclusion:         I have got global level achievement because 250+ Countries & Territories are the BENEFICIARY trough the acceptance of my above listed proposals for the preparation of new Layers of the Language base Internet.Thanks Ginger, Yes, I would like to include my contribution to the recently announced activation of IDN.IDN ccTLD in the registry Root System of IANA. It is I, who proposed and convinced ICANN to remove the limitations of two letters’ abbreviation for proposed name script/string for a IDN ccTLD, that enabled all countries and territories of the world (who use  non-Latin base script of their official language) to apply for a meaningful abbreviation or full name of the country as IDN ccTLD. Otherwise, it could be only وزارة-الاتصالات.مص with assigning two characters to Egypt for their Arabic IDN ccTLD as ”.مص” instead of ”.مصر”. Great thanks to Allah, who given me the chance and power to convince ICANN’s Workgroups to alter their policies & procedures that has become integral part of the recently implemented policies and IDN.IDN cc/gTLDs. My contributions includes efforts to convince ICANN’s Workgroup for the followings: 1.            To REMOVE the restriction and limitation of two Characters for new IDN ccTLD's naming script. {So, finally IDN ccTLD Fast Track offers minimum 2 characters (U-Label) and up to 63 characters (A-Labels)}. 2.            New proposed IDN ccTLD's naming script should be a meaningful word in their local Language. ({Meaningfulness has also become necessary for string evaluation criteria} 3.            For reduction of the cost of the new ccTLDs {which is now US$26,000 or even applicant can apply for waiver of this fee}. 4.            Start a Urdu Wiki with IDN naming script, it was opened in second round and on second level to Persian Wiki. 5.            Also another proposal is also accepted regarding gTLDs application fee to be charged in different rounds of evaluation to enablement (4 Rounds). The looser of one round will not be going to pay the cost of the next round. Conclusion:         I have got global level achievement because 250+ Countries & Territories are the BENEFICIARY trough the acceptance of my above listed proposals for the preparation of new Layers of the Language base Internet.   PROS:    Egypt, UAE and Saudi Arabia did not have shorter meaningful abbreviations in their Native Languages (Arabic), so, they got benefit to obtain meaningful abbreviations for IDN ccTLD. CONS: However, in my own country, in Pakistan, Public may lose the sharp and smart choice of appropriate IDN ccTLD i.e. "پاک." (PAK). Instead of getting benefit of the removal of two characters limitation, we will be in huge loss by applying for a longer and full name script "پاکستان." (PAKISTAN) in Urdu Language. Every user of this new mechanism will have to type 4 extra letters to browse or to send email. Regards Imran Ahmed Shah ICANNian (Alumni since ICANN 36th Seoul Meeting) Advisor to /Executive Member of : . Urdu Internet Council . Urdu Internet Society Group Leader of: . Websphere User Group of Pakistan . Pakistan Tivoli User Group . Pakistan Rational User Group ________________________________ From: Ginger Paque To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Sent: Fri, 7 May, 2010 20:45:40 Subject: Re: [governance] Friday morning... (Arabic Domain Name) Some Background 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 > -------------- 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 11 04:30:17 2010 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Tue, 11 May 2010 09:30:17 +0100 Subject: [governance] On the continuation of the IGF Message-ID: <4BE91599.3050608@wzb.eu> From the IGF website: The note of the Secretary-General on the Continuation of the Internet Governance Forum is now available as an advanced unedited copy, as approved by the Office of the Under-Secretary-General [pdf] http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/un-dpadm/unpan039074.pdf jeanette ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Tue May 11 05:17:58 2010 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Tue, 11 May 2010 11:17:58 +0200 Subject: [governance] On the continuation of the IGF In-Reply-To: <4BE91599.3050608@wzb.eu> References: <4BE91599.3050608@wzb.eu> Message-ID: It's a very detailed document. The statistics still carry the confusion on the participants association to the various multistakeholder groups. Still going through the document. On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 10:30 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > From the IGF website: > > The note of the Secretary-General on the Continuation of the Internet > Governance Forum is now available as an advanced unedited copy, as approved > by the Office of the Under-Secretary-General [pdf] > > > http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/un-dpadm/unpan039074.pdf > > jeanette > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >    governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 11 05:22:36 2010 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Tue, 11 May 2010 10:22:36 +0100 Subject: [governance] On the continuation of the IGF In-Reply-To: References: <4BE91599.3050608@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <4BE921DC.5030509@wzb.eu> Para 18 is about the future of the MAG. 26/27 are about enhanced cooperation. Interesting is the SG's take on "tangible outcomes". jeanette Fouad Bajwa wrote: > It's a very detailed document. The statistics still carry the > confusion on the participants association to the various > multistakeholder groups. Still going through the document. > > On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 10:30 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >> From the IGF website: >> >> The note of the Secretary-General on the Continuation of the Internet >> Governance Forum is now available as an advanced unedited copy, as approved >> by the Office of the Under-Secretary-General [pdf] >> >> >> http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/un-dpadm/unpan039074.pdf >> >> jeanette >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anja at cis-india.org Tue May 11 06:23:07 2010 From: anja at cis-india.org (anja) Date: Tue, 11 May 2010 15:53:07 +0530 Subject: [governance] On the continuation of the IGF In-Reply-To: <4BE91599.3050608@wzb.eu> References: <4BE91599.3050608@wzb.eu> Message-ID: Dear Johan, Sorry for my delayed reply, I was traveling all day yesterday, and am in a workshop today. I don't think the list of workshops is up on the IGF website yet, but unless there is another workshop that particularly looks at IG from an activist perspective, I think it makes sense in the case of our workshop not to give in too easily to pressure to merge. It is an angle that hasn't been covered before, and attracts a constituency that so far hasn't felt at home too much in the IGF. At the same time, it is a topic that is of great importance for people from developing and developed countries alike, and we have made a real effort to have regional diversity in the workshop. I am not sure if they will request us to merge either in fact, so in that sense there may not even be a need to worry. The Gender DC workshop last year, for example, too, was never asked to merge with something else. I think they generally start from workshops where there is a clear overlap. If requests to merge will come, I presume they will be with workshops that have a human rights perspective more generally. I would try to resist this as long as possible (arguing the above), but if there is no other way, we could merge, I guess, provided that the other organisers too are genuinely willing to make space in the final workshop for the specific perspective of activists to come out. Hope this is helpful, and not yet too late. Good luck with it! Warm wishes, Anja On Tue, 11 May 2010 09:30:17 +0100, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > From the IGF website: > > The note of the Secretary-General on the Continuation of the Internet > Governance Forum is now available as an advanced unedited copy, as > approved by the Office of the Under-Secretary-General [pdf] > > > http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/un-dpadm/unpan039074.pdf > > jeanette > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Tue May 11 18:15:27 2010 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Wed, 12 May 2010 08:15:27 +1000 Subject: [governance] On the continuation of the IGF In-Reply-To: <4BE921DC.5030509@wzb.eu> Message-ID: A couple of points of interest on a first read - Civil society got quite a lot of what it asked for. Two points we may want to discuss further >That the General Assembly reaffirm the multiple dimensions of the IGF agenda and provide guidance on public policy issues related to Internet governance that should be given particular consideration in the next five years; Are there matters we should lobby on here? >That the General Assembly encourage the IGF to produce and offer to the Member States useful capacity- building outputs, such as off-line/online training and toolkits aiming at greater awareness and better understanding of Internet governance related issues to facilitate national and international public policy making. We now have outputs. The document also suggests that more might happen in this area when >That improvements to the format, functions and operations of the IGF be considered at its sixth meeting in 2011. Another target for some concrete suggestions? Anyway I am interested in what others think and also what the general response was at the meeting in Geneva. Ian Peter > From: Jeanette Hofmann > Reply-To: , Jeanette Hofmann > Date: Tue, 11 May 2010 10:22:36 +0100 > To: , Fouad Bajwa > Subject: Re: [governance] On the continuation of the IGF > > Para 18 is about the future of the MAG. > 26/27 are about enhanced cooperation. > Interesting is the SG's take on "tangible outcomes". > > jeanette > > Fouad Bajwa wrote: >> It's a very detailed document. The statistics still carry the >> confusion on the participants association to the various >> multistakeholder groups. Still going through the document. >> >> On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 10:30 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >>> From the IGF website: >>> >>> The note of the Secretary-General on the Continuation of the Internet >>> Governance Forum is now available as an advanced unedited copy, as approved >>> by the Office of the Under-Secretary-General [pdf] >>> >>> >>> http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/un-dpadm/unpan039074.p >>> df >>> >>> jeanette >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >> >> >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Tue May 11 19:19:06 2010 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Wed, 12 May 2010 01:19:06 +0200 Subject: [governance] IG4D Main Session Online Working Group List Message-ID: Dear Colleagues, You are invited to participate in the IG4D Online Working Group List that is undertaking Internet Governance For Development and are encouraged to join in the broader discussions on the Main Theme of IG4D for the IGF especially if you are organizing plans to attend the IGF2010 in Lithuania http://www.igf2010.lt. Messages from members of the Open Consultations and MAG will be un-moderated but moderation will be applied to other members outside this circle to maintain focused discussions and avoid spamming or flame wars as we will be required to respect the views and concerns of the stakeholders from other groups of the multistakeholderism in order to take forward a balanced approach towards cultivating the grounds for this new issue that was missing from the IGF. Management rights of the group have been further shared with Bill Drake and Parminder to help me maintain this working group because it is an important factor to facilitate the work required in order to organize the IG4D session successfully and as per the task from the open consultations to come up with substantial guiding information on the subject. Either you can send me an email at fouadbajwa [at] gmail.com directly to include your email directly or the address to join yourself is: http://groups.google.com/group/ig4d Best - Fouad ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 12 00:57:25 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Wed, 12 May 2010 12:57:25 +0800 Subject: [governance] Status of IGF workshop proposals Message-ID: Of our three workshop proposals, it seems that two received a provisional green light at the open planning meeting yesterday. These were "Transnational (or trans-border) enforcement of a new information order – Issues of rights and democracy" (56), and "Revolutionary Internet Governance Ideas that can help change the Developing World" (54). These are to be organised by Parminder and Fouad respectively, both of whom have been asked to give a list of panelists. No mention was made at the meeting of "Successes and failures of Internet governance, 1995 - 2010, and looking forward to WSIS 2015" (55), which may mean that this won't be accepted as a workshop for Vilnius, unless it can be merged with another workshop. On the other hand, only five workshop slots under the "Critical Internet Resources" heading were singled out, and there are room for seven. We should know for sure by the end of the month. -- Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 CI is 50 Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010. Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer rights around the world. http://www.consumersinternational.org/50 Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeanette at wzb.eu Wed May 12 02:08:38 2010 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Wed, 12 May 2010 07:08:38 +0100 Subject: [governance] On the continuation of the IGF In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4BEA45E6.3010201@wzb.eu> Ian Peter wrote: > A couple of points of interest on a first read - > Anyway I am interested in what others think and also what the general > response was at the meeting in Geneva. We were told that it is not appropriate for the MAG to formally discuss the document. Informal discussions I havn't seen yet because most of us had no time to properly read the text. I asked somebody skilled in writing and reading such documents for clarification regarding para 18, which I found difficult to understand. The way I read it, the SG claims authority over any improvements of the MAG. This authority he then delegates to the secretariat or the IGF participants themselves. If this reading is correct, I would find it quite extraordinary. But let us not forget, the note is just a draft and the GA may ask for changes. jeanette > > Ian Peter > > > > > >> From: Jeanette Hofmann >> Reply-To: , Jeanette Hofmann >> Date: Tue, 11 May 2010 10:22:36 +0100 >> To: , Fouad Bajwa >> Subject: Re: [governance] On the continuation of the IGF >> >> Para 18 is about the future of the MAG. >> 26/27 are about enhanced cooperation. >> Interesting is the SG's take on "tangible outcomes". >> >> jeanette >> >> Fouad Bajwa wrote: >>> It's a very detailed document. The statistics still carry the >>> confusion on the participants association to the various >>> multistakeholder groups. Still going through the document. >>> >>> On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 10:30 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >>>> From the IGF website: >>>> >>>> The note of the Secretary-General on the Continuation of the Internet >>>> Governance Forum is now available as an advanced unedited copy, as approved >>>> by the Office of the Under-Secretary-General [pdf] >>>> >>>> >>>> http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/un-dpadm/unpan039074.p >>>> df >>>> >>>> jeanette >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>> >>>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>> >>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 edmanix at gmail.com Wed May 12 03:21:39 2010 From: edmanix at gmail.com (edmanix at gmail.com) Date: Wed, 12 May 2010 07:21:39 +0000 Subject: [governance] Status of IGF workshop proposals In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <539843176-1273648901-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-790516917-@bda249.bisx.produk.on.blackberry> Hay Sent from my BlackBerry wireless device from MTN -----Original Message----- From: Jeremy Malcolm Date: Wed, 12 May 2010 12:57:25 To: Subject: [governance] Status of IGF workshop proposals Of our three workshop proposals, it seems that two received a provisional green light at the open planning meeting yesterday. These were "Transnational (or trans-border) enforcement of a new information order – Issues of rights and democracy" (56), and "Revolutionary Internet Governance Ideas that can help change the Developing World" (54). These are to be organised by Parminder and Fouad respectively, both of whom have been asked to give a list of panelists. No mention was made at the meeting of "Successes and failures of Internet governance, 1995 - 2010, and looking forward to WSIS 2015" (55), which may mean that this won't be accepted as a workshop for Vilnius, unless it can be merged with another workshop. On the other hand, only five workshop slots under the "Critical Internet Resources" heading were singled out, and there are room for seven. We should know for sure by the end of the month. -- Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 CI is 50 Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010. Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer rights around the world. http://www.consumersinternational.org/50 Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Wed May 12 03:54:00 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Wed, 12 May 2010 15:54:00 +0800 Subject: [governance] On the continuation of the IGF In-Reply-To: <4BEA45E6.3010201@wzb.eu> References: <4BEA45E6.3010201@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <52D4A4DA-1223-418B-952F-BD7690EEEDE5@ciroap.org> On 12/05/2010, at 2:08 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > I asked somebody skilled in writing and reading such documents for clarification regarding para 18, which I found difficult to understand. > The way I read it, the SG claims authority over any improvements of the MAG. This authority he then delegates to the secretariat or the IGF participants themselves. If this reading is correct, I would find it quite extraordinary. But let us not forget, the note is just a draft and the GA may ask for changes. Although I doubt this authority exists yet (and even he seems to doubt it, saying that the improvement of the MAG "may be within the authority of the Secretary-General"), it can't be doubted that once the initial mandate is up, the General Assembly could grant the Secretary-General new power over the MAG's workings. So, that's where I see the recommendation in 29(c) coming from. More of my personal observations on the SG's statement are at: http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/recommendations-on-the-extension-of-the-igf -- Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 CI is 50 Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010. Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer rights around the world. http://www.consumersinternational.org/50 Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From katitza at eff.org Wed May 12 04:40:54 2010 From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Wed, 12 May 2010 10:40:54 +0200 Subject: [governance] Status of IGF workshop proposals In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4BEA6996.1010705@eff.org> Dear Jeremy, I do not think that this workshop wont be accepted at all. Many workshops has not been mentioned and does not mean anything, in my personal opinion. We might try to encourage organizers to merge, specially those workshops that deals with the same issue, and might make sense to merge. But if the workshop has a unique theme, I do not think it needs to be merged. Pls. let the list know if you have any problem with this workshop to sort it out. Katitza On 5/12/10 6:57 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > No mention was made at the meeting of "Successes and failures of > Internet governance, 1995 - 2010, and looking forward to WSIS 2015 > " > (55), which may mean that this won't be accepted as a workshop for > Vilnius, unless it can be merged with another workshop. On the other > hand, only five workshop slots under the "Critical Internet Resources" > heading were singled out, and there are room for seven. We should > know for sure by the end of the month. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From goldstein.roxana at gmail.com Wed May 12 15:11:31 2010 From: goldstein.roxana at gmail.com (Roxana Goldstein) Date: Wed, 12 May 2010 16:11:31 -0300 Subject: [governance] Status of IGF workshop proposals In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks Jeremy... :( Keep me informed if anything changes. Best wishes, Roxana 2010/5/12 Jeremy Malcolm > Of our three workshop proposals, it seems that two received a provisional > green light at the open planning meeting yesterday. These were "Transnational > (or trans-border) enforcement of a new information order – Issues of > rights and democracy" > (56), and "Revolutionary Internet Governance Ideas that can help change > the Developing World" > (54). These are to be organised by Parminder and Fouad respectively, both > of whom have been asked to give a list of panelists. > > No mention was made at the meeting of "Successes and failures of Internet > governance, 1995 - 2010, and looking forward to WSIS 2015" > (55), which may mean that this won't be accepted as a workshop for Vilnius, > unless it can be merged with another workshop. On the other hand, only five > workshop slots under the "Critical Internet Resources" heading were singled > out, and there are room for seven. We should know for sure by the end of > the month. > > -- > > *Jeremy Malcolm > Project Coordinator* > Consumers International > Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > *CI is 50* > Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in > 2010. > Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer > rights around the world. > *http://www.consumersinternational.org/50* > > Read our email confidentiality notice. > Don't print this email unless necessary. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From hongxueipr at gmail.com Sat May 15 05:29:14 2010 From: hongxueipr at gmail.com (Hong Xue) Date: Sat, 15 May 2010 17:29:14 +0800 Subject: [governance] Friday morning... (Arabic Domain Name) Some In-Reply-To: <4BE41D2C.4080105@gmail.com> References: <4BE3E9A3.5050700@gmail.com> <4BE418C6.7050807@cafonso.ca> <4BE41D2C.4080105@gmail.com> Message-ID: Thanks Ginger for bringing it up in the list. IDN development and deployment involve contributions of numerous unknown or unidentified persons or groups. Irrespective of whether the names of these contributors were recorded in the history, their works are always appreciated by the IDNs users. With respect to policy development, it is difficult to attribute anything to any specific person. Even for a small topic (e.g. http://forum.icann.org/lists/sync-idn-cctlds/), they could see how many people have made the comments to make the policy built up. -- Dr. Hong Xue Professor of Law Director of Institute for the Internet Policy & Law (IIPL) Beijing Normal University http://www.cdnua.org/ 19 Xin Jie Kou Wai Street Beijing 100875 China On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 10:01 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > 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 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Sun May 16 23:11:49 2010 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Mon, 17 May 2010 15:11:49 +1200 Subject: [governance] Friday morning... (Arabic Domain Name) Some In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20100508235359.0649cad0@jefsey.com> References: <4BE457FD.1080800@i-dns.net> <7.0.1.0.2.20100508235359.0649cad0@jefsey.com> Message-ID: JFC, Hi! I am interested in knowing more, opened the attachment and it was blank. Could you please resend the information? Sala On 5/10/10, JFC Morfin wrote: > > 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 > (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-iab-idn-encoding-01) > because (as Vint Cerf had initially pointed it out) they are outside > of its charter. The IETF Applications AD raised those points that > question the very basic principle of the IDNA architecture (as being > IDN "in applications" and not, for example, as a single > "IDNApplication"). As a result, that document was not considered by the > IESG. > > This means that the: > > 4.1. Current IDNA concepts do not consider how to prevent resolution > conflicts between different applications on the same machine. > > 4.2. Unpublished, as of yet, IDNA2008 permits developers to address > Asian, and supports Arabic, needs (most of them at least). Usage of > IDNA in other areas (IRIs, etc.) is not completed. > > 4.3. Unpublished, as of yet, IDNA2008 does not address some French, > Latin, and other languages' orthotypographic needs. This implies that > Project.FRA (and many other linguistic and multilinguistic projects) > need an enhanced operational solution. > > > 5. That solution is a DNS fully transparent, and 100% IDNA > conformant, ML-DNS that we (as Internet Users, members of the > Internet Users Contributing Group – > iucg at ietf.org) have committed ourselves to > propose and experiment. To that end, two additional works are to be > carried out. In order to avoid the confusion that the ccNSO started > to introduce concerning a possible future evolution of IDNA2008, and > to emphasize the whole IDNA architectural stable continuity, we named > them IDNA2010 and IDNA2012. > > 5.1. IDNA2010 (http://idna2010.org) is to > document the IDNA user's side corresponding to the IDNA2008 Internet side. > 5.2. IDNA2012 is to document the IDNA2008/IDNA2010 adminance (i.e. > how they are to be deployed, maintained, and evolve). > > > 6. We were fully open to Chair, AD, IESG, and other community > interests including ICANN, which did not want to get involved, while > Vint Cerf initially suggested that they might coordinate (we then > underlined they are only a namespace cooperator with Internet Users > and Industry DNS server operators): > > 6.1. We agreed with Vint Cerf to delay the IDNA2010 work in order to > permit IDNA2008 to be clearly approved by the IESG. > > 6.2. We documented with the IESG (which indicated having actively > considered it before approving the IDNA2008 documents as we requested > it) how Project.FRA, and the 22,500 linguistic zones of the Multilinc > multilinguistic test bed, will have to deploy, since they are kept > outside of the ICANN Fast Track experimentation, as every other > candidate (IDN)gTLD. > > 6.3. In this report to the IESG, I explained that I fully supported > the approval of IDNA2008 but that I would appeal against this > approval if it was not put into its whole context in order to give > stakeholders time to consider the practical implications of IDNA > together, before ICANN started its political technically closed Fast > Track, no-experimentation, project. ICANN eventually indicated that > they might reassess their position in the function of the appeal timing. > > > 7. The reasons as to why there are two initial debates to carry out > any decisions to be made is: > > 7.1. IDNA2010 sits outside of the IETF scope. Who is to document it: > a new IETF area? or the iucg at ietf.org mailing list (Internet users > contributing group)? or another SDO? The Web is documented by the > W3C, and IUI is of similar importance. > > 7.2. IDNA2012 will necessarily discuss the governance of the unique > Virtual Root Open Matrix (VROOM) in the context of a non-ICANN > centric, non-Internet centric, but user-centric management of the > namespaces with an entirely new and still unprotected economy of > (IDN)gTLDs and a different context of the net and user centricities. > > > 8. At this stage, the ISOC (IETF) side has not decided yet (through > IAB and a possible appeal to its Chair), but the IESG has already > > 8.1. acknowledged that I: > > 8.1.1. support the publication of the IDNA2008 set of documents, > 8.1.2. but wish that the documents had been published along with a > specific complementary warning to the Internet community [by or upon > the guidance of the IAB] , > 8.1.3. asked it would have noted the new architectural opportunities > that are available in IDNA2008, and warned of possible confusion > until these opportunities are properly governed, > 8.1.4. deemed necessary a disclaimer indicating that IDNA2008 should > not be deployed or tested until coordinated usage documentation is produced. > > 8.2. in what they found no possible remedial action since the IESG > does not direct the work of the IAB and > > 8.2.1. In rejecting this appeal, which does not suggest remedial > action by the IESG, they actually found the appropriate action, since > the next step of the appeal procedure permits me to obtain the IAB > comment that we think the community needs, whatever this comment may > be, in front of the very large amount of supporting material that I > provided in order to "include a detailed and specific description of > the facts of the dispute." (RFC 2026) > 8.2.2. However, at the same time, the IESG observes that the appeal > includes a plea for the Internet community to initiate some work. I, > therefore, suggested the submission of an Internet-Draft and then to > approach an appropriate Area Director to sponsor a BOF Session or > sponsor the publication of the document, along RFC 5434. > > 8.3. The RFC 2026 calendar had so far been strictly respected: > > 8.3.1. ICANN wished to deploy IDNs. > 8.3.2. IAB (RFC 4690) indicated that a revision of IDNA2003 was necessary. > 8.3.3. IESG created the WG/IDNABIS to that end by giving the > possibility to adapt its own Charter. > 8.3.4. The WG reached a consensus within the limits of a slightly > amended Charter. > 8.3.5. That consensus exemplifies a set of fundamental changes in the > Internet overall architecture that is outside the limits of the WG scope. > 8.3.6. IESG approved the consensus while knowing that an appeal would > be carried out concerning the impact of the architectural change that > mainly concerns the IAB and the global community. > 8.3.7. IDNA2008 publication is blocked by an appeal that IESG > considers to belong to IAB. > 8.3.8. The next step under way is my appeal to IAB. > 8.3.9. The IAB response should have permitted the community to know > whether IDNA2008 could be published and tested as it is (disregarding > my concerns), or if a preliminary architectural, technical, > governance, or adminance debate was necessary to preserve the > Internet stability, as we believe, basing our belief on the only > community test bed that was carried out along the ICANN-ICP-3 request > and standards (Project.dot-root), and via our personal daily > experience of navigating the Internet in using our very simple user > centric ML-DNS prototype. > > 8.4. There are two actions to break the respect of that calendar: > > 8.4.1. The IESG advice above, which was also advised by Applications > AD and the WG/IDNABIS Chair, was to publish a Draft. The reason why > we did not want to publish a Draft is that we might poorly introduce > and, therefore, delay or dangerously confuse what is simply a new > reading of the existing architecture. This is why we consider it more > secure to first obtain the IAB opinion and possible guidance. > 8.4.2. The ICANN unilateral decision, in launching Fast Track before > any concerted discussion with the Internet Users' side could be > achieved after such an IAB technical guidance, has forced their de > facto allies in the Internet dominant "ISOCANN enhanced cooperation" > to take sides for what seems to amount to purely political and > commercial reasons or possible lack of technical consideration, in > favor of a technically unstable choice. > > > 9. Because appeals are to be individual, the pressure that is being > imposed on me in this way by ICANN is in violation of the ISOC/IETF > appeal process as well as of the community trust, since Fast Track > cannot refer to any newly published RFC to be tested. > > Therefore, its consequences only seem to undercut: > > 9.1. a grass-root move based upon a community based open, sound, > secure architecture; and the competitive progress of the namespace > that ICANN is supposed to foster. > > 9.2. a technical solution that will permit the quick, transparent, > low cost, easy to understand deployment of hundreds of (IDN)gTLD > candidates in a new phase of the Internet architecture and growth > (that will also most probably be supported/sponsored by governments). > > > 10. Delaying any further the debate on the ML-DNS, IUI, and their > implications on the management of the namespace structure and economy > would only dramatically increase the risks of confusion. > > 10.1. The only way for us to respond now is to proceed in considering > the ISOCANN enhanced cooperation as the architectural "competitive > option" that they actually chose to be in: > > 10.1. initiating a test project (Fats Track) which can test nothing new. > 10.2. reserving it only to IDNccTLD, delaying (IDNgTLD) for years > without any technical reason. > 10.3. barring within IDNccTLDs the most technically demanding ones, > i.e. the LATINcc/gTLDs. > > 10.2. This means for us to focus on the Internet Users' linguistic, > innovative, and semantic much more dynamic Internet Users option. > > 10.2.1. The harm that a noncontextually and uncooperatively prepared > innovation may create has delayed me for years. > 10.2.2. However, we now see that it will most probably not exceed > what would result from a continuation of the sole ISOCANN governance > and adminance of the namespace, under an ICANN inadequate dominance > and an impossible common understanding at this stage without a real > clarification by the IAB contradiction, the WG/IDNABIS could not > provide when the AD demanded it because it is out of the scope of its > charter. > > > 11. "Responsible experimentation is essential to the vitality of the > Internet. Nor does it preclude the ultimate introduction of new > architectures that may ultimately obviate the need for a unique, > authoritative root. But the translation of experiments into > production and the introduction of new architectures require > community-based approaches, and are not compatible with individual > efforts to gain proprietary advantage."(ICANN – ICP-3) > > As @large Internet Users, we made all what we could to help a > community cooperation, debate and responsible approach. > > 11.1. france at large, the eldest ALS, was denied the right to join ALAC, > > 11.2. we were barred from participating in IDNA related ICANN working > groups, > > 11.3. we are now bypassed in our legitimate respect of the ISOC/IETF > appeal procedures. > > > 12. The only responses to such an ICANN unilateral attitude are: > > 12.1. to give a last chance to a practical debate and show where the > responsibility of the coming confusion lies in not interrupting the > ISOC/IETF appeal process, so that the Internet Governance ISOCANN > Enhanced Cooperation cannot claim that it did not know. > > 12.2. to engage in development and experimentation, in as much as > ICANN permits it to the community, along the respect of the > recommendations of ICANN's ICP-3 document, section "5. Experimentation". > > 12.3. to try to reduce the confusion that experimental or commercial > alternatives might introduce, in not documenting our architectural > options before they have been fully experimented; then documenting > them as public domain through the bodies that could emerge to assume > their open adminance and IETF Drafts. > > jfc > -- Salanieta Tudrau Tamanikaiwaimaro P.O.Box 17862 Suva Fiji Islands Cell: +679 9982851 Alternate Email: s.tamanikaiwaimaro at tfl.com.fj "Wisdom is far better than riches." ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Wed May 19 06:07:39 2010 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 03:07:39 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Friday morning... (Arabic Domain Name) Some In-Reply-To: References: <4BE3E9A3.5050700@gmail.com> <4BE418C6.7050807@cafonso.ca> <4BE41D2C.4080105@gmail.com> Message-ID: <998682.95972.qm@web33003.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Respected Dr. Hong Xue, I am very much glad to read shared information from Ginger Paque and your feedback. I would like to include some references for on the same context (IDN's Development & Contributions) for further interest:  References: 1.         Scene Behind the Screen of IDN ccTLDs an article on CircleID.com 2.         IDN ccTLD Fast Track Workshop- Virtual Meeting Room: Part 1Locate 50:22                      My discussion with Ms Tina Dam, ICANN’s Director, IDN ccTLD Program. 3.         IDN ccTLD Fast Track Program – Launched - iashah’s Blog 4.         Introduction of IDN ccTLDs - Important Suggestions for Policy preparation of FastTrack Thanking you, Regards Imran Ahmed Shah Advisor to Urdu Internet Council   Initiator & Executive Member Urdu Internet Society   Leading Groups: WebSphere User Group of Pakistan Pakistan Tivoli User Group Pakistan Rational User Group   Contact No: +92-300-4130617 ________________________________ From: Hong Xue To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Sent: Sat, 15 May, 2010 14:29:14 Subject: Re: [governance] Friday morning... (Arabic Domain Name) Some Thanks Ginger for bringing it up in the list. IDN development and deployment involve contributions of numerous unknown or unidentified persons or groups. Irrespective of whether the names of these contributors were recorded in the history, their works are always appreciated by the IDNs users. With respect to policy development, it is difficult to attribute anything to any specific person. Even for a small topic (e.g. http://forum.icann.org/lists/sync-idn-cctlds/), they could see how many people have made the comments to make the policy built up. -- Dr. Hong Xue Professor of Law Director of Institute for the Internet Policy & Law (IIPL) Beijing Normal University http://www.cdnua.org/ 19 Xin Jie Kou Wai Street Beijing 100875 China On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 10:01 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > 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 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Wed May 19 07:57:05 2010 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 16:57:05 +0500 Subject: [governance] Pakistan to ban shutdown Facebook.com for 24hrs as a protest tonight at 12am! Message-ID: A Pakistani Court in Lahore has ordered ban on Facebook.com and the nation's Internet users have mixed feelings with many appalled resorting to numerous online debates and protests churning out a burst on the Internet. Some Internet service providers have ended up blocking the website completely. * Note: Please read below the news and then the following comments from my investigation into the Ban on the current situation of the Ban. CURRENT MEDIA REPORTS: According to Al-jazeera: http://english.aljazeera.net/news/2010/05/201051994155758717.html A Pakistani court has issued a ban on the social networking site Facebook after a user-generated contest page encourged members to post caricatures of Prophet Mohammed. The Lahore High Court on Wednesday instructed the Pakistani Telecommunications Authority (PTA) to ban the site after the Islamic Lawyers Movement complained that a page called “Draw Mohammed Day” is blasphemous. Sajjad Chaudhry, the presiding judge, instructed officials with the ministry of telecommunications to submit a written reply to the ban by May 31 when courts will open a detailed hearing on the case. A ban is to be enforced in the meantime. "We have already blocked the URL link and issued instruction to internet service providers,” Khurram Mehran, a spokesperson for the PTA, said. About 20 people carried banners outside of courthouse in Lahore, condemning Facebook and praising Prophet Mohammed. Protest: Lawyers also petitioned the Pakistani government to register a strong protest with Facebook’s owners. "The competition has hurt the sentiments of the Muslims," lawyer Chaudhry Zulfikar Ali said. Facebook users in Pakistan, however, told AFP they could still access the site after the ban was imposed on Wednesday. Officials with the Pakistani government told the court they had already blocked Facebook pages relating to the competition, but the lawyers group argued that no part of a site can be banned unless the entire site is blocked. Pakistan has 45 million Facebook users, according to lawyers. The Facebook page for "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day" had just over 40,000 supporters while the opposing "Against Everybody Draw Mohammed Day" had more than 53,000. According to the National Daily Times of Pakistan Reports: http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2010\05\19\story_19-5-2010_pg13_6 LHC issues notice to PTA on plea to ban Facebook LAHORE: Justice Ijaz Ahmad Chaudhry of the Lahore High Court on Tuesday issued notice to the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority secretary to reply until Wednesday (today), on a petition seeking a ban on Facebook, which is holding a competition of caricatures of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). Islamic Lawyers Movement filed the petition through Chaudhry Zulfiqar advocate, who stated that a competition was announced on Facebook on April 20 which would continue until May 20, asking all the members of the website to create their caricatures to participate in the competition. Zulfiqar said under the law no practice against Islam could be allowed in the country. He told the court that the website, having various features against the injunctions of Islam, is banned in various countries. Zulfiqar submitted that there were 45 million users of Facebook in Pakistan, adding that the PTA was responsible for its spread in Pakistan. He said the PTA has already blocked various websites in the country but was reluctant to ban Facebook. He said students and various segments of the society have already started protests in the country, which could be harmful for the public property. He requested the court to issue directions to PTA to put an immediate ban on the use of Facebook in the Pakistan. staff report According to Daily DAWN Newspaper Staff Reporter on Wednesday, 19 May, 2010: http://wwwLAHORE, May 18: The Lahore High Court on Tuesday issued notice to Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA) on a petition seeking ban on Facebook, an international social networking website, in the country for holding a blasphemous competition of drawing caricatures of Holy Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). Justice Ijaz Ahmed Chaudhry issued notice for Wednesday (today) on the petition filed by Ch Zulfikar advocate of Islamic Lawyers Forum. The petitioner-lawyer submitted that on the Facebook a competition was announced on April 20 last, which would continue till May 20. He said in the competition the members of the website were invited to draw caricatures of the Holy Prophet. He said Article 2-A of the Constitution restricted any practice against the religion in the country. He said the website having various features against the injunctions of Islam had already been banned in various Islamic countries. He pointed out that China, United Arab Emirates, Iran and Saudi Arabia had already imposed a ban on the website. The lawyer said the PTA had already blocked various blasphemous and contemptuous websites in the country but was reluctant to ban Facebook. He sought directions for PTA to put an immediate ban on the use of Facebook in Pakistan. MIXED REACTION OF PAKISTAN INTERNET STAKEHOLDERS: Mixed reactions are being generated from all corners of the country by Internet users and stakeholders. To name a few groups to read and follow: - ProPakistani (292 Comments): http://propakistani.pk/2010/05/18/breaking-facebook-is-going-to-get-banned-in-pakistan/ - ProPakistani Draw Day: Why Facebook is Culprit and How Best to React? http://propakistani.pk/2010/05/19/blasphemy-why-facebook-is-culprit-and-how-best-to-react/ - Telecom Grid Pakistan: http://groups.google.com/group/telecom-grid-pakistan - Society Against Internet Censorship in Pakistan: http://groups.google.com/group/agabbip - Blogger News Network: http://www.bloggernews.net/124575 CURRENT SITUATION: I have been probing into the matter and from what I have gathered until now that the Secretary IT and PTA have instructed the PIE to shut down Facebook.com for 24 hours as a national protest from Pakistan. Facebook.com will be inaccessible starting tonight 12am for 24 hours. Facebook.com remains to be the 3rd most accessed website from Pakistan according to Alexa URL: http://www.alexa.com/topsites/countries/PK and the total number of users of Facebook.com from Pakistan stand at: 2,359,620 which is 0.51% of Facebook.com's percentage of Global Audience according to Check Facebook URL: http://www.checkfacebook.com. With a major level of communications by Pakistani's happening on Facebook, it cannot be shut down permanently and I am sure the govt is well aware of those implications that will be triggered as a result of it. BBC also reports a temporary Facebook shut down URL: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8691406.stm. Though this whole matter may turn into an international violation of freedom of expression etc, the authorities may feel that this sudden jolt might show their protest to be substantial which again stands questionable by the majority of Facebook users from Pakistan. Let's see what happens and what is the impact of this ban on the Pakistani Facebook.com users. ------ Monitoring the Facebook.com Pakistan Issue Closely: Fouad Bajwa Internet Governance Advisor ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From valeriab at apc.org Wed May 19 11:41:20 2010 From: valeriab at apc.org (Valeria Betancourt) Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 10:41:20 -0500 Subject: [governance] Third Regional Latin American Preparatory Meeting for IGF Message-ID: Please, see English below Por favor, veja Português abaixo ****** TERCERA REUNIÓN REGIONAL PREPARATORIA DE AMÉRICA LATINA Y EL CARIBE PARA EL FORO DE GOBERNANZA DE INTERNET La Asociación para el Progreso de las Comunicaciones (APC), el Instituto NUPEF y el Registro de Direcciones de Internet para América Latina y el Caribe (LACNIC), anuncian la realización de la tercera Reunión Regional Preparatoria para el Foro de Gobernanza de Internet (FGI), 3, 4 y 5 de agosto de 2010 en la ciudad de Quito, Ecuador. El evento se realizará en el Hotel Quito. Al igual que en las ediciones anteriores, el motivo de la reunión es brindar un espacio para el diálogo político multisectorial para gobiernos, sector privado, comunidad técnica, academia y organizaciones de la sociedad civil. La región ha avanzado en la comprensión de los desafíos actuales de la gobernanza de Internet y la profundización del debate coadyuvará a profundizar en la identificación de las prioridades regionales y a ampliar la participación de la región en el Foro de Gobernanza (FGI) de Internet de 2010, a efectuarse en septiembre en Lituania. Adicionalmente, el encuentro se propone, como en las anteriores oportunidades, informar a los actores de la región sobre los temas y tendencias del debate y discusión del FGI global. El proceso de regionalización de la discusión en torno a la agenda planteada por el FGI, ha venido tomando forma desde 2008, cuando LACNIC, APC y NUPEF convocaron a la primera reunión preparatoria de América Latina y el Caribe en Montevideo, Uruguay. La segunda reunión preparatoria se llevó a cabo en Río de Janeiro, Brasil. La regionalización adquiere mayor relevancia cuando el FGI ha incorporado, desde el año pasado, un espacio en la agenda oficial en el que se da cuenta de los procesos regionales y nacionales, sus enfoques, desafíos y prioridades. APC, LACNIC y NUPEF alientan a participar a la comunidad toda por lo que esperan contar con la presencia del mayor número de actores de la región. En ese sentido, oportunamente se convocará a postularse para el programa de becas de participación conformado por los aportes de organizadores y patrocinantes. Información sobre el Foro de Gobernanza de Internet: http://www.intgovforum.org/ Información y resultados de la Reunión Preparatoria del FGI 2009: http://www.nupef.org.br/igf/ APC – NUPEF - LACNIC ------------------------------------------------------- THIRD REGIONAL LATIN AMERICAN AND THE CARIBBEAN PREPARATORY MEETING FOR THE INTERNET GOVERNANCE FORUM (IGF) The Association for the Progress of Communications (APC), the NUPEF Institute, and the Regional Internet Address Registry for Latin America and the Caribbean (LACNIC) are pleased to announce the Third Regional Preparatory Meeting for the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) which will take place on 3-5 August 2010 in the city of Quito, Ecuador. The event will be held at the Hotel Quito. As in previous editions, the purpose of the meeting is to provide a space for multistakeholder political dialogue between governments, the private sector, the technical community, academia, and civil society organizations. The region has made progress in understanding the challenges currently posed by Internet governance; further debate will contribute to identify regional priorities and broaden the region's participation at the 2010 Internet Governance Forum (IGF), which will meet in Lithuania in September. Likewise, as in previous editions, one of the meeting's goals is to inform the region's stakeholders on the issues and trends observed in the debates and discussions of the global IGF. The process of regionalizing the discussion around the agenda established by the IGF has been taking shape since 2008, when LACNIC, APC and NUPEF summoned the first preparatory meeting for Latin America and the Caribbean in Montevideo, Uruguay. The second preparatory meeting was held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. This regionalization has become even more relevant because last year the IGF included in its official agenda a space for informing on regional and national processes, their points of view, challenges, and priorities. APC, LACNIC and NUPEF encourage the participation of the entire community, and hope that the largest possible number of the region's stakeholders will be present. In this sense, in due time we will announce the sponsorship program that the meeting's organizers and sponsors will provide and publish the corresponding call for applications. Information on the Internet Governance Forum: http://www.intgovforum.org/ Information and results of the 2009 IGF Preparatory Meeting: http://www.nupef.org.br/igf/ APC – NUPEF - LACNIC ------------------------------------------------------- TERCEIRA REUNIÃO REGIONAL PREPARATÓRIA PARA O FÓRUM DE GOVERNANÇA DA INTERNET A Associação para o Progresso das Comunicações (APC), o Instituto NUPEF e o Registro de Endereços da Internet para a América Latina e o Caribe (LACNIC), anunciam a realização da terceira Reunião Regional Preparatória para o Fórum de Governança da Internet (FGI), 3, 4 y 5 de agosto de 2010 na cidade de Quito, Equador. O evento será realizado no Hotel Quito. Da mesma forma que nas edições anteriores, o motivo da reunião é oferecer um espaço para o diálogo político multissetorial para governos, setor privado, comunidade técnica, acadêmica e organizações da sociedade civil. A região tem avançado na compreensão dos desafios atuais da governança da Internet e o aprofundamento do debate vai ajudar na identificação das prioridades regionais e a ampliar a participação da região no Fórum de Governança da Internet (FGI) de 2010, a ser realizado em setembro na Lituânia. Adicionalmente, como já tem acontecido nos outros, este encontro se propõe informar aos atores da região sobre os assuntos e tendências do debate e discussão do FGI global. O processo de regionalização da discussão em torno à agenda apresentada pelo FGI, tem começado em 2008, quando o LACNIC, APC e NUPEF convocaram à primeira reunião preparatória da América Latina e o Caribe em Montevidéu, Uruguai. A segunda reunião preparatória foi realizada no Rio, Brasil. A regionalização adquire maior relevância quando no ano passado o FGI incorporou um espaço na agenda oficial para informar acerca dos processos regionais e nacionais, seus enfoques, desafios e prioridades. APC, LACNIC e NUPEF encorajam a comunidade toda a participar, pelo que esperam contar com a presença de um grande número de atores da região. Nesse sentido, serão convocados oportunamente para se postular ao programa de bolsas de participação conformado pelos aportes de organizadores e patrocinadores. Informação sobre o Fórum de Governança da Internet: http://www.intgovforum.org/ Informação e resultados da Reunião Preparatória do FGI 2009: http://www.nupef.org.br/igf/ APC – NUPEF - LACNIC ------------- Valeria Betancourt Coordinadora / Coordinator Programa de Políticas de TIC en América Latina / Latin American ICT Policy Programme http://lac.derechos.apc.org Asociación para el Progreso de las Comunicaciones / Association for Progressive Communications, APC http://www.apc.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From valeriab at apc.org Wed May 19 12:56:42 2010 From: valeriab at apc.org (Valeria Betancourt) Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 11:56:42 -0500 Subject: [governance] Third Regional Latin American Preparatory Meeting In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Announcement including the event´s website. Please use this version. Thanks. ------------------- Please, see English below Por favor, veja Português abaixo ****** TERCERA REUNIÓN REGIONAL PREPARATORIA DE AMÉRICA LATINA Y EL CARIBE PARA EL FORO DE GOBERNANZA DE INTERNET La Asociación para el Progreso de las Comunicaciones (APC), el Instituto NUPEF y el Registro de Direcciones de Internet para América Latina y el Caribe (LACNIC), anuncian la realización de la tercera Reunión Regional Preparatoria para el Foro de Gobernanza de Internet (FGI), 3, 4 y 5 de agosto de 2010 en la ciudad de Quito, Ecuador. El evento se realizará en el Hotel Quito. Al igual que en las ediciones anteriores, el motivo de la reunión es brindar un espacio para el diálogo político multisectorial para gobiernos, sector privado, comunidad técnica, academia y organizaciones de la sociedad civil. La región ha avanzado en la comprensión de los desafíos actuales de la gobernanza de Internet y la profundización del debate coadyuvará a profundizar en la identificación de las prioridades regionales y a ampliar la participación de la región en el Foro de Gobernanza (FGI) de Internet de 2010, a efectuarse en septiembre en Lituania. Adicionalmente, el encuentro se propone, como en las anteriores oportunidades, informar a los actores de la región sobre los temas y tendencias del debate y discusión del FGI global. El proceso de regionalización de la discusión en torno a la agenda planteada por el FGI, ha venido tomando forma desde 2008, cuando LACNIC, APC y NUPEF convocaron a la primera reunión preparatoria de América Latina y el Caribe en Montevideo, Uruguay. La segunda reunión preparatoria se llevó a cabo en Río de Janeiro, Brasil. La regionalización adquiere mayor relevancia cuando el FGI ha incorporado, desde el año pasado, un espacio en la agenda oficial en el que se da cuenta de los procesos regionales y nacionales, sus enfoques, desafíos y prioridades. APC, LACNIC y NUPEF alientan a participar a la comunidad toda por lo que esperan contar con la presencia del mayor número de actores de la región. En ese sentido, oportunamente se convocará a postularse para el programa de becas de participación conformado por los aportes de organizadores y patrocinantes. Información detallada sobre la agenda y la organización de este evento está disponible en el sitio: http://lacnic.net/sp/eventos/fgi3/sp/index.html Información sobre el Foro de Gobernanza de Internet: http://www.intgovforum.org/ Información y resultados de la Reunión Preparatoria del FGI 2009: http://www.nupef.org.br/igf/ APC – NUPEF - LACNIC ------------------------------------------------------- THIRD REGIONAL LATIN AMERICAN AND THE CARIBBEAN PREPARATORY MEETING FOR THE INTERNET GOVERNANCE FORUM (IGF) The Association for the Progress of Communications (APC), the NUPEF Institute, and the Regional Internet Address Registry for Latin America and the Caribbean (LACNIC) are pleased to announce the Third Regional Preparatory Meeting for the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) which will take place on 3-5 August 2010 in the city of Quito, Ecuador. The event will be held at the Hotel Quito. As in previous editions, the purpose of the meeting is to provide a space for multistakeholder political dialogue between governments, the private sector, the technical community, academia, and civil society organizations. The region has made progress in understanding the challenges currently posed by Internet governance; further debate will contribute to identify regional priorities and broaden the region's participation at the 2010 Internet Governance Forum (IGF), which will meet in Lithuania in September. Likewise, as in previous editions, one of the meeting's goals is to inform the region's stakeholders on the issues and trends observed in the debates and discussions of the global IGF. The process of regionalizing the discussion around the agenda established by the IGF has been taking shape since 2008, when LACNIC, APC and NUPEF summoned the first preparatory meeting for Latin America and the Caribbean in Montevideo, Uruguay. The second preparatory meeting was held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. This regionalization has become even more relevant because last year the IGF included in its official agenda a space for informing on regional and national processes, their points of view, challenges, and priorities. APC, LACNIC and NUPEF encourage the participation of the entire community, and hope that the largest possible number of the region's stakeholders will be present. In this sense, in due time we will announce the sponsorship program that the meeting's organizers and sponsors will provide and publish the corresponding call for applications. Information about the agenda and other aspects of the meeting are available at: http://lacnic.net/sp/eventos/fgi3/sp/index.html Information on the Internet Governance Forum: http://www.intgovforum.org/ Information and results of the 2009 IGF Preparatory Meeting: http://www.nupef.org.br/igf/ APC – NUPEF - LACNIC ------------------------------------------------------- TERCEIRA REUNIÃO REGIONAL PREPARATÓRIA PARA O FÓRUM DE GOVERNANÇA DA INTERNET A Associação para o Progresso das Comunicações (APC), o Instituto NUPEF e o Registro de Endereços da Internet para a América Latina e o Caribe (LACNIC), anunciam a realização da terceira Reunião Regional Preparatória para o Fórum de Governança da Internet (FGI), 3, 4 y 5 de agosto de 2010 na cidade de Quito, Equador. O evento será realizado no Hotel Quito. Da mesma forma que nas edições anteriores, o motivo da reunião é oferecer um espaço para o diálogo político multissetorial para governos, setor privado, comunidade técnica, acadêmica e organizações da sociedade civil. A região tem avançado na compreensão dos desafios atuais da governança da Internet e o aprofundamento do debate vai ajudar na identificação das prioridades regionais e a ampliar a participação da região no Fórum de Governança da Internet (FGI) de 2010, a ser realizado em setembro na Lituânia. Adicionalmente, como já tem acontecido nos outros, este encontro se propõe informar aos atores da região sobre os assuntos e tendências do debate e discussão do FGI global. O processo de regionalização da discussão em torno à agenda apresentada pelo FGI, tem começado em 2008, quando o LACNIC, APC e NUPEF convocaram à primeira reunião preparatória da América Latina e o Caribe em Montevidéu, Uruguai. A segunda reunião preparatória foi realizada no Rio, Brasil. A regionalização adquire maior relevância quando no ano passado o FGI incorporou um espaço na agenda oficial para informar acerca dos processos regionais e nacionais, seus enfoques, desafios e prioridades. APC, LACNIC e NUPEF encorajam a comunidade toda a participar, pelo que esperam contar com a presença de um grande número de atores da região. Nesse sentido, serão convocados oportunamente para se postular ao programa de bolsas de participação conformado pelos aportes de organizadores e patrocinadores. Informação sobre terceira Reunião Regional Preparatória para o Fórum de Governança da Internet http://lacnic.net/sp/eventos/fgi3/sp/index.html Informação sobre o Fórum de Governança da Internet: http://www.intgovforum.org/ Informação e resultados da Reunião Preparatória do FGI 2009: http://www.nupef.org.br/igf/ APC – NUPEF - LACNIC -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Wed May 19 13:23:13 2010 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 19:23:13 +0200 Subject: [governance] FYI EU Digital Agenda References: <4BE3E9A3.5050700@gmail.com> <4BE418C6.7050807@cafonso.ca> <4BE41D2C.4080105@gmail.com> <998682.95972.qm@web33003.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A06C2D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> FYI http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/digital-agenda/documents/digital-agenda-communication-en.pdf Wolfgang ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From katitza at eff.org Wed May 19 14:14:19 2010 From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 11:14:19 -0700 Subject: [governance] Attorney General Tom Corbett Subpoenaes Twitter To Identify Anonymous Critics In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4BF42A7B.4090001@eff.org> Attorney General Tom Corbett Subpoenaes Twitter To Identify Anonymous Critics http://techcrunch.com/2010/05/19/tom-corbett-twitter/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ian at cymru.com Wed May 19 15:36:03 2010 From: ian at cymru.com (Ian Cook) Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 20:36:03 +0100 Subject: [governance] LinkedIn. Group: Information Security for Africa In-Reply-To: References: <4BF3B0C9.2040409@apc.org> <46563326FAEDB04F92FED3DB099C98BB339718B72A@esaroms07.ESARO.IDRC.ORG> Message-ID: <4BF43DA3.1090302@cymru.com> All Aireni Omerri has started a group on LinkedIn for all those interested in Information Security in Africa http://uk.linkedin.com/pub/aireni-omerri/0/39a/73b http://www.linkedin.com/groups?home=&gid=2988428&trk=anet_ug_hm If you are interested then either join the group or contact Aireni at: aireni at gmail.com Thanks Ian -- Ian C Cook Security Evangelist Team Cymru 'To communicate simply you must understand profoundly' Work +1 312 924 5441 Mobile +44 (0) 797 773 1246 Home Office +44 (0) 208 291 0112 Skype ID togglergi PGP Fingerprint: D4CE 9F0D 77E7 3A66 83A6 3133 CBF4 E590 _ //` `\ _,-"\% // /``\`\ ~^~ >__^ |% // / } `\`\ www.team-cymru.org/News/secnews.rss ) )%// / } } }`\`\ http://twitter.com/teamcymru / (%/`/.\_/\_/\_/\`/ www.linkedin.com/in/ianccook ( ` `-._` \ , ( \ _`-.__.- %> /_`\ \ `\ \." `-..- ` ``` /_/`"-=-``/_/ ``` ``` Subscribe to my Security News mailing list at: https://cymru.com/mailman/listinfo/ians_dragon_newsbytes ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From vanda at uol.com.br Wed May 19 15:57:06 2010 From: vanda at uol.com.br (Vanda UOL) Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 16:57:06 -0300 Subject: [governance] FYI EU Digital Agenda In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A06C2D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <4BE3E9A3.5050700@gmail.com> <4BE418C6.7050807@cafonso.ca> <4BE41D2C.4080105@gmail.com> <998682.95972.qm@web33003.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A06C2D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <005201caf78d$7933d590$6b9b80b0$@com.br> Interesting Wolfgang! I just finished a project for a MERCOSUR-EU focused on to improve the e-commerce among countries from Mercosur + those with the ones from Europe. Similar approach. Unhappily the 160 pages report is in Portuguese. We also made an eBook in order to point out the best practices to encourage SMEs to enter into this market. Thanks for sharing this. Kisses VANDA -----Original Message----- From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2010 2:23 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] FYI EU Digital Agenda FYI http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/digital-agenda/documents/digital-age nda-communication-en.pdf Wolfgang ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Thu May 20 02:47:41 2010 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 11:47:41 +0500 Subject: [governance] Update on Facebook ban in Pakistan Message-ID: Update on the Facebook.com ban in Pakistan: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Awab Alvi Date: Thu, May 20, 2010 at 2:03 AM Subject: [AGABBIP] PRESS CONFERENCE: Protest Against Nationwide Government Ban of Facebook / KPC on 20th May at 5:00pm To: PeoplesResistance , CRDP Mailing List , CMKP Mailing List , Proud Pakistani Mailing List , AGABBIP , Pakistan ICT Policy group , TGP Group Please Join and spread the word Karachi, 20th May 2010 For Immediate Release Date: 20th May 2010 Time: 5:00 pm Venue: Karachi Press Club Defenders of Internet Freedom Protest Against Nationwide Government Ban of Facebook On Wednesday 19th May 2010, the Lahore High Court ordered the banning of Facebook across Pakistan. Facebook is the world's most popular social media network and is used by over 400 million globally. In Pakistan, over 2 million people use Facebook to stay in touch with their friends and family, conduct business, manage events, and share photos, news, and other content. A few days ago, a page called "Everybody Draw Muhammad Day" was created on Facebook asking users to submit drawings of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) on 20th May 2010. This page, interpreted as blasphemous, has triggered a nationwide ban on the entire Facebook domain. While we recognize that sites on the Internet are used to spew hatred and incite violence, we steadfastly believe that governments have no right to control access to information. We believe that every citizen has an inalienable right to freely access information and by censoring Facebook, the Government of Pakistan has taken away that right. This action will have a very negative impact on Pakistan, especially considering that countless small businesses, nonprofit organizations, restaurants, art galleries, magazines, and media outlets use Facebook to conduct day-to-day business and share information with their stakeholders. In 2006, the Supreme Court of Pakistan banned the entire blogspot.com domain for over 18 months over a similar incident where only one blog carried blasphemous cartoons. Thousands of Pakistani bloggers were deprived of the freedom to express themselves and interact with others. The Pakistan Telecommunication Authority now has the ability to block specific pages on the Internet and could have banned just the single blasphemous page. As members of civil society and professionals who depend on social media networks for our daily communications, we demand the immediate restoration of Facebook and an end to Internet censorship by the Government of Pakistan. We would like to invite you to a press conference to discuss the worrying trend of Internet censorship and the resulting impact on civil liberties and the free and unfettered exchange of ideas and information. Date: 20th May 2010 Time: 5:00 pm Venue: Karachi Press Club http://bit.ly/bzuEzg Awab Alvi Blog: http://teeth.com.pk/blog Twitter: http://twitter.com/DrAwab -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Society Against Internet Censorship in Pakistan" group. To post to this group, send email to agabbip at googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to agabbip+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/agabbip?hl=en. -- 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 ias_pk at yahoo.com Thu May 20 03:05:07 2010 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 00:05:07 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Pakistan to ban shutdown Facebook.com for 24hrs as a protest tonight at 12am! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <599306.82064.qm@web33002.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Dear Fouad, How are you? Thank you for detail about the LHC orders and ISPs action to block access to Facebook.com.   I would like to add some important information in the same context, that all the Mobile Network Operators of BlackBerry Services in Pakistan were also trying to block access to the FaceBook.com but they could not. Finally they have stopped BlackBerry Internet Services (GPRS) along with BlackBerry Services for devices.   Now Blackberry services are totally stopped in Pakistan only voice (GSM) services are working. They have not decided yet that how long their Blackberry Services will remain close. This is because they do not have mechanism to block the access to all the servers of Facebook.com and are afraid off with the previous bad experience of youtube.com which totally diverted internet route path to alternate AS. {Facebook Servers are on IP 69.63.189.11, 16 & 69.63.181.11, 12}.   Thanks   Imran Ahmed Shah ________________________________ From: Fouad Bajwa To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Sent: Wed, 19 May, 2010 16:57:05 Subject: [governance] Pakistan to ban shutdown Facebook.com for 24hrs as a protest tonight at 12am! A Pakistani Court in Lahore has ordered ban on Facebook.com and the nation's Internet users have mixed feelings with many appalled resorting to numerous online debates and protests churning out a burst on the Internet. Some Internet service providers have ended up blocking the website completely. * Note: Please read below the news and then the following comments from my investigation into the Ban on the current situation of the Ban. CURRENT MEDIA REPORTS: According to Al-jazeera: http://english.aljazeera.net/news/2010/05/201051994155758717.html A Pakistani court has issued a ban on the social networking site Facebook after a user-generated contest page encourged members to post caricatures of Prophet Mohammed. The Lahore High Court on Wednesday instructed the Pakistani Telecommunications Authority (PTA) to ban the site after the Islamic Lawyers Movement complained that a page called “Draw Mohammed Day” is blasphemous. Sajjad Chaudhry, the presiding judge, instructed officials with the ministry of telecommunications to submit a written reply to the ban by May 31 when courts will open a detailed hearing on the case. A ban is to be enforced in the meantime. "We have already blocked the URL link and issued instruction to internet service providers,” Khurram Mehran, a spokesperson for the PTA, said. About 20 people carried banners outside of courthouse in Lahore, condemning Facebook and praising Prophet Mohammed. Protest: Lawyers also petitioned the Pakistani government to register a strong protest with Facebook’s owners. "The competition has hurt the sentiments of the Muslims," lawyer Chaudhry Zulfikar Ali said. Facebook users in Pakistan, however, told AFP they could still access the site after the ban was imposed on Wednesday. Officials with the Pakistani government told the court they had already blocked Facebook pages relating to the competition, but the lawyers group argued that no part of a site can be banned unless the entire site is blocked. Pakistan has 45 million Facebook users, according to lawyers. The Facebook page for "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day" had just over 40,000 supporters while the opposing "Against Everybody Draw Mohammed Day" had more than 53,000. According to the National Daily Times of Pakistan Reports: http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2010\05\19\story_19-5-2010_pg13_6 LHC issues notice to PTA on plea to ban Facebook LAHORE: Justice Ijaz Ahmad Chaudhry of the Lahore High Court on Tuesday issued notice to the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority secretary to reply until Wednesday (today), on a petition seeking a ban on Facebook, which is holding a competition of caricatures of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). Islamic Lawyers Movement filed the petition through Chaudhry Zulfiqar advocate, who stated that a competition was announced on Facebook on April 20 which would continue until May 20, asking all the members of the website to create their caricatures to participate in the competition. Zulfiqar said under the law no practice against Islam could be allowed in the country. He told the court that the website, having various features against the injunctions of Islam, is banned in various countries. Zulfiqar submitted that there were 45 million users of Facebook in Pakistan, adding that the PTA was responsible for its spread in Pakistan. He said the PTA has already blocked various websites in the country but was reluctant to ban Facebook. He said students and various segments of the society have already started protests in the country, which could be harmful for the public property. He requested the court to issue directions to PTA to put an immediate ban on the use of Facebook in the Pakistan. staff report According to Daily DAWN Newspaper Staff Reporter on Wednesday, 19 May, 2010: http://wwwLAHORE, May 18: The Lahore High Court on Tuesday issued notice to Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA) on a petition seeking ban on Facebook, an international social networking website, in the country for holding a blasphemous competition of drawing caricatures of Holy Prophet Muhammad (PBUH).  Justice Ijaz Ahmed Chaudhry issued notice for Wednesday (today) on the petition filed by Ch Zulfikar advocate of Islamic Lawyers Forum. The petitioner-lawyer submitted that on the Facebook a competition was announced on April 20 last, which would continue till May 20.  He said in the competition the members of the website were invited to draw caricatures of the Holy Prophet. He said Article 2-A of the Constitution restricted any practice against the religion in the country. He said the website having various features against the injunctions of Islam had already been banned in various Islamic countries. He pointed out that China, United Arab Emirates, Iran and Saudi Arabia had already imposed a ban on the website. The lawyer said the PTA had already blocked various blasphemous and contemptuous websites in the country but was reluctant to ban Facebook. He sought directions for PTA to put an immediate ban on the use of Facebook in Pakistan. MIXED REACTION OF PAKISTAN INTERNET STAKEHOLDERS: Mixed reactions are being generated from all corners of the country by Internet users and stakeholders. To name a few groups to read and follow: - ProPakistani (292 Comments): http://propakistani.pk/2010/05/18/breaking-facebook-is-going-to-get-banned-in-pakistan/ - ProPakistani Draw Day: Why Facebook is Culprit and How Best to React? http://propakistani.pk/2010/05/19/blasphemy-why-facebook-is-culprit-and-how-best-to-react/ - Telecom Grid Pakistan: http://groups.google.com/group/telecom-grid-pakistan - Society Against Internet Censorship in Pakistan: http://groups.google.com/group/agabbip - Blogger News Network: http://www.bloggernews.net/124575 CURRENT SITUATION: I have been probing into the matter and from what I have gathered until now that the Secretary IT and PTA have instructed the PIE to shut down Facebook.com for 24 hours as a national protest from Pakistan. Facebook.com will be inaccessible starting tonight 12am for 24 hours. Facebook.com remains to be the 3rd most accessed website from Pakistan according to Alexa URL: http://www.alexa.com/topsites/countries/PK and the total number of users of Facebook.com from Pakistan stand at: 2,359,620 which is 0.51% of Facebook.com's percentage of Global Audience according to Check Facebook URL: http://www.checkfacebook.com. With a major level of communications by Pakistani's happening on Facebook, it cannot be shut down permanently and I am sure the govt is well aware of those implications that will be triggered as a result of it. BBC also reports a temporary Facebook shut down URL: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8691406.stm. Though this whole matter may turn into an international violation of freedom of expression etc, the authorities may feel that this sudden jolt might show their protest to be substantial which again stands questionable by the majority of Facebook users from Pakistan. Let's see what happens and what is the impact of this ban on the Pakistani Facebook.com users. ------ Monitoring the Facebook.com Pakistan Issue Closely: Fouad Bajwa Internet Governance Advisor ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 Thu May 20 03:37:43 2010 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 00:37:43 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Pakistan to ban shutdown Facebook.com for 24hrs as a protest tonight at 12am! In-Reply-To: <599306.82064.qm@web33002.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <599306.82064.qm@web33002.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <330320.26456.qm@web33004.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Jst to keep you updated until the matter is streamlined, the latest notificationisbeing publicized thatwww.youtube.comhas also been blockeduntil 31st May 2010asdirected byPakistan Telecommunication Authority.  Thanks Imran ________________________________ From: Imran Ahmed Shah To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Fouad Bajwa Cc: Imran Ahmed Shah Sent: Thu, 20 May, 2010 12:05:07 Subject: Re: [governance] Pakistan to ban shutdown Facebook.com for 24hrs as a protest tonight at 12am! Dear Fouad, How are you? Thank you for detail about the LHC orders and ISPs action to block access to Facebook.com.   I would like to add some important information in the same context, that all the Mobile Network Operators of BlackBerry Services in Pakistan were also trying to block access to the FaceBook.com but they could not. Finally they have stopped BlackBerry Internet Services (GPRS) along with BlackBerry Services for devices.   Now Blackberry services are totally stopped in Pakistan only voice (GSM) services are working. They have not decided yet that how long their Blackberry Services will remain close. This is because they do not have mechanism to block the access to all the servers of Facebook.com and are afraid off with the previous bad experience of youtube.com which totally diverted internet route path to alternate AS. {Facebook Servers are on IP 69.63.189.11, 16 & 69.63.181.11, 12}.   Thanks   Imran Ahmed Shah ________________________________ From: Fouad Bajwa To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Sent: Wed, 19 May, 2010 16:57:05 Subject: [governance] Pakistan to ban shutdown Facebook.com for 24hrs as a protest tonight at 12am! A Pakistani Court in Lahore has ordered ban on Facebook.com and the nation's Internet users have mixed feelings with many appalled resorting to numerous online debates and protests churning out a burst on the Internet. Some Internet service providers have ended up blocking the website completely. * Note: Please read below the news and then the following comments from my investigation into the Ban on the current situation of the Ban. CURRENT MEDIA REPORTS: According to Al-jazeera: http://english.aljazeera.net/news/2010/05/201051994155758717.html A Pakistani court has issued a ban on the social networking site Facebook after a user-generated contest page encourged members to post caricatures of Prophet Mohammed. The Lahore High Court on Wednesday instructed the Pakistani Telecommunications Authority (PTA) to ban the site after the Islamic Lawyers Movement complained that a page called “Draw Mohammed Day” is blasphemous. Sajjad Chaudhry, the presiding judge, instructed officials with the ministry of telecommunications to submit a written reply to the ban by May 31 when courts will open a detailed hearing on the case. A ban is to be enforced in the meantime. "We have already blocked the URL link and issued instruction to internet service providers,” Khurram Mehran, a spokesperson for the PTA, said. About 20 people carried banners outside of courthouse in Lahore, condemning Facebook and praising Prophet Mohammed. Protest: Lawyers also petitioned the Pakistani government to register a strong protest with Facebook’s owners. "The competition has hurt the sentiments of the Muslims," lawyer Chaudhry Zulfikar Ali said. Facebook users in Pakistan, however, told AFP they could still access the site after the ban was imposed on Wednesday. Officials with the Pakistani government told the court they had already blocked Facebook pages relating to the competition, but the lawyers group argued that no part of a site can be banned unless the entire site is blocked. Pakistan has 45 million Facebook users, according to lawyers. The Facebook page for "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day" had just over 40,000 supporters while the opposing "Against Everybody Draw Mohammed Day" had more than 53,000. According to the National Daily Times of Pakistan Reports: http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2010\05\19\story_19-5-2010_pg13_6 LHC issues notice to PTA on plea to ban Facebook LAHORE: Justice Ijaz Ahmad Chaudhry of the Lahore High Court on Tuesday issued notice to the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority secretary to reply until Wednesday (today), on a petition seeking a ban on Facebook, which is holding a competition of caricatures of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). Islamic Lawyers Movement filed the petition through Chaudhry Zulfiqar advocate, who stated that a competition was announced on Facebook on April 20 which would continue until May 20, asking all the members of the website to create their caricatures to participate in the competition. Zulfiqar said under the law no practice against Islam could be allowed in the country. He told the court that the website, having various features against the injunctions of Islam, is banned in various countries. Zulfiqar submitted that there were 45 million users of Facebook in Pakistan, adding that the PTA was responsible for its spread in Pakistan. He said the PTA has already blocked various websites in the country but was reluctant to ban Facebook. He said students and various segments of the society have already started protests in the country, which could be harmful for the public property. He requested the court to issue directions to PTA to put an immediate ban on the use of Facebook in the Pakistan. staff report According to Daily DAWN Newspaper Staff Reporter on Wednesday, 19 May, 2010: http://wwwLAHORE, May 18: The Lahore High Court on Tuesday issued notice to Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA) on a petition seeking ban on Facebook, an international social networking website, in the country for holding a blasphemous competition of drawing caricatures of Holy Prophet Muhammad (PBUH).  Justice Ijaz Ahmed Chaudhry issued notice for Wednesday (today) on the petition filed by Ch Zulfikar advocate of Islamic Lawyers Forum. The petitioner-lawyer submitted that on the Facebook a competition was announced on April 20 last, which would continue till May 20.  He said in the competition the members of the website were invited to draw caricatures of the Holy Prophet. He said Article 2-A of the Constitution restricted any practice against the religion in the country. He said the website having various features against the injunctions of Islam had already been banned in various Islamic countries. He pointed out that China, United Arab Emirates, Iran and Saudi Arabia had already imposed a ban on the website. The lawyer said the PTA had already blocked various blasphemous and contemptuous websites in the country but was reluctant to ban Facebook. He sought directions for PTA to put an immediate ban on the use of Facebook in Pakistan. MIXED REACTION OF PAKISTAN INTERNET STAKEHOLDERS: Mixed reactions are being generated from all corners of the country by Internet users and stakeholders. To name a few groups to read and follow: - ProPakistani (292 Comments): http://propakistani.pk/2010/05/18/breaking-facebook-is-going-to-get-banned-in-pakistan/ - ProPakistani Draw Day: Why Facebook is Culprit and How Best to React? http://propakistani.pk/2010/05/19/blasphemy-why-facebook-is-culprit-and-how-best-to-react/ - Telecom Grid Pakistan: http://groups.google.com/group/telecom-grid-pakistan - Society Against Internet Censorship in Pakistan: http://groups.google.com/group/agabbip - Blogger News Network: http://www.bloggernews.net/124575 CURRENT SITUATION: I have been probing into the matter and from what I have gathered until now that the Secretary IT and PTA have instructed the PIE to shut down Facebook.com for 24 hours as a national protest from Pakistan. Facebook.com will be inaccessible starting tonight 12am for 24 hours. Facebook.com remains to be the 3rd most accessed website from Pakistan according to Alexa URL: http://www.alexa.com/topsites/countries/PK and the total number of users of Facebook.com from Pakistan stand at: 2,359,620 which is 0.51% of Facebook.com's percentage of Global Audience according to Check Facebook URL: http://www.checkfacebook.com. With a major level of communications by Pakistani's happening on Facebook, it cannot be shut down permanently and I am sure the govt is well aware of those implications that will be triggered as a result of it. BBC also reports a temporary Facebook shut down URL: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8691406.stm. Though this whole matter may turn into an international violation of freedom of expression etc, the authorities may feel that this sudden jolt might show their protest to be substantial which again stands questionable by the majority of Facebook users from Pakistan. Let's see what happens and what is the impact of this ban on the Pakistani Facebook.com users. ------ Monitoring the Facebook.com Pakistan Issue Closely: Fouad Bajwa Internet Governance Advisor ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Thu May 20 10:00:12 2010 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 07:00:12 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Censorship and Banning in America Message-ID: <933984.38502.qm@web83914.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> While observing the violations of human rights vis a vie denial of free speech in Pakistan.  All should be aware that the current ICANN has a practice of banning individuals with whom they disagree. They ban groups like the Registrants Community and Individual users community and they ban people they find offensive to their religion.   At least in Pakistan the Government is seeing fit to ban for a short time a commercial enterprise rather than human beings and groups.   As is occuring with ICANN -- a rerouting and establishment of alternative resources, I hope that in Pakistan the people realize that putting too many eggs in the Social Networking sites basket is dangerous.  A robust free expression society must have many tools for that expression. Now we see a government intrusion next it will be fees and sabotage is always a clear and present danger. -------------- 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 mariliamaciel at gmail.com Thu May 20 13:08:11 2010 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 14:08:11 -0300 Subject: [governance] Spanish translation of the Brazilian civil rights framework for the Internet Message-ID: Sorry for the cross-posting Dear all, I would like to share with you the Spanish translation of the draft bill that aims to establish a Civil rights framework for the Internet in Brazil. This translation would not have been possible without the valuable help of Andres Piazza. The document is available at: http://culturadigital.br/marcocivil/2010/05/18/minuta-integral-revisada-en-espanol-para-bajar/ Best regards, Marília -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center for Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From andrespiazza at gmail.com Thu May 20 13:52:16 2010 From: andrespiazza at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Andr=E9s_Piazza?=) Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 14:52:16 -0300 Subject: [governance] Spanish translation of the Brazilian civil rights In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Marilia, Thanks for your words! It was a pleasure for me to help in that process. I have a great concept about the Marco Civil Process (but I can't afford saying again that I envy you guys, not when the world cup is so close, and journalists are writing about Argentinean healthy envy on Brazil :P). Being serious again, I hope that this could be an example for some other countries as mine. I had posted the spanish version in plain text http://www.andrespiazza.com/version-espanola-de-la-constitucion-de-internet-en-brasil/ Good Luck, Andrés Piazza 2010/5/20 Marilia Maciel > Sorry for the cross-posting > > Dear all, > > I would like to share with you the Spanish translation of the draft bill > that aims to establish a Civil rights framework for the Internet in Brazil. > This translation would not have been possible without the valuable help of > Andres Piazza. > > The document is available at: > http://culturadigital.br/marcocivil/2010/05/18/minuta-integral-revisada-en-espanol-para-bajar/ > > Best regards, > > Marília > > > -- > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade > FGV Direito Rio > > Center for Technology and Society > Getulio Vargas Foundation > Rio de Janeiro - Brazil > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- www.andrespiazza.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sat May 22 04:34:44 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 22 May 2010 14:04:44 +0530 Subject: [governance] CSTD In-Reply-To: <4BEA45E6.3010201@wzb.eu> References: <4BEA45E6.3010201@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <4BF79724.1020909@itforchange.net> Enclosed is a statement made by IT for Change to the UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development, on the first day of its 5 day sitting. More on this later. parminder > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: CSTD - EC statement.doc Type: application/msword Size: 19456 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: CSTD - EC statement.odt Type: application/vnd.oasis.opendocument.text Size: 45303 bytes Desc: not available URL: From ceo at bnnrc.net Sat May 22 07:40:36 2010 From: ceo at bnnrc.net (AHM Bazlur Rahman) Date: Sat, 22 May 2010 17:40:36 +0600 Subject: [governance] CSTD References: <4BEA45E6.3010201@wzb.eu> <4BF79724.1020909@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <2A6AFA7213A04A0C9D152C5C4B023CFC@ceo> Dear Parminder Bhai, Greetings from Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio and Communication (BNNRC) Thank you very much for your nice mail regarding a statement made by IT for Change to the UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development. I fully support this statement. With best regards, Bazlu ______________________ AHM. Bazlur Rahman-S21BR Chief Executive Officer Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio and Communication (BNNRC) & Head - Community Radio Academy House: 13/1, Road:2, Shaymoli, Dhaka-1207 Post Box: 5095, Dhaka 1205 Bangladesh Phone: 88-02-9130750, 88-02-9138501 01711881647 Fax: 88-02-9138501-105 E-mail: ceo at bnnrc.net, bnnrc at bd.drik.net www.bnnrc.net ----- Original Message ----- From: "parminder" To: Sent: Saturday, May 22, 2010 2:34 PM Subject: [governance] CSTD > > Enclosed is a statement made by IT for Change to the UN Commission on > Science and Technology for Development, on the first day of its 5 day > sitting. More on this later. parminder >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mazzone at ebu.ch Sat May 22 09:25:21 2010 From: mazzone at ebu.ch (Mazzone, Giacomo) Date: Sat, 22 May 2010 15:25:21 +0200 Subject: [governance] CSTD In-Reply-To: <4BF79724.1020909@itforchange.net> References: <4BEA45E6.3010201@wzb.eu> <4BF79724.1020909@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <488E8B79032F7642949B28142651689CF45665DDC2@GVAMAIL.gva.ebu.ch> Thank you Parminder. I think you've said what was needed to be said. How finish the CSTD ? Giacomo -----Original Message----- From: parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: samedi, 22. mai 2010 10:35 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] CSTD Enclosed is a statement made by IT for Change to the UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development, on the first day of its 5 day sitting. More on this later. parminder > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ----------------------------------------- ************************************************** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error, please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by the mailgateway ************************************************** ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Sat May 22 11:33:35 2010 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Sat, 22 May 2010 17:33:35 +0200 Subject: [governance] CSTD In-Reply-To: <4BF79724.1020909@itforchange.net> References: <4BEA45E6.3010201@wzb.eu> <4BF79724.1020909@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <62B4DB6E-E1A0-46A5-B06A-CBA4DAB6DA59@graduateinstitute.ch> Hi While I agree that the mandate is not exhausted by the performance reports and that a meeting could be useful, I had a different concern in this meeting, about the very restrictive way some governments and orgs and choosing to read the TAIS. They kept citing para 69 alone as the definition and saying that moves like establishing the ITU dedicated group on IG implement the mandate, but para 71 makes clear that EC is suppose to be multistakeholder, which the dedicated group is not. Purely intergovernmental processes from which non-state actors are excluded are not EC, in my view, and I wish this point had been raised forcefully. Cheers, Bill On May 22, 2010, at 10:34 AM, parminder wrote: > > Enclosed is a statement made by IT for Change to the UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development, on the first day of its 5 day sitting. More on this later. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Sat May 22 18:54:55 2010 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Sun, 23 May 2010 03:54:55 +0500 Subject: [governance] From the Internet Ban in Pakistan - Pakistani bloggers Message-ID: This is an interesting story from the latest Internet Ban in Pakistan: Viewpoints: Pakistani bloggers on internet bans http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8697213.stm -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sun May 23 05:36:11 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 23 May 2010 15:06:11 +0530 Subject: [governance] CSTD In-Reply-To: <62B4DB6E-E1A0-46A5-B06A-CBA4DAB6DA59@graduateinstitute.ch> References: <4BEA45E6.3010201@wzb.eu> <4BF79724.1020909@itforchange.net> <62B4DB6E-E1A0-46A5-B06A-CBA4DAB6DA59@graduateinstitute.ch> Message-ID: <4BF8F70B.4070805@itforchange.net> Hi Bill A couple of comments inline, in a spirit of debate on this important issue. William Drake wrote: > Hi > > While I agree that the mandate is not exhausted by the performance reports and that a meeting could be useful, merely 'useful' or necessary and important and urgent... there is a huge swathe of political space between these different articulations, and I strongly tend towards the later. > I had a different concern in this meeting, about the very restrictive way some governments and orgs and choosing to read the TAIS. They kept citing para 69 alone as the definition and saying that moves like establishing the ITU dedicated group on IG implement the mandate, but para 71 makes clear that EC is suppose to be multistakeholder, which the dedicated group is not. Purely intergovernmental processes from which non-state actors are excluded are not EC, in my view, and I wish this point had been raised forcefully. > We resisted any conflation of the process of 'enhanced cooperation' EC with the ITU dedicated group on IG, which move admittedly appears aimed at appropriating the 'global public policies on Internet' or the EC process. But it is our view, the reason ITU is able to increasingly appropriate it is only because a more legitimate and appropriate process of EC has not started. and all those who stay quiet and non-comittal on EC, in fact not actively promote movement towards such a process, strengthen the hand of ITU kind of process. Politics abhor vacuum, and to the extent that there are some very important, urgent and pressing Internet-related global public policy issues, with no legitimate place for the less-powerful groups/ countries to resolve them, either we help develop a more participative, legitimate, appropriate etc global political space - which is our purpose in pursuing the EC agenda - or we have ITU kind of processes take over. There is no point in keeping on making statements that we want more multistakeholderism without supporting and coming out with meaningful alternatives. And the attitude of dominant actors, but also, much more regretfully, a lot of civil society actors, to the express WSIS mandate to pursue a process of EC is rather regrettable. It perhaps speaks of a political economy of the existing regimes and structures of power around the Internet - and the respective comfort or lack of it of different actors. SO, when you seek the 'multistakeholder' aspect to be raised any more forcefully that it already has been - it is, IMHO, best rather only meaningful if, done by positing real alternatives that can meet the political need of a legitimate, participative, appropriate etc global political space/ forum to address urgent existing and emergent public policy issues at the global level. Politics of silence can be politics of submission to the extant power structures. As dominant players rule the roost - global digital cooperations making their own globally applicable laws and policies, and countries of the North taking the unilateral or plurilateral (ACTA) route to make policies and rules which due to the inherently global nature of the Internet will in default become global policies, developing countires need to get their act together fast. That is what for us EC is all about. Also, let me say that for us this is the principle element of devleopment agenda in IG. Without an appropriate political space there is no meaning of political agendas. Regards Parminder > Cheers, > > Bill > > > > On May 22, 2010, at 10:34 AM, parminder wrote: > > >> Enclosed is a statement made by IT for Change to the UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development, on the first day of its 5 day sitting. More on this later. >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 fouadbajwa at gmail.com Sun May 23 06:30:17 2010 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Sun, 23 May 2010 15:30:17 +0500 Subject: [governance] May 2010 MAG Meeting Summary Message-ID: A summary report of the MAG meeting is now available on the IGF website. Kindly review and share your comments to this thread. http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/2010/MAG_email_Digests/IGF.12.May.MAG.summary.record.pdf -- 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 william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Sun May 23 06:49:59 2010 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Sun, 23 May 2010 12:49:59 +0200 Subject: [governance] CSTD In-Reply-To: <4BF8F70B.4070805@itforchange.net> References: <4BEA45E6.3010201@wzb.eu> <4BF79724.1020909@itforchange.net> <62B4DB6E-E1A0-46A5-B06A-CBA4DAB6DA59@graduateinstitute.ch> <4BF8F70B.4070805@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Hi Parminder On May 23, 2010, at 11:36 AM, parminder wrote: > Hi Bill > > A couple of comments inline, in a spirit of debate on this important issue. > > William Drake wrote: >> >> Hi >> >> While I agree that the mandate is not exhausted by the performance reports and that a meeting could be useful, > merely 'useful' or necessary and important and urgent... there is a huge swathe of political space between these different articulations, and I strongly tend towards the later. No swathe intended, important is fine >> I had a different concern in this meeting, about the very restrictive way some governments and orgs and choosing to read the TAIS. They kept citing para 69 alone as the definition and saying that moves like establishing the ITU dedicated group on IG implement the mandate, but para 71 makes clear that EC is suppose to be multistakeholder, which the dedicated group is not. Purely intergovernmental processes from which non-state actors are excluded are not EC, in my view, and I wish this point had been raised forcefully. >> > We resisted any conflation of the process of 'enhanced cooperation' EC with the ITU dedicated group on IG, which move admittedly appears aimed at appropriating the 'global public policies on Internet' or the EC process. > > But it is our view, the reason ITU is able to increasingly appropriate it is only because a more legitimate and appropriate process of EC has not started. and all those who stay quiet and non-comittal on EC, in fact not actively promote movement towards such a process, strengthen the hand of ITU kind of process. Total agreement. Was also an argument for IGF. > > Politics abhor vacuum, and to the extent that there are some very important, urgent and pressing Internet-related global public policy issues, with no legitimate place for the less-powerful groups/ countries to resolve them, either we help develop a more participative, legitimate, appropriate etc global political space - which is our purpose in pursuing the EC agenda - or we have ITU kind of processes take over. There is no point in keeping on making statements that we want more multistakeholderism without supporting and coming out with meaningful alternatives. Yes, although it's difficult to imagine what a decently configured space could look like, which has probably contributed to the lack of enthusiastic uptake of the challenge. > > And the attitude of dominant actors, but also, much more regretfully, a lot of civil society actors, to the express WSIS mandate to pursue a process of EC is rather regrettable. It perhaps speaks of a political economy of the existing regimes and structures of power around the Internet - and the respective comfort or lack of it of different actors. Here we can agree to disagree, I don't regret differences of view or feel comfortable attributing them to comfort with power structures etc. > > SO, when you seek the 'multistakeholder' aspect to be raised any more forcefully that it already has been - it is, IMHO, best rather only meaningful if, done by positing real alternatives that can meet the political need of a legitimate, participative, appropriate etc global political space/ forum to address urgent existing and emergent public policy issues at the global level. I think it's reasonable to object to exclusionary and misdirected policy processes even if one doesn't have a complete model to lay out as an alternative. CS does this all the time, always has. You're setting the bar pretty high. > > Politics of silence can be politics of submission to the extant power structures. As dominant players rule the roost - global digital cooperations making their own globally applicable laws and policies, and countries of the North taking the unilateral or plurilateral (ACTA) route to make policies and rules which due to the inherently global nature of the Internet will in default become global policies, developing countires need to get their act together fast. That is what for us EC is all about. > > Also, let me say that for us this is the principle element of devleopment agenda in IG. Without an appropriate political space there is no meaning of political agendas. So ICANN's contractual link to the USG and being under California law have a clear and presumably negative linkage to development? By which I don't mean governmental political preferences, but rather development per se. I'm open to persuasion, please make the case. Thanks, Bill >> On May 22, 2010, at 10:34 AM, parminder wrote: >> >> >>> Enclosed is a statement made by IT for Change to the UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development, on the first day of its 5 day sitting. More on this later. >>> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> *********************************************************** William J. Drake Senior Associate Centre for International Governance Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, Switzerland william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html *********************************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Sun May 23 09:04:12 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sun, 23 May 2010 21:04:12 +0800 Subject: [governance] CSTD In-Reply-To: References: <4BEA45E6.3010201@wzb.eu> <4BF79724.1020909@itforchange.net> <62B4DB6E-E1A0-46A5-B06A-CBA4DAB6DA59@graduateinstitute.ch> <4BF8F70B.4070805@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <608926B5-3F69-4B23-B918-16F7BCE7901A@ciroap.org> On 23/05/2010, at 6:49 PM, William Drake wrote: >> But it is our view, the reason ITU is able to increasingly appropriate it is only because a more legitimate and appropriate process of EC has not started. and all those who stay quiet and non-comittal on EC, in fact not actively promote movement towards such a process, strengthen the hand of ITU kind of process. > > Total agreement. Was also an argument for IGF. >> There is no point in keeping on making statements that we want more multistakeholderism without supporting and coming out with meaningful alternatives. > > Yes, although it's difficult to imagine what a decently configured space could look like, which has probably contributed to the lack of enthusiastic uptake of the challenge. Do we want to argue that a reconfigured, rebooted and renewed IGF could be this space? Many times we have heard all the arguments why it shouldn't be (it will stifle free discussion, lead to polarisation and politicking, blah blah) but (co-coordinator hat off) that is frankly just a cop-out, as there is no reason why these potential problems can't be methodically tackled and addressed with enough thought and care, and a bit more creativity than has been shown to date. If we as civil society want an IG process that includes us adequately, the IGF could be the perfect starting point to build one, and now would be the time to start advocating for this. -- Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 CI is 50 Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010. Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer rights around the world. http://www.consumersinternational.org/50 Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sun May 23 14:26:35 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 23 May 2010 23:56:35 +0530 Subject: [governance] CSTD In-Reply-To: References: <4BEA45E6.3010201@wzb.eu> <4BF79724.1020909@itforchange.net> <62B4DB6E-E1A0-46A5-B06A-CBA4DAB6DA59@graduateinstitute.ch> <4BF8F70B.4070805@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4BF9735B.9010207@itforchange.net> >> >> Also, let me say that for us this is the principle element of >> devleopment agenda in IG. Without an appropriate political space >> there is no meaning of political agendas. > > So ICANN's contractual link to the USG and being under California law > have a clear and presumably negative linkage to development? By which > I don't mean governmental political preferences, but rather > development per se. I'm open to persuasion, please make the case. Of course, ICANN under unilateral USG control has strong development implications. I am surprised that you dont seem to think so. It can only be so if you see development in a very apolitical sense. And with promoting a 'political vision of development' I too do not mean just narrow interests of existing governments in developing countries. There is no development per se, separate from politics of development. It is largely because of such control that the whole ICANN system is informed by a strong almost exclusive commercial logic, and controlled largely by dominant US based commercial interests. A more legitimate global oversight would certainly be more attuned to global public interest, and also to the differential interests of developing countries. It will be more attuned to the context and needs of development in many ways. Also, security too is an important element/ aspect of development. Developing countries cannot leave ICANN plus under unilateral US control, it affect the security related interests of its people. BTW, US appointed its first cyber warfare general this week. see http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/23/us-appoints-cyber-warfare-general Apart from direct threats, military domination is used in many indirect ways - for economic, political, social and cultural dominations. Is all that not development related? Does this make a case of development linkage of unilateral US oversight of ICANN plus? I myself am open to be persuaded otherwise. Rgds Parminder > > Thanks, > > Bill > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Sun May 23 14:28:37 2010 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sun, 23 May 2010 14:28:37 -0400 Subject: [governance] CSTD In-Reply-To: <4BF79724.1020909@itforchange.net> References: <4BEA45E6.3010201@wzb.eu>,<4BF79724.1020909@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701DC36EEAC@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> P: Why did it not come out stronger or more directly in favor of using the IGF for the development of GAPPs? (globally applicable public policy principles) --MM ________________________________________ From: parminder [parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: Saturday, May 22, 2010 4:34 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] CSTD Enclosed is a statement made by IT for Change to the UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development, on the first day of its 5 day sitting. More on this later. parminder > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Sun May 23 14:30:43 2010 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sun, 23 May 2010 14:30:43 -0400 Subject: [governance] CSTD In-Reply-To: <4BF8F70B.4070805@itforchange.net> References: <4BEA45E6.3010201@wzb.eu> <4BF79724.1020909@itforchange.net> <62B4DB6E-E1A0-46A5-B06A-CBA4DAB6DA59@graduateinstitute.ch>,<4BF8F70B.4070805@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701DC36EEAD@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> A very important and perceptive point. Please tell this to the RIRs, ICANN, the USG and the EU. (I tried but they didn't listen) ________________________________________ From: parminder [parminder at itforchange.net] >But it is our view, the reason ITU is able to increasingly appropriate it is only because a >more legitimate and appropriate process of EC has not started. and all those who stay >quiet and non-comittal on EC, in fact not actively promote movement towards such a >process, strengthen the hand of ITU kind of process. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Sun May 23 14:34:26 2010 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sun, 23 May 2010 14:34:26 -0400 Subject: [governance] CSTD In-Reply-To: <4BF8F70B.4070805@itforchange.net> References: <4BEA45E6.3010201@wzb.eu> <4BF79724.1020909@itforchange.net> <62B4DB6E-E1A0-46A5-B06A-CBA4DAB6DA59@graduateinstitute.ch>,<4BF8F70B.4070805@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701DC36EEAE@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> >countries of the North taking the unilateral or plurilateral (ACTA) route >to make policies and rules which due to the inherently global nature of >the Internet will in default become global policies, developing countires >need to get their act together fast. That is what for us EC is all about. but is that what it is about for developing countries' governments? --MM ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Sun May 23 14:38:05 2010 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sun, 23 May 2010 14:38:05 -0400 Subject: [governance] CSTD In-Reply-To: <4BF9735B.9010207@itforchange.net> References: <4BEA45E6.3010201@wzb.eu> <4BF79724.1020909@itforchange.net> <62B4DB6E-E1A0-46A5-B06A-CBA4DAB6DA59@graduateinstitute.ch> <4BF8F70B.4070805@itforchange.net> ,<4BF9735B.9010207@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701DC36EEAF@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> > the whole ICANN > system is informed by a strong almost exclusive commercial logic I wish. Cross out "commercial" and substitute "military" - that's where we seem to be headed. Add a dash of ipr protectionism for old times sake. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Sun May 23 14:55:39 2010 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sun, 23 May 2010 14:55:39 -0400 Subject: [governance] Pakistan to ban shutdown Facebook.com for 24hrs as In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701DC36EEB0@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Notice that the advocates of a ban equate an action by a Facebook user with an action by Facebook itself. How do we drive home the notion of user-generated content and the idea of placing responsibility on the endpoints to non-internet users, or would that make any difference? That an objection to one page does not require a ban on an entire site. --MM ________________________________________ >A Pakistani court has issued a ban on the social networking site >Facebook after a user-generated contest page encourged members to > post caricatures of Prophet Mohammed. > >The Lahore High Court on Wednesday instructed the Pakistani >Telecommunications Authority (PTA) to ban the site after the Islamic >Lawyers Movement complained that a page called “Draw Mohammed Day” is >blasphemous. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sun May 23 15:01:38 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 00:31:38 +0530 Subject: [governance] CSTD In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701DC36EEAC@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <4BEA45E6.3010201@wzb.eu>,<4BF79724.1020909@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701DC36EEAC@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4BF97B92.7050501@itforchange.net> Milton L Mueller wrote: > P: > Why did it not come out stronger or more directly in favor of using the IGF for the development of GAPPs? (globally applicable public policy principles) > --MM > For one, because I have tried often and long in this space to get civil society to rally around some possibilities of the IGF structuring itself to be able to do some such thing. But this has largely been unsuccessful. It does surprise me often that many who keep asking for multi-stakeholder systems to have strong policy role, instead of intergov models, at the same time do not support IGF making any progress towards making recommends, which is the least that would be implied for it to take up the role you mention above. (I have tried my best for it, and still do. We supported a CSTD working group with likely multistakeholder involvement to suggest specific improvements in the IGF which hopefully should be in the direction of making it more purposeful.) Almost the last straw was the move earlier this year towards perhaps even doing away with the MAG, which is the only structures part of the IGF whereby it can move in the directions I, and presumably you, would like it to. We continue to believe that IGF should have a very strong role in development of globally applicable public policy principles. Also, our statement had a basic advocacy focus towards seeking some movement on EC, and we did not want to dilute it, especailly when many others were strongly using the ruse of the IGF to resist any such movement. Our statement was coupled with a lot of lobbying with developing country govs and others. I think we would see an open consultation meeting on EC to be called by the Secretary General before the end of the year. Parminder > ________________________________________ > From: parminder [parminder at itforchange.net] > Sent: Saturday, May 22, 2010 4:34 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: [governance] CSTD > > Enclosed is a statement made by IT for Change to the UN Commission on > Science and Technology for Development, on the first day of its 5 day > sitting. More on this later. parminder > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From d.r.newman at qub.ac.uk Sun May 23 15:03:23 2010 From: d.r.newman at qub.ac.uk (D. R. Newman) Date: Sun, 23 May 2010 20:03:23 +0100 Subject: [governance] CSTD In-Reply-To: References: <4BEA45E6.3010201@wzb.eu> <4BF79724.1020909@itforchange.net> <62B4DB6E-E1A0-46A5-B06A-CBA4DAB6DA59@graduateinstitute.ch> <4BF8F70B.4070805@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4BF97BFB.7000502@qub.ac.uk> On 23/05/10 11:49, William Drake wrote: > Yes, although it's difficult to imagine what a decently configured > space could look like, which has probably contributed to the lack of > enthusiastic uptake of the challenge. It is not hard to think of better spaces and processes to find consensus decisions. Peter Emerson has been doing this for decades in Northern Ireland and Bosnia, in the meeting process + voting system called the deBorda preferendum (www.deborda.org). He has frequently found consensus between groups who hate each other: they do not agree on their first choices, but will settle for the same second or third choice. A lot of intergovernmental meetings still use the traditional processes of face-to-face meetings (which result in either excluding a lot of people, or 200 people each speaking for 3 minutes, but not listening), and paper documents. For years we have had groupware that allows us to do better. Two examples, one on a meeting process, the other on collaborative document writing. 1. America Speaks (www.americaspeaks.org) runs public meetings with 6000 participants. Ordinary people site in tables of 10, with a trained facilitator. On the table, someone types notes of the questions, ideas and conclusions from the discussion. This is fed to a set of assistants who group together ideas under topics, and feed them back to the whole hall for discussion and voting. 2. In his Ph.D., Aldo de Moor got loggers and environmentalists to co-write a forestry policy for British Columbia. His software (www.grass-arena.org) lets each group make explicit their positions, rather than falling into wiki editing wars. Under each section are a list of the issues, and the alternative positions different people take. Years ago I was part of a consortium that planned to integrate all these techniques to support a global discussion on global warming, supported by the Club of Rome. We got to first reserve in Framework 6, but didn't get funded. Right now I am doing something simpler: getting thousands of young people to discuss Internet governance, then feed their conclusions to policy makers. See http://huwy.eu/ -- Dr. David R. Newman, Queen's University Belfast, School of Management and Economics, BELFAST BT7 1NN, Northern Ireland (UK) Tel. +44 28 9097 3643 mailto:d.r.newman at qub.ac.uk http://www.qub.ac.uk/mgt/ http://www.e-consultation.org/ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at psg.com Sun May 23 15:35:24 2010 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 23 May 2010 15:35:24 -0400 Subject: [governance] methods was CSTD In-Reply-To: <4BF97BFB.7000502@qub.ac.uk> References: <4BEA45E6.3010201@wzb.eu> <4BF79724.1020909@itforchange.net> <62B4DB6E-E1A0-46A5-B06A-CBA4DAB6DA59@graduateinstitute.ch> <4BF8F70B.4070805@itforchange.net> <4BF97BFB.7000502@qub.ac.uk> Message-ID: <6C6921B7-B80F-40A8-8108-A6FD4581CC29@psg.com> Hi, Part of the problem I have found in getting people to accept new methods on a large scale is that most people are adverse to having to learn something new. Especially if learning the stuff they know was hard work. Most adults just don't readily take to the role of learners who have to ask questions and get help. Several studies, i would have to go digging for references, show that people tend to accept new things that closely resemble old things they already know how to do. so I am all for introducing new methods into producing decently configured spaces, and have even put work into them on occasion, but I still have not found the secret ingredient of getting people to move beyond what they know. a. On 23 May 2010, at 15:03, D. R. Newman wrote: > On 23/05/10 11:49, William Drake wrote: > >> Yes, although it's difficult to imagine what a decently configured >> space could look like, which has probably contributed to the lack of >> enthusiastic uptake of the challenge. > > It is not hard to think of better spaces and processes to find consensus > decisions. Peter Emerson has been doing this for decades in Northern > Ireland and Bosnia, in the meeting process + voting system called the > deBorda preferendum (www.deborda.org). He has frequently found consensus > between groups who hate each other: they do not agree on their first > choices, but will settle for the same second or third choice. > > A lot of intergovernmental meetings still use the traditional processes > of face-to-face meetings (which result in either excluding a lot of > people, or 200 people each speaking for 3 minutes, but not listening), > and paper documents. For years we have had groupware that allows us to > do better. Two examples, one on a meeting process, the other on > collaborative document writing. > > 1. America Speaks (www.americaspeaks.org) runs public meetings with 6000 > participants. Ordinary people site in tables of 10, with a trained > facilitator. On the table, someone types notes of the questions, ideas > and conclusions from the discussion. This is fed to a set of assistants > who group together ideas under topics, and feed them back to the whole > hall for discussion and voting. > > 2. In his Ph.D., Aldo de Moor got loggers and environmentalists to > co-write a forestry policy for British Columbia. His software > (www.grass-arena.org) lets each group make explicit their positions, > rather than falling into wiki editing wars. Under each section are a > list of the issues, and the alternative positions different people take. > > Years ago I was part of a consortium that planned to integrate all these > techniques to support a global discussion on global warming, supported > by the Club of Rome. We got to first reserve in Framework 6, but didn't > get funded. Right now I am doing something simpler: getting thousands of > young people to discuss Internet governance, then feed their conclusions > to policy makers. See http://huwy.eu/ > > -- > Dr. David R. Newman, Queen's University Belfast, School of Management > and Economics, BELFAST BT7 1NN, Northern Ireland (UK) > Tel. +44 28 9097 3643 mailto:d.r.newman at qub.ac.uk > http://www.qub.ac.uk/mgt/ http://www.e-consultation.org/ > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From d.r.newman at qub.ac.uk Sun May 23 16:19:10 2010 From: d.r.newman at qub.ac.uk (D. R. Newman) Date: Sun, 23 May 2010 21:19:10 +0100 Subject: [governance] CSTD In-Reply-To: <4BF97BFB.7000502@qub.ac.uk> References: <4BEA45E6.3010201@wzb.eu> <4BF79724.1020909@itforchange.net> <62B4DB6E-E1A0-46A5-B06A-CBA4DAB6DA59@graduateinstitute.ch> <4BF8F70B.4070805@itforchange.net> <4BF97BFB.7000502@qub.ac.uk> Message-ID: <4BF98DBE.7050201@qub.ac.uk> These are the URL that work for Aldo de Moor's GRASS system: http://www.wagenvoort.net/grass/ http://grass-arena.net/ I forgot the .net domain in my earlier message. -- Dr. David R. Newman, Queen's University Belfast, School of Management and Economics, BELFAST BT7 1NN, Northern Ireland (UK) Tel. +44 28 9097 3643 mailto:d.r.newman at qub.ac.uk http://www.qub.ac.uk/mgt/ http://www.e-consultation.org/ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Sun May 23 18:31:33 2010 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 00:31:33 +0200 Subject: [governance] methods was CSTD In-Reply-To: <6C6921B7-B80F-40A8-8108-A6FD4581CC29@psg.com> References: <4BEA45E6.3010201@wzb.eu> <4BF79724.1020909@itforchange.net> <62B4DB6E-E1A0-46A5-B06A-CBA4DAB6DA59@graduateinstitute.ch> <4BF8F70B.4070805@itforchange.net> <4BF97BFB.7000502@qub.ac.uk> <6C6921B7-B80F-40A8-8108-A6FD4581CC29@psg.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20100523230748.052d9208@jefsey.com> At 21:35 23/05/2010, Avri Doria wrote: >Hi, >Part of the problem I have found in getting people to accept new >methods on a large scale is that most people are adverse to having >to learn something new. Especially if learning the stuff they know >was hard work. Most adults just don't readily take to the role of >learners who have to ask questions and get help. > >Several studies, i would have to go digging for references, show >that people tend to accept new things that closely resemble old >things they already know how to do. >so I am all for introducing new methods into producing decently >configured spaces, and have even put work into them on occasion, but >I still have not found the secret ingredient of getting people to >move beyond what they know. >a. This is correct from a personal usage point of view. However, the notion of consensus "decision" is sociologically controverted (vs. consensus uncovering) as this actually is consensually acceptable compromise. Anyway, the very notion of consensus or rough consensus (as in the IETF) is totalitarian (only one single "community correct" position is seeked to be favored/imposed). As such it is adequate to (de)centralized networking architectures where a single reference is preferable and should be "adopted". Peaceful agreements in the distributed reality of the world are actually based on multiconsensuses. They are the very basis of our social life and distributed relations and networks. This explains the technical inutility of the IGF, which results from its disrespect of the WSIS recommendations. WSIS called upon: - consensus among the members of dynamic coalitions of interests, i.e. on the topic they internally discuss. Then on a consensus on the way these coalitions should interconsider the consensual suggestions from other dynamic coalitions of interworking interests, - to permit the operational framework of operational enhanced cooperations. We were to work on the enhanced cooperation concept from experience. As long there is one unique "enhanced cooperation" (or "financially oriented cooperation") under the form of the ISOCANN objective alliance, we have not experienced yet the true nature of the Internet, and what its Governance (or better, its "intergovernance") really is. The Internet and the Internet governance are certainly not the monolith that some try to make us accept. It is an interoperable diversity which has to perform, deploy and develop under a multiconsensual adminance (*), in tune with the multiconsensual intergovernance of the diversity of its utilizations. The Internet is not something local one can "decide" about. It is something global one has to live with and influence (through those who design, use and manage it" RFC 3935). I accept that this is more difficult to commonly understand when the American and English/French meanings of the term "global" oppose ("the unique whole" in American, "the whole diversity set" in European). Happily the size of the Internet is conceptually increasing "beyond" our globe (at least in terms of scale: from nano to space) and new terms have to be (have already been) found which make this clearer in such an exceptional context. Today, the Internet architecture (and therefore its adminance and governance) should be considered along its current description set formed by RFC 1958, RFC 3439 and IDNA2008. Many civil society issues would be more practically perceived, discussed and addressed, because they would be more in phase with what they discuss, and the users needs. Please note that these considerations are also the very basis of what I believe IETF (through IAB) is to review in response to the appeal I am forming, as they seem technically conflicting. Best jfc (*) governance is about the policy on how people can use the Internet now, adminance is about the teleology and teleonomy influencing the way to administer, maintain and design it within the duration. -------------- 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 salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Sun May 23 19:37:46 2010 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 11:37:46 +1200 Subject: [governance] Pakistan to ban shutdown Facebook.com for 24hrs as In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701DC36EEB0@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701DC36EEB0@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: In terms of Content Policy and content regulation: a) How far would you want to go to draw the line between what is "Acceptable or palatable"; b)Should the creators of the site be served with a Notice to take down the page; c)What is the extent of "free speech" in the world?; One group's action in putting up the page has caused an entire nation of facebook users to be cut off from using the social utility site. How do we develop the balance adn what factors do we take into consideration? Even if they have National Filters, are there other means of bypassing these National Firewalls or encrypting etc? Warm Regards, Sala On 5/24/10, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Notice that the advocates of a ban equate an action by a Facebook user with > an action by Facebook itself. How do we drive home the notion of > user-generated content and the idea of placing responsibility on the > endpoints to non-internet users, or would that make any difference? That an > objection to one page does not require a ban on an entire site. > > --MM > ________________________________________ >>A Pakistani court has issued a ban on the social networking site >>Facebook after a user-generated contest page encourged members to >> post caricatures of Prophet Mohammed. >> >>The Lahore High Court on Wednesday instructed the Pakistani >>Telecommunications Authority (PTA) to ban the site after the Islamic >>Lawyers Movement complained that a page called “Draw Mohammed Day” is >>blasphemous. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- Salanieta Tudrau Tamanikaiwaimaro P.O.Box 17862 Suva Fiji Islands Cell: +679 9982851 Alternate Email: s.tamanikaiwaimaro at tfl.com.fj "Wisdom is far better than riches." ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Sun May 23 21:11:35 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 09:11:35 +0800 Subject: [governance] CSTD In-Reply-To: <4BF97BFB.7000502@qub.ac.uk> References: <4BEA45E6.3010201@wzb.eu> <4BF79724.1020909@itforchange.net> <62B4DB6E-E1A0-46A5-B06A-CBA4DAB6DA59@graduateinstitute.ch> <4BF8F70B.4070805@itforchange.net> <4BF97BFB.7000502@qub.ac.uk> Message-ID: On 24/05/2010, at 3:03 AM, D. R. Newman wrote: > A lot of intergovernmental meetings still use the traditional processes > of face-to-face meetings (which result in either excluding a lot of > people, or 200 people each speaking for 3 minutes, but not listening), > and paper documents. For years we have had groupware that allows us to > do better. Two examples, one on a meeting process, the other on > collaborative document writing. > > 1. America Speaks (www.americaspeaks.org) runs public meetings with 6000 > participants. Ordinary people site in tables of 10, with a trained > facilitator. On the table, someone types notes of the questions, ideas > and conclusions from the discussion. This is fed to a set of assistants > who group together ideas under topics, and feed them back to the whole > hall for discussion and voting. This was very much like my original vision for the IGF, and in fact I made specific reference to both America Speaks and GRASS as models (see my book at http://books.google.com/books?id=G8ETBPD6jHIC, pages 254-279). So yes, I completely agree that it is "doable" for the IGF as it has been for many other organisations. -- 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 avri at psg.com Sun May 23 23:53:25 2010 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 23 May 2010 23:53:25 -0400 Subject: [governance] methods was CSTD In-Reply-To: References: <4BEA45E6.3010201@wzb.eu> <4BF79724.1020909@itforchange.net> <62B4DB6E-E1A0-46A5-B06A-CBA4DAB6DA59@graduateinstitute.ch> <4BF8F70B.4070805@itforchange.net> <4BF97BFB.7000502@qub.ac.uk> Message-ID: <16D52308-DC2C-47BA-8FEE-DE05FA92F4BE@psg.com> On 23 May 2010, at 21:11, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > This was very much like my original vision for the IGF, and in fact I made specific reference to both America Speaks and GRASS as models (see my book at http://books.google.com/books?id=G8ETBPD6jHIC, pages 254-279). So yes, I completely agree that it is "doable" for the IGF as it has been for many other organisations. so have we been able to introduce any new working methods or ways of reaching outcomes in the IGC? if we can't even do it here, in a group that seems to want to do it, what makes us think we can just convince the other stakeholders that they should do so. 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 lmcknigh at syr.edu Sun May 23 23:57:27 2010 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Sun, 23 May 2010 23:57:27 -0400 Subject: [governance] methods was CSTD In-Reply-To: <16D52308-DC2C-47BA-8FEE-DE05FA92F4BE@psg.com> References: <4BEA45E6.3010201@wzb.eu> <4BF79724.1020909@itforchange.net> <62B4DB6E-E1A0-46A5-B06A-CBA4DAB6DA59@graduateinstitute.ch> <4BF8F70B.4070805@itforchange.net> <4BF97BFB.7000502@qub.ac.uk> ,<16D52308-DC2C-47BA-8FEE-DE05FA92F4BE@psg.com> Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0161D65981@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> because Avri - those who can do, those who can't teach. Speaking for myself only of course. Seriously, the best tools to organize IGC may (or may not) be the simple ones we use; but that is not necessarily the same as the best way to operate IGF in its next phase when we're enhancing cooperation ; ) ________________________________________ From: Avri Doria [avri at psg.com] Sent: Sunday, May 23, 2010 11:53 PM To: IGC Subject: Re: [governance] methods was CSTD On 23 May 2010, at 21:11, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > This was very much like my original vision for the IGF, and in fact I made specific reference to both America Speaks and GRASS as models (see my book at http://books.google.com/books?id=G8ETBPD6jHIC, pages 254-279). So yes, I completely agree that it is "doable" for the IGF as it has been for many other organisations. so have we been able to introduce any new working methods or ways of reaching outcomes in the IGC? if we can't even do it here, in a group that seems to want to do it, what makes us think we can just convince the other stakeholders that they should do so. a.____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Mon May 24 00:19:54 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 12:19:54 +0800 Subject: [governance] methods was CSTD In-Reply-To: <16D52308-DC2C-47BA-8FEE-DE05FA92F4BE@psg.com> References: <4BEA45E6.3010201@wzb.eu> <4BF79724.1020909@itforchange.net> <62B4DB6E-E1A0-46A5-B06A-CBA4DAB6DA59@graduateinstitute.ch> <4BF8F70B.4070805@itforchange.net> <4BF97BFB.7000502@qub.ac.uk> <16D52308-DC2C-47BA-8FEE-DE05FA92F4BE@psg.com> Message-ID: On 24/05/2010, at 11:53 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > so have we been able to introduce any new working methods or ways of reaching outcomes in the IGC? We haven't really needed to, since the mailing list has been working for us (though last time, we did experiment with online polling software which seemed to work well). But the IGF won't even use its the open mailing list that it already has. I convinced the Secretariat to create this back in 2006 (http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/plenary_intgovforum.org), but it has never been promoted to IGF participants, so nobody knows about it or uses 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 Mon May 24 01:35:30 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 13:35:30 +0800 Subject: [governance] IGF consultative process - request for comments Message-ID: <46260951-901C-4E13-9BAC-952C3E4C3CAE@ciroap.org> For those who have not yet read the notes of the MAG meeting to which Fouad posted a link yesterday, there was an important announcement of a new IGF consultative process: > This discussion in the MAG meeting was the first step of a broad based IGF consultative process. As a next step, the Secretariat would put out a Request of Comments on the following questions: > > (a) Has the work of the MAG been consistent with the mandate set out in the Tunis Agenda and subsequent decisions? > > (b) How best to nominate non-governmental members for the MAG? > > (c) How best to nominate the MAG Chair? > > (d) How best to organize open consultations? > > (e) How best to link with regional meetings? > > (f) How best to link with international processes and institutions? This will tie in well with our current discussions on the list about the IGF as a venue for developing globally-applicable public policy principles. In the spirit of innovative working methods, Ginger and I will work on how to best gather the IGC's collective thoughts for this consultative process. -- Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 CI is 50 Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010. Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer rights around the world. http://www.consumersinternational.org/50 Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Mon May 24 02:05:51 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 11:35:51 +0530 Subject: [governance] methods was CSTD In-Reply-To: <16D52308-DC2C-47BA-8FEE-DE05FA92F4BE@psg.com> References: <4BEA45E6.3010201@wzb.eu> <4BF79724.1020909@itforchange.net> <62B4DB6E-E1A0-46A5-B06A-CBA4DAB6DA59@graduateinstitute.ch> <4BF8F70B.4070805@itforchange.net> <4BF97BFB.7000502@qub.ac.uk> <16D52308-DC2C-47BA-8FEE-DE05FA92F4BE@psg.com> Message-ID: <4BFA173F.7010109@itforchange.net> Avri Doria wrote: > > so have we been able to introduce any new working methods or ways of reaching outcomes in the IGC? > > if we can't even do it here, in a group that seems to want to do it, what makes us think we can just convince the other stakeholders that they should do so. > > a. I am not sure what you are driving at, Avri. Governance and politics is not an optional 'game' in which we may want to participate or not. It is a key, perhaps even central, social function necessary for societies to survive. Whether a set of social actors are able to get their act together towards some outcome based processes depends on how strongly these actors see/ feel the need of these processes and outcomes. As I said in my email to Bill alluding to the political economy of the Internet that some may be more 'relaxed' about how things are at present as per their situation/ interests and other rather more eager and anxious to move forward for similar reasons. However in the final analysis purposeful governance of an social phenomenon as strong as pervasive as the Internet is not an option, it is a necessity. As for convincing 'other stakeholders' such convincing too has a context. For instance one cannot too easily convince large business that they need to be regulated (remember financial crisis). Almost same with institutions who at present 'independently' do technical coordination functions related to the Internet. Or a country that enjoys unilateral control over key infrastructural elements. I think we too easily exclude issues of power and countervailing power and power contestations involved in governance and political areas and focus too exclusively on win-win ideals. A balance between the two needs to be kept. However I did read with fascination the various new possibilities and means described by Dr Newman which I think denote interesting frontiers of participative democracy. However these methods would still need to be used along with many traditional ones. Basically, a lot of civil society advocacy - and almost all that goes under the label of progressive civil society - is premised on deep dissatisfaction with existing power structures and equations that are considered unfair and unjust, and it attempt to correct them through political action. Our advocacy work around falls within this larger goal - whereby Internet is sought to be made into an instrument of reducing social inequalities and injustices rather let it - and it does do it often - further exacerbate them. Parminder > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anriette at apc.org Mon May 24 03:06:27 2010 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 09:06:27 +0200 Subject: [governance] CSTD In-Reply-To: <4BF97B92.7050501@itforchange.net> References: <4BEA45E6.3010201@wzb.eu> ,<4BF79724.1020909@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701DC36EEAC@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4BF97B92.7050501@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <1274684787.3133.586.camel@anriette-laptop> Dear all Having been at the CSTD and having sat through all the negotiation sessions till late Friday afternoon (before the resolution was finalised) I am convinced that those governments who want internet governance to be located within an intergovermental space only use IGF reform as means bargaining with those in favour of IGF continuation. They are not really all that interested in IGF reform (with the exception of India and Brazil and Egypt who do take the IGF seriously and also IGF reform). What the majority of IGF critics want is simply an intergovernmental forum. Depending on their positions they would be open to having some input from other stakeholders in a 'balanced' way which means it has to be managed and controlled. In the case of civil society there will need to be some form of civil society representation. As Parminder pointed out the lack of substantial progress on enhanced cooperation is being used to diminish the IGF. However, I think that to believe that IGF reform will satisfy those governments most vocal about enhanced cooperation is dangerous. They want intergovernmental control in a forum where the US government does not play a dominant role, directly or indirectly. Some, like South Africa, are very explicit that they want the ITU to be the home of internet public policy decision-making. They are likely to be much more unhappy with an IGF that has decision-making authority driven by multi-stakeholder processes than an IGF that only facilitates dialogue. As civil society we need to refine our strategies. I believe we have to both take enhanced cooperation seriously, AND, fight hard for the IGF to continue as a forum with a loose relationship to the UN. We cannot afford to pretend that enhanced cooperation will sort itself out. (EC in the sense that the developing country governments define it, which I think means: "cooperative intergovernmental process with all governments having one vote as in the UN system and with controlled participation from other stakeholder groups".) As for the balance between public policy and 'technical' policy.. they seem to agree that there is a difference, and they are more interested in the public policy.. but of course where public ends and technical start is not always clear. And, we cannot afford to NOT fight hard for the IGF to continue as it is the only space where we can have open dialogue and I remain convinced that this is extremely important. The differences in position among governments on internet public policy are so vast that an intergovernmental policy space is likely to spend much of its time in deadlock. Civil society's agenda in such a space (assuming there will be some way for us to be in this space in a 'balanced' way) is likely to be set by governments and the contestation between them. Is this ALL really what we want? There is obviously more to say than this, and I have always been in favour of the IGF sending stronger messages to other institutions and to governments. I also believe we should try and see IG from the perspective of those governments outside North America and the EU. They have legitimate concerns. As civil society our primary responsibility should be to ensure that internet public policy spaces, both decision-making and dialogue spaces, remain open to our participation and that human rights and rights-oriented social, cultural and economic development concerns becomes a stronger driver in these spaces. Anriette On Mon, 2010-05-24 at 00:31 +0530, parminder wrote: > > > Milton L Mueller wrote: > > P: > > Why did it not come out stronger or more directly in favor of using the IGF for the development of GAPPs? (globally applicable public policy principles) > > --MM > > > For one, because I have tried often and long in this space to get > civil society to rally around some possibilities of the IGF > structuring itself to be able to do some such thing. But this has > largely been unsuccessful. > > It does surprise me often that many who keep asking for > multi-stakeholder systems to have strong policy role, instead of > intergov models, at the same time do not support IGF making any > progress towards making recommends, which is the least that would be > implied for it to take up the role you mention above. (I have tried my > best for it, and still do. We supported a CSTD working group with > likely multistakeholder involvement to suggest specific improvements > in the IGF which hopefully should be in the direction of making it > more purposeful.) > > Almost the last straw was the move earlier this year towards perhaps > even doing away with the MAG, which is the only structures part of the > IGF whereby it can move in the directions I, and presumably you, would > like it to. > > We continue to believe that IGF should have a very strong role in > development of globally applicable public policy principles. > > Also, our statement had a basic advocacy focus towards seeking some > movement on EC, and we did not want to dilute it, especailly when many > others were strongly using the ruse of the IGF to resist any such > movement. Our statement was coupled with a lot of lobbying with > developing country govs and others. I think we would see an open > consultation meeting on EC to be called by the Secretary General > before the end of the year. > > Parminder > > > > > > > ________________________________________ > > From: parminder [parminder at itforchange.net] > > Sent: Saturday, May 22, 2010 4:34 AM > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > Subject: [governance] CSTD > > > > Enclosed is a statement made by IT for Change to the UN Commission on > > Science and Technology for Development, on the first day of its 5 day > > sitting. More on this later. parminder > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > plain text document attachment (message-footer.txt) > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ anriette esterhuysen - executive director association for progressive communications p o box 29755 melville - south africa 2109 anriette at apc.org - tel/fax + 27 11 726 1692 http://www.apc.org APC 1990-2010 www.apc.org Thank you for helping make APC what it is today! ¡Gracias por hacer de APC lo que es hoy! Merci d'avoir contribué à faire d'APC ce qu'elle est aujourd'hui! ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ceo at bnnrc.net Mon May 24 03:26:50 2010 From: ceo at bnnrc.net (AHM Bazlur Rahman) Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 13:26:50 +0600 Subject: [governance] CSTD References: <4BEA45E6.3010201@wzb.eu> ,<4BF79724.1020909@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701DC36EEAC@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4BF97B92.7050501@itforchange.net> <1274684787.3133.586.camel@anriette-laptop> Message-ID: <57E4306EF43448EF9DC3B46507A841C8@ceo> Dear Ms. Anriette, Greetings from Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio and Communication (BNNRC) Thank you very much for your nice and practical thought regarding IGF process. "As civil society we need to refine our strategies" according to your emphasis as a civil society organization we need to take some activities country level also. I fully support your position. With best regards, Bazlu ________________________ AHM. Bazlur Rahman-S21BR Chief Executive Officer Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio and Communication (BNNRC) & Head – Community Radio Academy House: 13/1, Road:2, Shaymoli, Dhaka-1207 Post Box: 5095, Dhaka 1205 Bangladesh Phone: 88-02-9130750, 88-02-9138501 01711881647 Fax: 88-02-9138501-105 E-mail: ceo at bnnrc.net, bnnrc at bd.drik.net www.bnnrc.net ----- Original Message ----- From: "Anriette Esterhuysen" To: ; "parminder" Cc: "Milton L Mueller" Sent: Monday, May 24, 2010 1:06 PM Subject: Re: [governance] CSTD Dear all Having been at the CSTD and having sat through all the negotiation sessions till late Friday afternoon (before the resolution was finalised) I am convinced that those governments who want internet governance to be located within an intergovermental space only use IGF reform as means bargaining with those in favour of IGF continuation. They are not really all that interested in IGF reform (with the exception of India and Brazil and Egypt who do take the IGF seriously and also IGF reform). What the majority of IGF critics want is simply an intergovernmental forum. Depending on their positions they would be open to having some input from other stakeholders in a 'balanced' way which means it has to be managed and controlled. In the case of civil society there will need to be some form of civil society representation. As Parminder pointed out the lack of substantial progress on enhanced cooperation is being used to diminish the IGF. However, I think that to believe that IGF reform will satisfy those governments most vocal about enhanced cooperation is dangerous. They want intergovernmental control in a forum where the US government does not play a dominant role, directly or indirectly. Some, like South Africa, are very explicit that they want the ITU to be the home of internet public policy decision-making. They are likely to be much more unhappy with an IGF that has decision-making authority driven by multi-stakeholder processes than an IGF that only facilitates dialogue. As civil society we need to refine our strategies. I believe we have to both take enhanced cooperation seriously, AND, fight hard for the IGF to continue as a forum with a loose relationship to the UN. We cannot afford to pretend that enhanced cooperation will sort itself out. (EC in the sense that the developing country governments define it, which I think means: "cooperative intergovernmental process with all governments having one vote as in the UN system and with controlled participation from other stakeholder groups".) As for the balance between public policy and 'technical' policy.. they seem to agree that there is a difference, and they are more interested in the public policy.. but of course where public ends and technical start is not always clear. And, we cannot afford to NOT fight hard for the IGF to continue as it is the only space where we can have open dialogue and I remain convinced that this is extremely important. The differences in position among governments on internet public policy are so vast that an intergovernmental policy space is likely to spend much of its time in deadlock. Civil society's agenda in such a space (assuming there will be some way for us to be in this space in a 'balanced' way) is likely to be set by governments and the contestation between them. Is this ALL really what we want? There is obviously more to say than this, and I have always been in favour of the IGF sending stronger messages to other institutions and to governments. I also believe we should try and see IG from the perspective of those governments outside North America and the EU. They have legitimate concerns. As civil society our primary responsibility should be to ensure that internet public policy spaces, both decision-making and dialogue spaces, remain open to our participation and that human rights and rights-oriented social, cultural and economic development concerns becomes a stronger driver in these spaces. Anriette On Mon, 2010-05-24 at 00:31 +0530, parminder wrote: > > > Milton L Mueller wrote: > > P: > > Why did it not come out stronger or more directly in favor of using the > > IGF for the development of GAPPs? (globally applicable public policy > > principles) > > --MM > > > For one, because I have tried often and long in this space to get > civil society to rally around some possibilities of the IGF > structuring itself to be able to do some such thing. But this has > largely been unsuccessful. > > It does surprise me often that many who keep asking for > multi-stakeholder systems to have strong policy role, instead of > intergov models, at the same time do not support IGF making any > progress towards making recommends, which is the least that would be > implied for it to take up the role you mention above. (I have tried my > best for it, and still do. We supported a CSTD working group with > likely multistakeholder involvement to suggest specific improvements > in the IGF which hopefully should be in the direction of making it > more purposeful.) > > Almost the last straw was the move earlier this year towards perhaps > even doing away with the MAG, which is the only structures part of the > IGF whereby it can move in the directions I, and presumably you, would > like it to. > > We continue to believe that IGF should have a very strong role in > development of globally applicable public policy principles. > > Also, our statement had a basic advocacy focus towards seeking some > movement on EC, and we did not want to dilute it, especailly when many > others were strongly using the ruse of the IGF to resist any such > movement. Our statement was coupled with a lot of lobbying with > developing country govs and others. I think we would see an open > consultation meeting on EC to be called by the Secretary General > before the end of the year. > > Parminder > > > > > > > ________________________________________ > > From: parminder [parminder at itforchange.net] > > Sent: Saturday, May 22, 2010 4:34 AM > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > Subject: [governance] CSTD > > > > Enclosed is a statement made by IT for Change to the UN Commission on > > Science and Technology for Development, on the first day of its 5 day > > sitting. More on this later. parminder > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > plain text document attachment (message-footer.txt) > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ anriette esterhuysen - executive director association for progressive communications p o box 29755 melville - south africa 2109 anriette at apc.org - tel/fax + 27 11 726 1692 http://www.apc.org APC 1990-2010 www.apc.org Thank you for helping make APC what it is today! ¡Gracias por hacer de APC lo que es hoy! Merci d'avoir contribué à faire d'APC ce qu'elle est aujourd'hui! ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Mon May 24 03:48:44 2010 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 09:48:44 +0200 Subject: [governance] CSTD In-Reply-To: <1274684787.3133.586.camel@anriette-laptop> References: <4BEA45E6.3010201@wzb.eu> ,<4BF79724.1020909@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701DC36EEAC@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4BF97B92.7050501@itforchange.net> <1274684787.3133.586.camel@anriette-laptop> Message-ID: <7E25A6B4-5DE0-4E0D-AEB0-F55FC5C9840B@graduateinstitute.ch> Hi Anriette I agree entirely with your assessment. Just a few bits of amplification: On May 24, 2010, at 9:06 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Dear all > > Having been at the CSTD and having sat through all the negotiation > sessions till late Friday afternoon (before the resolution was > finalised) I am convinced that those governments who want internet > governance to be located within an intergovermental space only use IGF > reform as means bargaining with those in favour of IGF continuation. > They are not really all that interested in IGF reform (with the > exception of India and Brazil and Egypt who do take the IGF seriously > and also IGF reform). > > What the majority of IGF critics want is simply an intergovernmental > forum. Depending on their positions they would be open to having some > input from other stakeholders in a 'balanced' way which means it has to > be managed and controlled. In the case of civil society there will need > to be some form of civil society representation. And if the IGF is to them principally a bargaining chit to use on other chessboards and not someplace they want to really engage in multistakeholder decision making, one has to wonder whether trying to turn it into a decision making body isn't a bit chimeric and a poor use of scarce CS energies. I'd rather see us pushing to open up to participation and accountability those bodies that they do take seriously and want to use for decision making. It can be done, sometimes...look at the OECD, a somewhat underrated achievement. This is why I thought we should be objecting more to the distorted reading of EC as pure intergovernmentalism with the ITU dedicated group held up as exhibit A, despite TAIS 71's clear statement that EC is to be MS. > > As Parminder pointed out the lack of substantial progress on enhanced > cooperation is being used to diminish the IGF. Sure, but if there'd been more progress toward what they want they'd be using that to diminish the IGF, too. > > However, I think that to believe that IGF reform will satisfy those > governments most vocal about enhanced cooperation is dangerous. Yup > > They want intergovernmental control in a forum where the US government > does not play a dominant role, directly or indirectly. Ahd where non-state actors, including all those who actually do the work, have little or no role. Great model. > > Some, like South Africa, are very explicit that they want the ITU to be > the home of internet public policy decision-making. > > They are likely to be much more unhappy with an IGF that has > decision-making authority driven by multi-stakeholder processes than an > IGF that only facilitates dialogue. > > As civil society we need to refine our strategies. I believe we have to > both take enhanced cooperation seriously, AND, fight hard for the IGF to > continue as a forum with a loose relationship to the UN. > > We cannot afford to pretend that enhanced cooperation will sort itself > out. (EC in the sense that the developing country governments define it, > which I think means: "cooperative intergovernmental process with all > governments having one vote as in the UN system and with controlled > participation from other stakeholder groups".) As for the balance > between public policy and 'technical' policy.. they seem to agree that > there is a difference, and they are more interested in the public > policy.. but of course where public ends and technical start is not > always clear. > > And, we cannot afford to NOT fight hard for the IGF to continue as it is > the only space where we can have open dialogue and I remain convinced > that this is extremely important. > > The differences in position among governments on internet public policy > are so vast that an intergovernmental policy space is likely to spend > much of its time in deadlock. Absolutely. > Civil society's agenda in such a space > (assuming there will be some way for us to be in this space in a > 'balanced' way) is likely to be set by governments and the contestation > between them. > > Is this ALL really what we want? > > There is obviously more to say than this, and I have always been in > favour of the IGF sending stronger messages to other institutions and to > governments. I also believe we should try and see IG from the > perspective of those governments outside North America and the EU. They > have legitimate concerns. Yes, yes. But how to convince them that those concerns can be fruitfully explored and addressed in a non-traditional setting? This is part of why I've been banging on about making development more of a central focus in IGF...although it's not obvious that this will help if their driving concern is reifying state power. > > As civil society our primary responsibility should be to ensure that > internet public policy spaces, both decision-making and dialogue spaces, > remain open to our participation and that human rights and > rights-oriented social, cultural and economic development concerns > becomes a stronger driver in these spaces. > > Anriette > > > On Mon, 2010-05-24 at 00:31 +0530, parminder wrote: >> >> >> Milton L Mueller wrote: >>> P: >>> Why did it not come out stronger or more directly in favor of using the IGF for the development of GAPPs? (globally applicable public policy principles) >>> --MM >>> >> For one, because I have tried often and long in this space to get >> civil society to rally around some possibilities of the IGF >> structuring itself to be able to do some such thing. But this has >> largely been unsuccessful. >> >> It does surprise me often that many who keep asking for >> multi-stakeholder systems to have strong policy role, instead of >> intergov models, at the same time do not support IGF making any >> progress towards making recommends, which is the least that would be >> implied for it to take up the role you mention above. (I have tried my >> best for it, and still do. We supported a CSTD working group with >> likely multistakeholder involvement to suggest specific improvements >> in the IGF which hopefully should be in the direction of making it >> more purposeful.) >> >> Almost the last straw was the move earlier this year towards perhaps >> even doing away with the MAG, which is the only structures part of the >> IGF whereby it can move in the directions I, and presumably you, would >> like it to. >> >> We continue to believe that IGF should have a very strong role in >> development of globally applicable public policy principles. >> >> Also, our statement had a basic advocacy focus towards seeking some >> movement on EC, and we did not want to dilute it, especailly when many >> others were strongly using the ruse of the IGF to resist any such >> movement. Our statement was coupled with a lot of lobbying with >> developing country govs and others. I think we would see an open >> consultation meeting on EC to be called by the Secretary General >> before the end of the year. >> >> Parminder >> >> >> >> >> >>> ________________________________________ >>> From: parminder [parminder at itforchange.net] >>> Sent: Saturday, May 22, 2010 4:34 AM >>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> Subject: [governance] CSTD >>> >>> Enclosed is a statement made by IT for Change to the UN Commission on >>> Science and Technology for Development, on the first day of its 5 day >>> sitting. More on this later. parminder >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >> plain text document attachment (message-footer.txt) >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -- > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > anriette esterhuysen - executive director > association for progressive communications > p o box 29755 melville - south africa 2109 > anriette at apc.org - tel/fax + 27 11 726 1692 > http://www.apc.org > > APC 1990-2010 www.apc.org > Thank you for helping make APC what it is today! > ¡Gracias por hacer de APC lo que es hoy! > Merci d'avoir contribué à faire d'APC ce qu'elle est aujourd'hui! > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t *********************************************************** William J. Drake Senior Associate Centre for International Governance Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, Switzerland william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html *********************************************************** ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Mon May 24 03:55:33 2010 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 09:55:33 +0200 Subject: [governance] CSTD In-Reply-To: <4BF97BFB.7000502@qub.ac.uk> References: <4BEA45E6.3010201@wzb.eu> <4BF79724.1020909@itforchange.net> <62B4DB6E-E1A0-46A5-B06A-CBA4DAB6DA59@graduateinstitute.ch> <4BF8F70B.4070805@itforchange.net> <4BF97BFB.7000502@qub.ac.uk> Message-ID: <49E55AD3-13BE-4A92-BEE5-AD79FB39DBE5@graduateinstitute.ch> Hi Thanks David, this is interesting, and as Jeremy notes, some of these concepts could be usefully explored vis IGF. At the same time though, it's pretty clear that procedural innovations are not what most governments are looking for viz. EC, but rather old school lock the doors, majority vote intergovernmentalism. So it'd be a rather hard sell... Best Bill On May 23, 2010, at 9:03 PM, D. R. Newman wrote: > On 23/05/10 11:49, William Drake wrote: > >> Yes, although it's difficult to imagine what a decently configured >> space could look like, which has probably contributed to the lack of >> enthusiastic uptake of the challenge. > > It is not hard to think of better spaces and processes to find consensus > decisions. Peter Emerson has been doing this for decades in Northern > Ireland and Bosnia, in the meeting process + voting system called the > deBorda preferendum (www.deborda.org). He has frequently found consensus > between groups who hate each other: they do not agree on their first > choices, but will settle for the same second or third choice. > > A lot of intergovernmental meetings still use the traditional processes > of face-to-face meetings (which result in either excluding a lot of > people, or 200 people each speaking for 3 minutes, but not listening), > and paper documents. For years we have had groupware that allows us to > do better. Two examples, one on a meeting process, the other on > collaborative document writing. > > 1. America Speaks (www.americaspeaks.org) runs public meetings with 6000 > participants. Ordinary people site in tables of 10, with a trained > facilitator. On the table, someone types notes of the questions, ideas > and conclusions from the discussion. This is fed to a set of assistants > who group together ideas under topics, and feed them back to the whole > hall for discussion and voting. > > 2. In his Ph.D., Aldo de Moor got loggers and environmentalists to > co-write a forestry policy for British Columbia. His software > (www.grass-arena.org) lets each group make explicit their positions, > rather than falling into wiki editing wars. Under each section are a > list of the issues, and the alternative positions different people take. > > Years ago I was part of a consortium that planned to integrate all these > techniques to support a global discussion on global warming, supported > by the Club of Rome. We got to first reserve in Framework 6, but didn't > get funded. Right now I am doing something simpler: getting thousands of > young people to discuss Internet governance, then feed their conclusions > to policy makers. See http://huwy.eu/ > > -- > Dr. David R. Newman, Queen's University Belfast, School of Management > and Economics, BELFAST BT7 1NN, Northern Ireland (UK) > Tel. +44 28 9097 3643 mailto:d.r.newman at qub.ac.uk > http://www.qub.ac.uk/mgt/ http://www.e-consultation.org/ > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t *********************************************************** William J. Drake Senior Associate Centre for International Governance Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, Switzerland william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html *********************************************************** ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeanette at wzb.eu Mon May 24 04:20:21 2010 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 09:20:21 +0100 Subject: [governance] CSTD In-Reply-To: <1274684787.3133.586.camel@anriette-laptop> References: <4BEA45E6.3010201@wzb.eu> ,<4BF79724.1020909@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701DC36EEAC@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4BF97B92.7050501@itforchange.net> <1274684787.3133.586.camel@anriette-laptop> Message-ID: <4BFA36C5.60802@wzb.eu> Hi Anriette, [...] > The differences in position among governments on internet public policy > are so vast that an intergovernmental policy space is likely to spend > much of its time in deadlock. Civil society's agenda in such a space > (assuming there will be some way for us to be in this space in a > 'balanced' way) is likely to be set by governments and the contestation > between them. I fully agree with your observation that governments don't have enough common ground to overcome the deadlock we could observe throughout WSIS. And while WSIS was helpful for the formation of the civil society network we have right now, our own contributions were pretty much driven by the dynamics between government blocks. I think that the struggle for enhanced cooperation but also for formal outcomes at the IGF overrates the international capacity for policy making and it underrates the unintended side-effects of formal negotiation processes. Many of us watched and participated in the WSIS process for several years. Numerous people spent endless hours on declaration documents with deliberately ambiguous language because otherwise no consensus would have been possible. The main session on enhanced cooperation in Hyderabad spelled this out in detail. Obviously, we would not want to repeat this experience but what makes people so optimistic to expect that governments and the various stakeholders could significantly go beyond that? jeanette > > Is this ALL really what we want? > > There is obviously more to say than this, and I have always been in > favour of the IGF sending stronger messages to other institutions and to > governments. I also believe we should try and see IG from the > perspective of those governments outside North America and the EU. They > have legitimate concerns. > > As civil society our primary responsibility should be to ensure that > internet public policy spaces, both decision-making and dialogue spaces, > remain open to our participation and that human rights and > rights-oriented social, cultural and economic development concerns > becomes a stronger driver in these spaces. > > Anriette > > > On Mon, 2010-05-24 at 00:31 +0530, parminder wrote: >> >> Milton L Mueller wrote: >>> P: >>> Why did it not come out stronger or more directly in favor of using the IGF for the development of GAPPs? (globally applicable public policy principles) >>> --MM >>> >> For one, because I have tried often and long in this space to get >> civil society to rally around some possibilities of the IGF >> structuring itself to be able to do some such thing. But this has >> largely been unsuccessful. >> >> It does surprise me often that many who keep asking for >> multi-stakeholder systems to have strong policy role, instead of >> intergov models, at the same time do not support IGF making any >> progress towards making recommends, which is the least that would be >> implied for it to take up the role you mention above. (I have tried my >> best for it, and still do. We supported a CSTD working group with >> likely multistakeholder involvement to suggest specific improvements >> in the IGF which hopefully should be in the direction of making it >> more purposeful.) >> >> Almost the last straw was the move earlier this year towards perhaps >> even doing away with the MAG, which is the only structures part of the >> IGF whereby it can move in the directions I, and presumably you, would >> like it to. >> >> We continue to believe that IGF should have a very strong role in >> development of globally applicable public policy principles. >> >> Also, our statement had a basic advocacy focus towards seeking some >> movement on EC, and we did not want to dilute it, especailly when many >> others were strongly using the ruse of the IGF to resist any such >> movement. Our statement was coupled with a lot of lobbying with >> developing country govs and others. I think we would see an open >> consultation meeting on EC to be called by the Secretary General >> before the end of the year. >> >> Parminder >> >> >> >> >> >>> ________________________________________ >>> From: parminder [parminder at itforchange.net] >>> Sent: Saturday, May 22, 2010 4:34 AM >>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> Subject: [governance] CSTD >>> >>> Enclosed is a statement made by IT for Change to the UN Commission on >>> Science and Technology for Development, on the first day of its 5 day >>> sitting. More on this later. parminder >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >> plain text document attachment (message-footer.txt) >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 24 04:24:39 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 16:24:39 +0800 Subject: [governance] CSTD In-Reply-To: <7E25A6B4-5DE0-4E0D-AEB0-F55FC5C9840B@graduateinstitute.ch> References: <4BEA45E6.3010201@wzb.eu> ,<4BF79724.1020909@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701DC36EEAC@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4BF97B92.7050501@itforchange.net> <1274684787.3133.586.camel@anriette-laptop> <7E25A6B4-5DE0-4E0D-AEB0-F55FC5C9840B@graduateinstitute.ch> Message-ID: On 24/05/2010, at 3:48 PM, William Drake wrote: > And if the IGF is to them principally a bargaining chit to use on other chessboards and not someplace they want to really engage in multistakeholder decision making, one has to wonder whether trying to turn it into a decision making body isn't a bit chimeric and a poor use of scarce CS energies. I'd rather see us pushing to open up to participation and accountability those bodies that they do take seriously and want to use for decision making. What are they? The OECD will never be inclusive enough, even geographically. The ITU has already considered, and rejected, reforms to increase civil society participation. ICANN's mandate is too narrow. ECOSOC (CSTD)... possibly. But why, when the IGF already exists and the Secretary General has only just posted a statement calling for it to improve its format, functions and operations with a view to producing more tangible outcomes? Surely this is a golden opportunity...? -- Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 CI is 50 Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010. Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer rights around the world. http://www.consumersinternational.org/50 Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Mon May 24 06:14:59 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 15:44:59 +0530 Subject: [governance] CSTD In-Reply-To: <7E25A6B4-5DE0-4E0D-AEB0-F55FC5C9840B@graduateinstitute.ch> References: <4BEA45E6.3010201@wzb.eu> ,<4BF79724.1020909@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701DC36EEAC@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4BF97B92.7050501@itforchange.net> <1274684787.3133.586.camel@anriette-laptop> <7E25A6B4-5DE0-4E0D-AEB0-F55FC5C9840B@graduateinstitute.ch> Message-ID: <4BFA51A3.4020701@itforchange.net> While I have some clarifying comments on Anriette's detailed report (thanks for it) and subsequent remarks on it by others, it may be better to take some specific example and build our discussion around it. Bill's comments provides us one such example, that of OECD, as the kind of forums which work and with which we should engage rather than wasting our energies on something as dangerous and elusive as EC :) . > And if the IGF is to them principally a bargaining chit to use on other chessboards and not someplace they want to really engage in multistakeholder decision making, one has to wonder whether trying to turn it into a decision making body isn't a bit chimeric and a poor use of scarce CS energies. I'd rather see us pushing to open up to participation and accountability those bodies that they do take seriously and want to use for decision making. It can be done, sometimes...look at the OECD, a somewhat underrated achievement. This is why I thought we should be objecting more to the distorted reading of EC as pure intergovernmentalism with the ITU dedicated group held up as exhibit A, despite TAIS 71's clear statement that EC is to be MS. > > First of all, obviously we from the developing countries cannot be looking up to OECD Internet policy related mechanisms as our deliverance. In fact, OECD's Internet policy related activities rather than being the solution may be a big part of the problem for developing countries. I have said this so many times that it wont harm saying it once more - OECD's policies would soon become the default global norms, and we from the developing countries are not at all happy to be subject to norms and policies that are developed without our full democratic participation. I fail to understand why this lack of global democracy does not violate some people's sense of fairness and justice as does the perceived lack of multistakeholderism (MSism) ins yet-to-be global forums for global Internet policies does. Can anyone provide me an answer to that. But let us not be distracted. My principal point here is that if OECD's model of developing Internet related policies, with its effectiveness and its structures of stakeholder participation, is seen as exemplary, why dont we propose the same model but including all countries. I have never heard of any such a proposal. But it is never too late. Are we all here willing to propose a new global Internet policy forum modeled exactly on OECD's Internet related policy making processes, but with equal participation of all countries, and with exactly the same stakeholder participation model. That looks to me as a perfect enhanced cooperation model to suggest. Bill, what do you say. What is good for OECD countries, why shouldnt it be good for all countries together! Although I personally think it should be possible to suggest an even more participative EC model than the present OECD model, if we appear to be so happy with the OECD model lets go with it. I am sure developing countries can be brought around. Lets float the idea and see what actors speak against it, and which for. And you would get the real picture of where we really stand today vis a vis global Internet policy regimes, or the absence of them. I only know broadly about the OECD Internet policies related model. Others who know more can please elaborate - how it works, how it is structured for participation etc. Lets take it as a base for developing a 'enhanced cooperation' model for global Internet policy making and propose it to all stakeholders. This is quite the time for such a proposal to be made. I mean to present the above proposal rather seriously. And I hope others in this discussion do respond to it. Parminder ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Mon May 24 07:07:19 2010 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 13:07:19 +0200 Subject: [governance] CSTD In-Reply-To: <4BFA51A3.4020701@itforchange.net> References: <4BEA45E6.3010201@wzb.eu> ,<4BF79724.1020909@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701DC36EEAC@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4BF97B92.7050501@itforchange.net> <1274684787.3133.586.camel@anriette-laptop> <7E25A6B4-5DE0-4E0D-AEB0-F55FC5C9840B@graduateinstitute.ch> <4BFA51A3.4020701@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Parminder On May 24, 2010, at 12:14 PM, parminder wrote: > > > While I have some clarifying comments on Anriette's detailed report (thanks for it) and subsequent remarks on it by others, it may be better to take some specific example and build our discussion around it. Bill's comments provides us one such example, that of OECD, as the kind of forums which work and with which we should engage rather than wasting our energies on something as dangerous and elusive as EC :) . Sigh...I of course did not say we shouldn't be unconcerned with EC, but rather that the OECD experience indicates that in some cases it's possible to open up actually existing processes. >> And if the IGF is to them principally a bargaining chit to use on other chessboards and not someplace they want to really engage in multistakeholder decision making, one has to wonder whether trying to turn it into a decision making body isn't a bit chimeric and a poor use of scarce CS energies. I'd rather see us pushing to open up to participation and accountability those bodies that they do take seriously and want to use for decision making. It can be done, sometimes...look at the OECD, a somewhat underrated achievement. This is why I thought we should be objecting more to the distorted reading of EC as pure intergovernmentalism with the ITU dedicated group held up as exhibit A, despite TAIS 71's clear statement that EC is to be MS. >> > First of all, obviously we from the developing countries cannot be looking up to OECD Internet policy related mechanisms as our deliverance. In fact, OECD's Internet policy related activities rather than being the solution may be a big part of the problem for developing countries. I have said this so many times that it wont harm saying it once more - OECD's policies would soon become the default global norms, and we from the developing countries are not at all happy to be subject to norms and policies that are developed without our full democratic participation. I of course did not say that people from developing countries should look to OECD Internet policy related mechanisms for deliverance. And I have long made the point in writing, talks etc that deals worked out at that level can and do set de facto global rules. > > > I fail to understand why this lack of global democracy does not violate some people's sense of fairness and justice as does the perceived lack of multistakeholderism (MSism) ins yet-to-be global forums for global Internet policies does. Can anyone provide me an answer to that. > > But let us not be distracted. My principal point here is that if OECD's model of developing Internet related policies, with its effectiveness and its structures of stakeholder participation, is seen as exemplary, why dont we propose the same model but including all countries. > > I have never heard of any such a proposal. This was my original proposal for a new forum made at the UNICT TF global forum in NYC in March 2004, later published in Don MacLean's edited book. > But it is never too late. Are we all here willing to propose a new global Internet policy forum modeled exactly on OECD's Internet related policy making processes, but with equal participation of all countries, and with exactly the same stakeholder participation model. > > That looks to me as a perfect enhanced cooperation model to suggest. Bill, what do you say. > What is good for OECD countries, why shouldnt it be good for all countries together! I long favored this, although developments since have led me to wonder, per Anriette and Jeanette, whether it could have a chance of being successful, much less agreed to. Still, as an effort to think through the "so what do we want" question, it's probably worth considering as a baseline model. > > Although I personally think it should be possible to suggest an even more participative EC model than the present OECD model, if we appear to be so happy with the OECD model lets go with it. I am sure developing countries can be brought around. Lets float the idea and see what actors speak against it, and which for. And you would get the real picture of where we really stand today vis a vis global Internet policy regimes, or the absence of them. > > I only know broadly about the OECD Internet policies related model. Others who know more can please elaborate - how it works, how it is structured for participation etc. Lets take it as a base for developing a 'enhanced cooperation' model for global Internet policy making and propose it to all stakeholders. This is quite the time for such a proposal to be made. > > I mean to present the above proposal rather seriously. And I hope others in this discussion do respond to it. > > Parminder -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Mon May 24 07:16:34 2010 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 12:16:34 +0100 Subject: [governance] CSTD In-Reply-To: <4BFA51A3.4020701@itforchange.net> References: <4BEA45E6.3010201@wzb.eu> <4BF79724.1020909@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701DC36EEAC@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4BF97B92.7050501@itforchange.net> <1274684787.3133.586.camel@anriette-laptop> <7E25A6B4-5DE0-4E0D-AEB0-F55FC5C9840B@graduateinstitute.ch> <4BFA51A3.4020701@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <5wFPXhKSAm+LFAyk@perry.co.uk> In message <4BFA51A3.4020701 at itforchange.net>, at 15:44:59 on Mon, 24 May 2010, parminder writes >I only know broadly about the OECD Internet policies related model. >Others who know more can please elaborate - how it works, how it is >structured for participation etc. Lets take it as a base for developing >a 'enhanced cooperation' model for global Internet policy making and >propose it to all stakeholders. This is quite the time for such a >proposal to be made. The OECD process feels very much like the CSTD (in terms of government involvement, protocol etc), but the main difference is that Business, Civil Society and Internet technical community (& Trade Unions) are represented by individual and formally constituted "Advisory Committees", rather than a collection of individual organisations obtaining separate accreditation. [disclaimer: I'm currently helping run, and attend meetings for, the Internet Tech AC - ITAC; on behalf of the NRO] -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Mon May 24 09:26:21 2010 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 06:26:21 -0700 Subject: [governance] CSTD In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <03346C7B01EB4149A64C79514B667458@userPC> Having had a (limited) involvement, and before we become too enamoured of the OECD "opening up" we should see it for what it is. The OECD has opened up certain "technical" committees to "expert" CS and other participation ... What that means in practice is that they are looking for expert knowledge on the cheap i.e. for free, from civil society (and other) folks. What that means in turn is that effectively only those with significant institutional funding i.e. the major funded NGO's with sufficient interest and resources to finance and contribute expert knowledge can access meetings where the agenda has been pre-set by the inter-governmental management structure. >From a (fairly limited and fairly technical) major funded NGO/CS perspective I can see some advantages to that, in specific and mostly specialized/technical areas--standard setting for one... From the perspective of CS or non-governmental actor participation in broader areas of governance, hmmmm.... M -----Original Message----- From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] Sent: Monday, May 24, 2010 4:07 AM To: parminder Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Anriette Esterhuysen; Milton L Mueller Subject: Re: [governance] CSTD Parminder On May 24, 2010, at 12:14 PM, parminder wrote: While I have some clarifying comments on Anriette's detailed report (thanks for it) and subsequent remarks on it by others, it may be better to take some specific example and build our discussion around it. Bill's comments provides us one such example, that of OECD, as the kind of forums which work and with which we should engage rather than wasting our energies on something as dangerous and elusive as EC :) . Sigh...I of course did not say we shouldn't be unconcerned with EC, but rather that the OECD experience indicates that in some cases it's possible to open up actually existing processes. And if the IGF is to them principally a bargaining chit to use on other chessboards and not someplace they want to really engage in multistakeholder decision making, one has to wonder whether trying to turn it into a decision making body isn't a bit chimeric and a poor use of scarce CS energies. I'd rather see us pushing to open up to participation and accountability those bodies that they do take seriously and want to use for decision making. It can be done, sometimes...look at the OECD, a somewhat underrated achievement. This is why I thought we should be objecting more to the distorted reading of EC as pure intergovernmentalism with the ITU dedicated group held up as exhibit A, despite TAIS 71's clear statement that EC is to be MS. First of all, obviously we from the developing countries cannot be looking up to OECD Internet policy related mechanisms as our deliverance. In fact, OECD's Internet policy related activities rather than being the solution may be a big part of the problem for developing countries. I have said this so many times that it wont harm saying it once more - OECD's policies would soon become the default global norms, and we from the developing countries are not at all happy to be subject to norms and policies that are developed without our full democratic participation. I of course did not say that people from developing countries should look to OECD Internet policy related mechanisms for deliverance. And I have long made the point in writing, talks etc that deals worked out at that level can and do set de facto global rules. I fail to understand why this lack of global democracy does not violate some people's sense of fairness and justice as does the perceived lack of multistakeholderism (MSism) ins yet-to-be global forums for global Internet policies does. Can anyone provide me an answer to that. But let us not be distracted. My principal point here is that if OECD's model of developing Internet related policies, with its effectiveness and its structures of stakeholder participation, is seen as exemplary, why dont we propose the same model but including all countries. I have never heard of any such a proposal. This was my original proposal for a new forum made at the UNICT TF global forum in NYC in March 2004, later published in Don MacLean's edited book. But it is never too late. Are we all here willing to propose a new global Internet policy forum modeled exactly on OECD's Internet related policy making processes, but with equal participation of all countries, and with exactly the same stakeholder participation model. That looks to me as a perfect enhanced cooperation model to suggest. Bill, what do you say. What is good for OECD countries, why shouldnt it be good for all countries together! I long favored this, although developments since have led me to wonder, per Anriette and Jeanette, whether it could have a chance of being successful, much less agreed to. Still, as an effort to think through the "so what do we want" question, it's probably worth considering as a baseline model. Although I personally think it should be possible to suggest an even more participative EC model than the present OECD model, if we appear to be so happy with the OECD model lets go with it. I am sure developing countries can be brought around. Lets float the idea and see what actors speak against it, and which for. And you would get the real picture of where we really stand today vis a vis global Internet policy regimes, or the absence of them. I only know broadly about the OECD Internet policies related model. Others who know more can please elaborate - how it works, how it is structured for participation etc. Lets take it as a base for developing a 'enhanced cooperation' model for global Internet policy making and propose it to all stakeholders. This is quite the time for such a proposal to be made. I mean to present the above proposal rather seriously. And I hope others in this discussion do respond to it. Parminder -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Mon May 24 12:15:47 2010 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 17:15:47 +0100 Subject: [governance] CSTD In-Reply-To: <03346C7B01EB4149A64C79514B667458@userPC> References: <03346C7B01EB4149A64C79514B667458@userPC> Message-ID: In message <03346C7B01EB4149A64C79514B667458 at userPC>, at 06:26:21 on Mon, 24 May 2010, Michael Gurstein writes >Having had a (limited) involvement, and before we become too enamoured of >the OECD "opening up" we should see it for what it is. The OECD has opened >up certain "technical" committees to "expert" CS and other participation ... Agreed. Not unlike the ITU's "relevant experts" in some of their work at the moment. >What that means in practice is that they are looking for expert knowledge on >the cheap i.e. for free, from civil society (and other) folks. I'm not sure there's any equivalent process that would pay for general unsolicited "expert" input. Most of the time people are happy enough to be let into the room. You could try to make a case for a wide range of people with opinions to be paid to air them in International fora, but again using the ITU as an example they tend to pay to be present (ie sector members). >What that means in turn is that effectively only those with significant >institutional funding i.e. the major funded NGO's with sufficient >interest and resources to finance and contribute expert knowledge can >access meetings It's usually possible to find someone's coat-tails if you are that worried about getting an audience. >where the agenda has been pre-set by the inter-governmental management >structure. And the agenda setting isn't as bleakly inaccessible as that comment suggests. >From a (fairly limited and fairly technical) major funded NGO/CS perspective >I can see some advantages to that, in specific and mostly >specialized/technical areas--standard setting for one... From the >perspective of CS or non-governmental actor participation in broader areas >of governance, hmmmm.... I definitely don't want to speak for any of the OECD's ACs, or their constituent members, but would be surprised to find that it was as difficult as you suggest to get involved. -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Mon May 24 18:04:58 2010 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 03:04:58 +0500 Subject: [governance] IGF consultative process - request for comments In-Reply-To: <46260951-901C-4E13-9BAC-952C3E4C3CAE@ciroap.org> References: <46260951-901C-4E13-9BAC-952C3E4C3CAE@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Hi Jeremy and Everyone, Thank you for taking this up because the MAG improvements was an important matter that was raised during many discussions and this is the opportunity to create those much required improvements. However, I would like to point out one of the most critical issues raised and clarified that despite there are three clear stakeholder members of the multistakeholderism, that is, governments, private sector and civil society, still, no one body is representative of all the stakeholders in that particular stakeholder group. This means that in Civil Society, IGC is one of the members but is not the whole representative of the group and there are other Civil Society members outside the IGC participating in the IGF process. Similarly, within the Private Sector, ICC-International Chambers of Commerce is one of the members of the group but does not represent the whole group and there are may other private sector members, thus, for the Governments, you can understand that there are various government members and one government does not represent the whole government group of the multistakeholderism. Keeping this in view, when we discuss, choose, approve with consensus and forward our comments, we will have to bear in mind that within Civil Society, there will be many other members/organizations/technical groups that will be giving comments on their own and will not necessarily reflect IGC's views and the balance that the IGF Secretariat might strike is to be take into consideration views of all participating/commenting stakeholders. This is that crucial point that will effect the working of the MAG with either improvements or certain much awaited changes for the next 5 years if the IGF mandate is renewed. Therefore we must take a critical (be sure and in consensus about the changes we want) and balanced approach (keep in view that we as IGC are not the only members in the Civil Society group of the multistakeholderism). I am bringing these points into consideration because I have felt from my experience that it was a long struggle for all of us to initiate the very very small process of change and innovation amidst must resistance within the IGF but it couldn't have been done alone without convincing many of the members of other stakeholder groups to see the significant impacts of such dialogue such as IG4D Internet Governance for Development might create for all stakeholders. With us all very hopeful that the mandate will be renewed, we must grasp, use and achieve through this opportunity the most pressing needs and changes. If we request that MAG nominations should be improved, it should be taken into notice that all the other members/groups in the Civil Society will also have an equal nomination say and that IGC's nominations will not necessarily be the only determining point of selection of MAG members from Civil Society as IGC is only one member of that many members of the Civil Society group. So we will have to be very pragmatic. -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 10:35 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > For those who have not yet read the notes of the MAG meeting to which Fouad > posted a link yesterday, there was an important announcement of a new IGF > consultative process: > > This discussion in the MAG meeting was the first step of a broad based IGF > consultative process. As a next step, the Secretariat would put out a > Request of Comments on the following questions: > (a) Has the work of the MAG been consistent with the mandate set out in the > Tunis Agenda and subsequent decisions? > (b) How best to nominate non-governmental members for the MAG? > (c) How best to nominate the MAG Chair? > (d) How best to organize open consultations? > (e) How best to link with regional meetings? > (f) How best to link with international processes and institutions? > > This will tie in well with our current discussions on the list about the IGF > as a venue for developing globally-applicable public policy principles. > In the spirit of innovative working methods, Ginger and I will work on how > to best gather the IGC's collective thoughts for this consultative process. > -- > > 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 bdelachapelle at gmail.com Tue May 25 05:26:38 2010 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 11:26:38 +0200 Subject: [governance] methods was CSTD In-Reply-To: References: <4BEA45E6.3010201@wzb.eu> <4BF79724.1020909@itforchange.net> <62B4DB6E-E1A0-46A5-B06A-CBA4DAB6DA59@graduateinstitute.ch> <4BF8F70B.4070805@itforchange.net> <4BF97BFB.7000502@qub.ac.uk> <16D52308-DC2C-47BA-8FEE-DE05FA92F4BE@psg.com> Message-ID: Dear Jeremy, I also have always wondered why there is no greater use of this general mailing list for the IGF. Would reviving it be part of the future developments ? What could be its use ? Best Bertrand On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 6:19 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 24/05/2010, at 11:53 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > > > so have we been able to introduce any new working methods or ways of > reaching outcomes in the IGC? > > We haven't really needed to, since the mailing list has been working for us > (though last time, we did experiment with online polling software which > seemed to work well). But the IGF won't even use its the open mailing list > that it already has. I convinced the Secretariat to create this back in > 2006 (http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/plenary_intgovforum.org), > but it has never been promoted to IGF participants, so nobody knows about it > or uses 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 > -- ____________________ 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 bdelachapelle at gmail.com Tue May 25 05:39:58 2010 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 11:39:58 +0200 Subject: [governance] Pakistan to ban shutdown Facebook.com for 24hrs as In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701DC36EEB0@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701DC36EEB0@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Just a brief remark : Some actors probably draw a mistaken analogy between newspapers and web sites. Under certain conditions (established according to more or less transparent national legal processes), newspapers can be prevented from being distributed in a given country because of one specific content in it deemed illegal. The rationale is that it is not possible to separate the illegal content from the rest of the paper (unless there is a new printing without the said content). In the case of web sites, and particularly of very very large user-generated content platforms, it is technically possible to prevent access to a specific content without banning the entire site, and to issue a "notice and take down" if the site is based in the country. Therefore, a different logic can apply. One question remains : can there/should there be any "notice and take down" framework for content posted in a country that is illegal in another (remember the Yahoo auction case back in 1995, I think) ? More generally, this is the common issue : "what are the globally applicable public policy principles applicable to globally hosted content" ? A key issue in the Governance of social Media IGF thread. Can the example above (irrespective of the name of the specific country, to respect IGF's rules of engagement) be analysed in more detail during the Vilnius IGF ? Best Bertrand On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 8:55 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Notice that the advocates of a ban equate an action by a Facebook user with > an action by Facebook itself. How do we drive home the notion of > user-generated content and the idea of placing responsibility on the > endpoints to non-internet users, or would that make any difference? That an > objection to one page does not require a ban on an entire site. > > --MM > ________________________________________ > >A Pakistani court has issued a ban on the social networking site > >Facebook after a user-generated contest page encourged members to > > post caricatures of Prophet Mohammed. > > > >The Lahore High Court on Wednesday instructed the Pakistani > >Telecommunications Authority (PTA) to ban the site after the Islamic > >Lawyers Movement complained that a page called “Draw Mohammed Day” is > >blasphemous. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the Information Society Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Tue May 25 06:02:59 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 18:02:59 +0800 Subject: [governance] methods was CSTD In-Reply-To: References: <4BEA45E6.3010201@wzb.eu> <4BF79724.1020909@itforchange.net> <62B4DB6E-E1A0-46A5-B06A-CBA4DAB6DA59@graduateinstitute.ch> <4BF8F70B.4070805@itforchange.net> <4BF97BFB.7000502@qub.ac.uk> <16D52308-DC2C-47BA-8FEE-DE05FA92F4BE@psg.com> Message-ID: <3724D3D7-FEB0-4DB5-BA14-ADCD3960ADE2@ciroap.org> On 25/05/2010, at 5:26 PM, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > I also have always wondered why there is no greater use of this general mailing list for the IGF. > > Would reviving it be part of the future developments ? Personally I think it is worth us putting this forward as part of our next statement, because it could greatly improve the year-long interaction between IGF stakeholders, especially "outsiders" who are excluded by the process as it stands. These include those who are not part of the MAG, cannot travel to the open consultation meetings, and inevitably feel like "second class citizens" using fly-on-the-wall remote participation tools. A general mailing list is a great leveller and is widely used by every other Internet governance institution, apart from the IGF. -- 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 gabriela at itforchange.net Tue May 25 06:59:52 2010 From: gabriela at itforchange.net (Gabriela) Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 16:29:52 +0530 Subject: [governance] Upcoming Event on May 27-29, 2010: Public Sector Software Workshop in Kochi, Kerala Message-ID: <4BFBADA8.9020302@itforchange.net> An international conference on 'Public Sector Software and FOSS in Education' is being organized by UNESCO/UN Solution Exchange ICTD unit and IT at School Project of Government of Kerala in Kochi on 27-29^th of May. The conference will be an opportunity to present case studies on adoption of Public Sector Software with a special focus on education to ensure public ownership, transparency, sharing and independent use of public software. The workshop will encourage practitioners and policy makers to take the discussions on the 'Guiding Principles for Public Sector Software' in the South India regional workshop on similar theme held in Bangalore in February 2010, forward to frame 'Public Sector Software Architecture (PSSA)'. Workshop objectives: 1. Provide a sharing of the experiences and lesson learned which could provide various stakeholders involved in promoting good governance with a better understanding of public sector software; 2. Discuss the potential and challenges in implementing Open standards and software in the public sector by various stakeholders involved in promoting ICTs; 3. Discuss, finalise and adopt 'Guiding principles for policy on software for the Public Sector' which was initiated at the regional workshop on public sector software in Bangalore on Feb 1-2, 2010; and 4. Provide inputs for developing a framework for 'Public Sector Software Architecture (PSSA) document. The conference will be an opportunity to present case studies on adoption of PSS of with a special focus on education. Delegates will discuss and provide inputs to enable the spread of these initiatives across the region at concept, policy and program levels. To read more on the conference, please click here: http://public-software-centre.org/ Participation is by invitation. We will update the proceedings of the conference after the event's completion. -- Gabriela Goulart Mora Communication and Publications Officer IT for Change Tel: +91 80 26536890 or 26654134 ext. 54 Cel: +91 99611-752174 Add: #393, 17th Main, 35th Cross Jayanagar 4th T Block Bangalore 560041 India www.itforchange.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Tue May 25 07:13:08 2010 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 07:13:08 -0400 Subject: [governance] methods was CSTD In-Reply-To: References: <4BEA45E6.3010201@wzb.eu> <4BF79724.1020909@itforchange.net> <62B4DB6E-E1A0-46A5-B06A-CBA4DAB6DA59@graduateinstitute.ch> <4BF8F70B.4070805@itforchange.net> <4BF97BFB.7000502@qub.ac.uk> <16D52308-DC2C-47BA-8FEE-DE05FA92F4BE@psg.com> Message-ID: "But the IGF won't even use its the open mailing list that it already has. I convinced the Secretariat to create this back in 2006 ( http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/plenary_intgovforum.org), but it has never been promoted to IGF participants, so nobody knows about it or uses it." With the greatest respect I think the perception communicated by these sentences is one of the things at the root of many of the problems. The IGF doesn't use its mailing list because "we" don't use the mailing list. "We" are the IGF. I have been following discussions elsewhere about the involvement of youth in Internet governance. Many of them, voices of "the youth" themselves as well, speak of the need to inform and explain and present the information in a form which "the youth" will find palatable. It seems to me that no one is pointing to the need for "the youth" themselves, or anyone else for that matter, to take an interest in a phenomenon of which they must be aware and make an effort to learn about it for its own sake. In a world which keeps talking about "lifelong learning" there seems to be remarkably little mention of the responsibility to learn. I would suggest that we need to shift from passive to active thinking. "... it has never been promoted" [this has a sub-text for me of "by whom?"] to "we will ...", not only said but done. Reading through this I find it sounds angry, which was not my intention. If you hear "angry", please help me by reinterpreting as "urgent". Deirdre On 24 May 2010 00:19, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 24/05/2010, at 11:53 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > > > so have we been able to introduce any new working methods or ways of > reaching outcomes in the IGC? > > We haven't really needed to, since the mailing list has been working for us > (though last time, we did experiment with online polling software which > seemed to work well). But the IGF won't even use its the open mailing list > that it already has. I convinced the Secretariat to create this back in > 2006 (http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/plenary_intgovforum.org), > but it has never been promoted to IGF participants, so nobody knows about it > or uses 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 > -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeanette at wzb.eu Tue May 25 07:18:48 2010 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 12:18:48 +0100 Subject: [governance] methods was CSTD In-Reply-To: References: <4BEA45E6.3010201@wzb.eu> <4BF79724.1020909@itforchange.net> <62B4DB6E-E1A0-46A5-B06A-CBA4DAB6DA59@graduateinstitute.ch> <4BF8F70B.4070805@itforchange.net> <4BF97BFB.7000502@qub.ac.uk> <16D52308-DC2C-47BA-8FEE-DE05FA92F4BE@psg.com> Message-ID: <4BFBB218.1030607@wzb.eu> Hi Bertrand and Jeremy, a mailing list for more than 1000 participants? Are you sure mailing lists are a good device for organizing a meaningful discussion for such a large and diverse group of people? What should they discuss? All the topics addressed at the IGF meetings? jeanette Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > Dear Jeremy, > > I also have always wondered why there is no greater use of this general > mailing list for the IGF. > > Would reviving it be part of the future developments ? > > What could be its use ? > > Best > > Bertrand > > > On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 6:19 AM, Jeremy Malcolm > wrote: > > On 24/05/2010, at 11:53 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > > > so have we been able to introduce any new working methods or ways > of reaching outcomes in the IGC? > > We haven't really needed to, since the mailing list has been working > for us (though last time, we did experiment with online polling > software which seemed to work well). But the IGF won't even use its > the open mailing list that it already has. I convinced the > Secretariat to create this back in 2006 > (http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/plenary_intgovforum.org), > but it has never been promoted to IGF participants, so nobody knows > about it or uses 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 > > > > > -- > ____________________ > Bertrand de La Chapelle > Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the > Information Society > Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of > Foreign and European Affairs > Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 > > "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de > Saint Exupéry > ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mazzone at ebu.ch Tue May 25 07:28:26 2010 From: mazzone at ebu.ch (Mazzone, Giacomo) Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 13:28:26 +0200 Subject: [governance] CSTD In-Reply-To: <1274684787.3133.586.camel@anriette-laptop> References: <4BEA45E6.3010201@wzb.eu> ,<4BF79724.1020909@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701DC36EEAC@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4BF97B92.7050501@itforchange.net> <1274684787.3133.586.camel@anriette-laptop> Message-ID: <488E8B79032F7642949B28142651689CF45665DF67@GVAMAIL.gva.ebu.ch> Ciao Anriette, Very clear conclusions. Are you still around or already left for South Africa ? Giacomo -----Original Message----- From: Anriette Esterhuysen [mailto:anriette at apc.org] Sent: lundi, 24. mai 2010 09:06 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; parminder Cc: Milton L Mueller Subject: Re: [governance] CSTD Dear all Having been at the CSTD and having sat through all the negotiation sessions till late Friday afternoon (before the resolution was finalised) I am convinced that those governments who want internet governance to be located within an intergovermental space only use IGF reform as means bargaining with those in favour of IGF continuation. They are not really all that interested in IGF reform (with the exception of India and Brazil and Egypt who do take the IGF seriously and also IGF reform). What the majority of IGF critics want is simply an intergovernmental forum. Depending on their positions they would be open to having some input from other stakeholders in a 'balanced' way which means it has to be managed and controlled. In the case of civil society there will need to be some form of civil society representation. As Parminder pointed out the lack of substantial progress on enhanced cooperation is being used to diminish the IGF. However, I think that to believe that IGF reform will satisfy those governments most vocal about enhanced cooperation is dangerous. They want intergovernmental control in a forum where the US government does not play a dominant role, directly or indirectly. Some, like South Africa, are very explicit that they want the ITU to be the home of internet public policy decision-making. They are likely to be much more unhappy with an IGF that has decision-making authority driven by multi-stakeholder processes than an IGF that only facilitates dialogue. As civil society we need to refine our strategies. I believe we have to both take enhanced cooperation seriously, AND, fight hard for the IGF to continue as a forum with a loose relationship to the UN. We cannot afford to pretend that enhanced cooperation will sort itself out. (EC in the sense that the developing country governments define it, which I think means: "cooperative intergovernmental process with all governments having one vote as in the UN system and with controlled participation from other stakeholder groups".) As for the balance between public policy and 'technical' policy.. they seem to agree that there is a difference, and they are more interested in the public policy.. but of course where public ends and technical start is not always clear. And, we cannot afford to NOT fight hard for the IGF to continue as it is the only space where we can have open dialogue and I remain convinced that this is extremely important. The differences in position among governments on internet public policy are so vast that an intergovernmental policy space is likely to spend much of its time in deadlock. Civil society's agenda in such a space (assuming there will be some way for us to be in this space in a 'balanced' way) is likely to be set by governments and the contestation between them. Is this ALL really what we want? There is obviously more to say than this, and I have always been in favour of the IGF sending stronger messages to other institutions and to governments. I also believe we should try and see IG from the perspective of those governments outside North America and the EU. They have legitimate concerns. As civil society our primary responsibility should be to ensure that internet public policy spaces, both decision-making and dialogue spaces, remain open to our participation and that human rights and rights-oriented social, cultural and economic development concerns becomes a stronger driver in these spaces. Anriette On Mon, 2010-05-24 at 00:31 +0530, parminder wrote: > > > Milton L Mueller wrote: > > P: > > Why did it not come out stronger or more directly in favor of using the IGF for the development of GAPPs? (globally applicable public policy principles) > > --MM > > > For one, because I have tried often and long in this space to get > civil society to rally around some possibilities of the IGF > structuring itself to be able to do some such thing. But this has > largely been unsuccessful. > > It does surprise me often that many who keep asking for > multi-stakeholder systems to have strong policy role, instead of > intergov models, at the same time do not support IGF making any > progress towards making recommends, which is the least that would be > implied for it to take up the role you mention above. (I have tried my > best for it, and still do. We supported a CSTD working group with > likely multistakeholder involvement to suggest specific improvements > in the IGF which hopefully should be in the direction of making it > more purposeful.) > > Almost the last straw was the move earlier this year towards perhaps > even doing away with the MAG, which is the only structures part of the > IGF whereby it can move in the directions I, and presumably you, would > like it to. > > We continue to believe that IGF should have a very strong role in > development of globally applicable public policy principles. > > Also, our statement had a basic advocacy focus towards seeking some > movement on EC, and we did not want to dilute it, especailly when many > others were strongly using the ruse of the IGF to resist any such > movement. Our statement was coupled with a lot of lobbying with > developing country govs and others. I think we would see an open > consultation meeting on EC to be called by the Secretary General > before the end of the year. > > Parminder > > > > > > > ________________________________________ > > From: parminder [parminder at itforchange.net] > > Sent: Saturday, May 22, 2010 4:34 AM > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > Subject: [governance] CSTD > > > > Enclosed is a statement made by IT for Change to the UN Commission on > > Science and Technology for Development, on the first day of its 5 day > > sitting. More on this later. parminder > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > plain text document attachment (message-footer.txt) > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ anriette esterhuysen - executive director association for progressive communications p o box 29755 melville - south africa 2109 anriette at apc.org - tel/fax + 27 11 726 1692 http://www.apc.org APC 1990-2010 www.apc.org Thank you for helping make APC what it is today! ¡Gracias por hacer de APC lo que es hoy! Merci d'avoir contribué à faire d'APC ce qu'elle est aujourd'hui! ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 psg.com Tue May 25 07:36:33 2010 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 07:36:33 -0400 Subject: [governance] methods was CSTD In-Reply-To: <3724D3D7-FEB0-4DB5-BA14-ADCD3960ADE2@ciroap.org> References: <4BEA45E6.3010201@wzb.eu> <4BF79724.1020909@itforchange.net> <62B4DB6E-E1A0-46A5-B06A-CBA4DAB6DA59@graduateinstitute.ch> <4BF8F70B.4070805@itforchange.net> <4BF97BFB.7000502@qub.ac.uk> <16D52308-DC2C-47BA-8FEE-DE05FA92F4BE@psg.com> <3724D3D7-FEB0-4DB5-BA14-ADCD3960ADE2@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Hi, One data-point: the list is monitored, it is just rarely used. a. On 25 May 2010, at 06:02, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 25/05/2010, at 5:26 PM, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > >> I also have always wondered why there is no greater use of this general mailing list for the IGF. >> >> Would reviving it be part of the future developments ? > > Personally I think it is worth us putting this forward as part of our next statement, because it could greatly improve the year-long interaction between IGF stakeholders, especially "outsiders" who are excluded by the process as it stands. These include those who are not part of the MAG, cannot travel to the open consultation meetings, and inevitably feel like "second class citizens" using fly-on-the-wall remote participation tools. A general mailing list is a great leveller and is widely used by every other Internet governance institution, apart from the IGF. > > -- > 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 Tue May 25 07:41:40 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 19:41:40 +0800 Subject: [governance] methods was CSTD In-Reply-To: <4BFBB218.1030607@wzb.eu> References: <4BEA45E6.3010201@wzb.eu> <4BF79724.1020909@itforchange.net> <62B4DB6E-E1A0-46A5-B06A-CBA4DAB6DA59@graduateinstitute.ch> <4BF8F70B.4070805@itforchange.net> <4BF97BFB.7000502@qub.ac.uk> <16D52308-DC2C-47BA-8FEE-DE05FA92F4BE@psg.com> <4BFBB218.1030607@wzb.eu> Message-ID: On 25/05/2010, at 7:18 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > a mailing list for more than 1000 participants? Are you sure mailing lists are a good device for organizing a meaningful discussion for such a large and diverse group of people? What should they discuss? All the topics addressed at the IGF meetings? The IGC list has almost half that number already, so why not? I am sure we are all members of mailing lists with over 1000 participants. Following the IETF or RIR models, there could actually be a multitude of more focussed mailing lists, but also a central one... hence the name "plenary" given to the list that we have. -- 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 Thu May 27 04:43:34 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 04:13:34 -0430 Subject: [governance] ICANN head warns against putting Internet addresses under UN control Message-ID: <4BFE30B6.5050106@gmail.com> ICANN head warns against putting Internet addresses under UN control Posted by Andrew Adams: This (Canadian) Globe and Mail article includes details of Beckstrom's recent statements against UN oversight of ICANN. http://tinyurl.com/38m78m2 Summary: UN oversight would make ICANN "less nimble" according to Beckstrom. My opinion: could ICANN really be any less nimble given how glacial it is at introducing innovative ideas? Perhaps more international oversight could pressure ICANN into prioritising the real needs of users and less the concerns of staff which may or may not coincide with user needs. -- Professor Andrew A Adams Professor at Graduate School of Business Administration, and Deputy Director of the Centre for Business Information Ethics Meiji University, Tokyo, Japan ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From bdelachapelle at gmail.com Thu May 27 05:06:00 2010 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 11:06:00 +0200 Subject: [governance] ICANN head warns against putting Internet addresses In-Reply-To: <4BFE30B6.5050106@gmail.com> References: <4BFE30B6.5050106@gmail.com> Message-ID: ICANN, NIMBLE ???? :-)) Not that replacing it with a UN body would improve things. The challenge is how to build a more international, more globally accountable and public interest oriented ICANN, not the mere alternative : either the way ICANN (dis)functions today or another, even more unappealing option. The AoC paves a way forward. Will we collectively be able to move in the right direction ? That is the right question. B. On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 10:43 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: > > ICANN head warns against putting Internet addresses under UN control > > Posted by Andrew Adams: > > This (Canadian) Globe and Mail article includes details of Beckstrom's > recent > statements against UN oversight of ICANN. > > http://tinyurl.com/38m78m2 > > Summary: UN oversight would make ICANN "less nimble" according to > Beckstrom. > > My opinion: could ICANN really be any less nimble given how glacial it is > at > introducing innovative ideas? Perhaps more international oversight could > pressure ICANN into prioritising the real needs of users and less the > concerns of staff which may or may not coincide with user needs. > > -- > Professor Andrew A Adams > Professor at Graduate School of Business Administration, and > Deputy Director of the Centre for Business Information Ethics > Meiji University, Tokyo, Japan > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 isolatedn at gmail.com Thu May 27 05:43:08 2010 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M) Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 15:13:08 +0530 Subject: [governance] ICANN head warns against putting Internet addresses In-Reply-To: References: <4BFE30B6.5050106@gmail.com> Message-ID: UN involvement in ICANN is a particular matter of concern, because it would eventually bring in ICANN under the ITU umbrella. Bringing UN to oversee the addressing system is to pave way for the ITU to move closer to its dream of taking over Critical Internet Resources. Some Governments may support such an idea either by the mistaken belief that it is the only effective way out of DoC's unilateral control, or influenced by the ITU propaganda. Sivasubramanian M. On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 2:36 PM, Bertrand de La Chapelle < bdelachapelle at gmail.com> wrote: > ICANN, NIMBLE ???? :-)) > > Not that replacing it with a UN body would improve things. The challenge is > how to build a more international, more globally accountable and public > interest oriented ICANN, not the mere alternative : either the way ICANN > (dis)functions today or another, even more unappealing option. The AoC paves > a way forward. Will we collectively be able to move in the right direction ? > That is the right question. > > B. > > On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 10:43 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: > >> >> ICANN head warns against putting Internet addresses under UN control >> >> Posted by Andrew Adams: >> >> This (Canadian) Globe and Mail article includes details of Beckstrom's >> recent >> statements against UN oversight of ICANN. >> >> http://tinyurl.com/38m78m2 >> >> Summary: UN oversight would make ICANN "less nimble" according to >> Beckstrom. >> >> My opinion: could ICANN really be any less nimble given how glacial it is >> at >> introducing innovative ideas? Perhaps more international oversight could >> pressure ICANN into prioritising the real needs of users and less the >> concerns of staff which may or may not coincide with user needs. >> >> -- >> Professor Andrew A Adams >> Professor at Graduate School of Business Administration, and >> Deputy Director of the Centre for Business Information Ethics >> Meiji University, Tokyo, Japan >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > > > -- > ____________________ > Bertrand de La Chapelle > Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the > Information Society > Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of > Foreign and European Affairs > Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 > > "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint > Exupéry > ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Thu May 27 05:43:27 2010 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 11:43:27 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] ICANN head warns against putting Internet addresses References: <4BFE30B6.5050106@gmail.com> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A06C72@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> The discussion never ends. My impression is that structurally the debate is back in the pre-WGIG-time (but in a dialectical way, that means on a "higher level" with more players, more layers and without a DOC-ICANN-MoU) . New crowds are discovering as news for them what is known since more than one or two decades and reinventing the wheel by asking (raising) questions which has been already answered hundred times. This keeps the ball rolling, fills news columns and feeds governmental civil servants who can tell their ministers that there is something important which has to be done/observed/developed etc. just "one cent" from the sidewalk ;-(((: Wolfgang ________________________________ Von: Bertrand de La Chapelle [mailto:bdelachapelle at gmail.com] Gesendet: Do 27.05.2010 11:06 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ginger Paque Betreff: Re: [governance] ICANN head warns against putting Internet addresses ICANN, NIMBLE ???? :-)) Not that replacing it with a UN body would improve things. The challenge is how to build a more international, more globally accountable and public interest oriented ICANN, not the mere alternative : either the way ICANN (dis)functions today or another, even more unappealing option. The AoC paves a way forward. Will we collectively be able to move in the right direction ? That is the right question. B. On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 10:43 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: ICANN head warns against putting Internet addresses under UN control Posted by Andrew Adams: This (Canadian) Globe and Mail article includes details of Beckstrom's recent statements against UN oversight of ICANN. http://tinyurl.com/38m78m2 Summary: UN oversight would make ICANN "less nimble" according to Beckstrom. My opinion: could ICANN really be any less nimble given how glacial it is at introducing innovative ideas? Perhaps more international oversight could pressure ICANN into prioritising the real needs of users and less the concerns of staff which may or may not coincide with user needs. -- Professor Andrew A Adams Professor at Graduate School of Business Administration, and Deputy Director of the Centre for Business Information Ethics Meiji University, Tokyo, Japan ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the Information Society Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Thu May 27 05:43:37 2010 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 18:43:37 +0900 Subject: [governance] ICANN head warns against putting Internet In-Reply-To: References: <4BFE30B6.5050106@gmail.com> Message-ID: At 11:06 AM +0200 5/27/10, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: >ICANN, NIMBLE ???? :-)) > >Not that replacing it with a UN body would >improve things. The challenge is how to build a >more international, more globally accountable >and public interest oriented ICANN, not the mere >alternative : either the way ICANN >(dis)functions today or another, even more >unappealing option. The AoC paves a way forward. Exactly. I think we would all question whether ICANN was nimble (but at the same time many of us are asking for increased checks and balances, added process such as additional time for comment and translation, that make is less nimble... though there are other larger factors.) But very clear from the AoC, and that ICANN conducts regular reviews, supports policy development bodies representing different stakeholders, that it does consider multistakeholder participation important and does attempt to evolve. Of all the organizations asked by the secretary general for input on enhanced cooperation has any other organization done more to address para's 66-71 of the Tunis Agenda? Some have done absolutely nothing. At the World Telecommunication Development Conference, Hyderabad, today, ITU is again discussing how it will extend its reach into cybersecurity, ICT applications and Internet-related issues (of course IP address allocation, TLD management and control etc.) Is there a non-commercial stakeholders group in Hyderabad able to join the discussion, a group for end users able to draft responses on all documents and policy... Back to the recent thread on CSTD begun by Anriette's very helpful note, it's the failure of some organizations to address the Tunis Agenda we should be demanding governments address. Can someone remind me what are the Geneva Principles on Internet governance. Adam >Will we collectively be able to move in the >right direction ? That is the right question.  > > >B. > >On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 10:43 AM, Ginger Paque ><gpaque at gmail.com> >wrote: > > >ICANN head warns against putting Internet addresses under UN control > >Posted by Andrew Adams: > >This (Canadian) Globe and Mail article includes details of Beckstrom's recent >statements against UN oversight of ICANN. > >http://tinyurl.com/38m78m2 > >Summary: UN oversight would make ICANN "less nimble" according to Beckstrom. > >My opinion: could ICANN really be any less nimble given how glacial it is at >introducing innovative ideas? Perhaps more international oversight could >pressure ICANN into prioritising the real needs of users and less the >concerns of staff which may or may not coincide with user needs. > >-- >Professor Andrew A Adams >Professor at Graduate School of Business Administration, and >Deputy Director of the Centre for Business Information Ethics >Meiji University, Tokyo, Japan > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >  governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >Translate this email: >http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > >-- >____________________ >Bertrand de La Chapelle >Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information >/ Special Envoy for the Information Society >Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et >Européennes/ French Ministry of Foreign and >European Affairs >Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 > >"Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir >les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry >("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Thu May 27 07:09:44 2010 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 13:09:44 +0200 Subject: [governance] ICANN head warns against putting Internet In-Reply-To: References: <4BFE30B6.5050106@gmail.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20100527130203.0645e510@jefsey.com> At 11:06 27/05/2010, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: >ICANN, NIMBLE ???? :-)) > >Not that replacing it with a UN body would improve things. The >challenge is how to build a more international, more globally >accountable and public interest oriented ICANN, not the mere >alternative : either the way ICANN (dis)functions today or another, >even more unappealing option. The AoC paves a way forward. Will we >collectively be able to move in the right direction ? That is the >right question. Suggestion for a nimbler ICANN: an humbler ICANN. jfc PS. The AoC is based upon the ignorance of how names and addresses differ, while there is currently no consensus within the ISOCANN enhanced cooperation about what an address is - and a systematic disinterest in the US odd delegation (how can you delegate what you do not own) to ICANN for Class IN (01) only. I suggest that IGF meetings start with crash Internet terminology trainings ICANN staff should attend (not organize). ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 27 10:22:03 2010 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 07:22:03 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] ICANN head warns against putting Internet addresses under UN control In-Reply-To: <4BFE30B6.5050106@gmail.com> References: <4BFE30B6.5050106@gmail.com> Message-ID: <403179.81938.qm@web33002.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Dear All,   Similar information was heard in September 2005 (some days before Tunisia meeting), with the reference of "UN's Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG)" which is now called as UN's IGF/MAG. Some document was produced by the advisory working group at that time advocating some international control of the Internet but did not mentioned further detail that how these roles would be played.   It has been relating with the UN and IGF but there was no clear policy or agenda was defined. However, ICANN was renewing MoU with US many times and once it was expiring in 2006, IGC has also proposed conditions for the expiration of MoU, which would not eliminate US Policy control over the root. IGC recommendations would de-nationalize the most political part of the US Political Oversight.   After the processes of MoU, “Affirmation of Commitments”, JPA and especially (after the) launching of IDN ccTLDs in Arabic Countries and Russia, (China's IDN ccTLD is also being approved with two different scripts), (it was seem to me that) all the issues has been resolved.   But the sudden statement with the reference of Mr Rod Beckstrom is surprising. This issue may have been highlighted to produce a confidence to some countries but Mr Rod is very right that the "Multilateral state control could make ICANN less nimble" in the development process of new layers of the Internet with Local Languages on the globe (IDN ccTLDs/gTLDs). The ICANNians can explain the story that what is behind this issue and Professor Andrew A Adams may elaborate that what are the concern of the users which he mentioned and which may resolve (only and only) if ICANN is governed by UN.     Regards   Imran Ahmed Shah ICANN head warns against putting Internet addresses under UN control Posted by Andrew Adams: This (Canadian) Globe and Mail article includes details of Beckstrom's recent statements against UN oversight of ICANN. http://tinyurl.com/38m78m2 Summary: UN oversight would make ICANN "less nimble" according to Beckstrom. My opinion: could ICANN really be any less nimble given how glacial it is at introducing innovative ideas? Perhaps more international oversight could pressure ICANN into prioritising the real needs of users and less the concerns of staff which may or may not coincide with user needs. -- Professor Andrew A Adams Professor at Graduate School of Business Administration, and Deputy Director of the Centre for Business Information Ethics Meiji University, Tokyo, Japan ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ________________________________ From: Ginger Paque To: "governance at lists.cpsr.org" Sent: Thu, 27 May, 2010 13:43:34 Subject: [governance] ICANN head warns against putting Internet addresses under UN control -------------- 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 george.sadowsky at attglobal.net Thu May 27 10:37:53 2010 From: george.sadowsky at attglobal.net (George Sadowsky) Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 10:37:53 -0400 Subject: [governance] ICANN head warns against putting Internet In-Reply-To: References: <4BFE30B6.5050106@gmail.com> Message-ID: Bertrand, Given Adam's comments below, perhaps you would be willing to suggest some concrete areas in which ICANN could be more nimble (or choose your own adjectives) while ensuring responsiveness to community inputs. George ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ At 6:43 PM +0900 5/27/10, Adam Peake wrote: >At 11:06 AM +0200 5/27/10, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: >>ICANN, NIMBLE ???? :-)) >> >>Not that replacing it with a UN body would >>improve things. The challenge is how to build a >>more international, more globally accountable >>and public interest oriented ICANN, not the >>mere alternative : either the way ICANN >>(dis)functions today or another, even more >>unappealing option. The AoC paves a way forward. > > >Exactly. I think we would all question whether >ICANN was nimble (but at the same time many of >us are asking for increased checks and balances, >added process such as additional time for >comment and translation, that make is less >nimble... though there are other larger >factors.) But very clear from the AoC, and that >ICANN conducts regular reviews, supports policy >development bodies representing different >stakeholders, that it does consider >multistakeholder participation important and >does attempt to evolve. Of all the >organizations asked by the secretary general for >input on enhanced cooperation has any other >organization done more to address para's 66-71 >of the Tunis Agenda? > >Some have done absolutely nothing. > >At the World Telecommunication Development >Conference, Hyderabad, today, ITU is again >discussing how it will extend its reach into >cybersecurity, ICT applications and >Internet-related issues (of course IP address >allocation, TLD management and control etc.) Is >there a non-commercial stakeholders group in >Hyderabad able to join the discussion, a group >for end users able to draft responses on all >documents and policy... > >Back to the recent thread on CSTD begun by >Anriette's very helpful note, it's the failure >of some organizations to address the Tunis >Agenda we should be demanding governments >address. > >Can someone remind me what are the Geneva Principles on Internet governance. > >Adam > > >>Will we collectively be able to move in the >>right direction ? That is the right question. >> >> >>B. >> >>On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 10:43 AM, Ginger Paque >><gpaque at gmail.com> >>wrote: >> >> >>ICANN head warns against putting Internet addresses under UN control >> >>Posted by Andrew Adams: >> >>This (Canadian) Globe and Mail article includes details of Beckstrom's recent >>statements against UN oversight of ICANN. >> >>http://tinyurl.com/38m78m2 >> >>Summary: UN oversight would make ICANN "less nimble" according to Beckstrom. >> >>My opinion: could ICANN really be any less nimble given how glacial it is at >>introducing innovative ideas? Perhaps more international oversight could >>pressure ICANN into prioritising the real needs of users and less the >>concerns of staff which may or may not coincide with user needs. >> >>-- >>Professor Andrew A Adams >>Professor at Graduate School of Business Administration, and >>Deputy Director of the Centre for Business Information Ethics >>Meiji University, Tokyo, Japan >> >> >>____________________________________________________________ >>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> >> >>governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >>For all list information and functions, see: >> >> >>http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >>Translate this email: >>http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> >>-- >>____________________ >>Bertrand de La Chapelle >>Délégué Spécial pour la Société de >>l'Information / Special Envoy for the >>Information Society >>Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et >>Européennes/ French Ministry of Foreign and >>European Affairs >>Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 >> >>"Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir >>les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry >>("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") >> >> >>____________________________________________________________ >>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >>For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Thu May 27 11:29:17 2010 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 11:29:17 -0400 Subject: [governance] ICANN head warns against putting Internet In-Reply-To: References: <4BFE30B6.5050106@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi, I can. a. Releasing new gTLDs, without the creation of all sort of 'overarching issues' that stalled the process until at least 6 months after the new IDN ccTLDs were released and the forces of IP were sufficiently placated. b. Listening to bottom up recommendations the first time and not giving special interests all sorts of ways to stop pervert those bottom-up process and slow them down c. Immediately listening to protests and looking into the issue of making new gTLDs affordable (pricing being a Staff decision not subject to bottom up processes) as opposed to waiting until the last minute to make it an issue that could be accused of holding things up. d. Not doing things the wrong way in the first place, e.g. by invitation only closed workshops on creating a global omnibus Internet security shop, thus forcing the issue to have to become a public accountability and transparency issue that will force it to take longer to the answer - which should be: no way, not with a barge pole will ICANN touch that one. These are my favorites right off the top of my head. There is lots that ICANN could do to become a more nimble group while improving accountability and transparency. Just get it done. a. PS. Disclaimer: Not entering the fray on whether being under UN or UN system oversight would make it more or less nimble. Not going to get into a discussion of which is nimbler: a part-time source of my income (UN/IGF) or the source of my abiding addiction (ICANN) How many angels can dance on the head of a pin, anyway? On 27 May 2010, at 10:37, George Sadowsky wrote: > Bertrand, > > Given Adam's comments below, perhaps you would be willing to suggest some concrete areas in which ICANN could be more nimble (or choose your own adjectives) while ensuring responsiveness to community inputs. > > George > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > At 6:43 PM +0900 5/27/10, Adam Peake wrote: >> At 11:06 AM +0200 5/27/10, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: >>> ICANN, NIMBLE ???? :-)) >>> >>> Not that replacing it with a UN body would improve things. The challenge is how to build a more international, more globally accountable and public interest oriented ICANN, not the mere alternative : either the way ICANN (dis)functions today or another, even more unappealing option. The AoC paves a way forward. >> >> >> Exactly. I think we would all question whether ICANN was nimble (but at the same time many of us are asking for increased checks and balances, added process such as additional time for comment and translation, that make is less nimble... though there are other larger factors.) But very clear from the AoC, and that ICANN conducts regular reviews, supports policy development bodies representing different stakeholders, that it does consider multistakeholder participation important and does attempt to evolve. Of all the organizations asked by the secretary general for input on enhanced cooperation has any other organization done more to address para's 66-71 of the Tunis Agenda? >> >> Some have done absolutely nothing. >> >> At the World Telecommunication Development Conference, Hyderabad, today, ITU is again discussing how it will extend its reach into cybersecurity, ICT applications and Internet-related issues (of course IP address allocation, TLD management and control etc.) Is there a non-commercial stakeholders group in Hyderabad able to join the discussion, a group for end users able to draft responses on all documents and policy... >> >> Back to the recent thread on CSTD begun by Anriette's very helpful note, it's the failure of some organizations to address the Tunis Agenda we should be demanding governments address. >> >> Can someone remind me what are the Geneva Principles on Internet governance. >> >> Adam >> >> >>> Will we collectively be able to move in the right direction ? That is the right question. >>> >>> >>> B. >>> >>> On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 10:43 AM, Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> ICANN head warns against putting Internet addresses under UN control >>> >>> Posted by Andrew Adams: >>> >>> This (Canadian) Globe and Mail article includes details of Beckstrom's recent >>> statements against UN oversight of ICANN. >>> >>> http://tinyurl.com/38m78m2 >>> >>> Summary: UN oversight would make ICANN "less nimble" according to Beckstrom. >>> >>> My opinion: could ICANN really be any less nimble given how glacial it is at >>> introducing innovative ideas? Perhaps more international oversight could >>> pressure ICANN into prioritising the real needs of users and less the >>> concerns of staff which may or may not coincide with user needs. >>> >>> -- >>> Professor Andrew A Adams >>> Professor at Graduate School of Business Administration, and >>> Deputy Director of the Centre for Business Information Ethics >>> Meiji University, Tokyo, Japan >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> ____________________ >>> Bertrand de La Chapelle >>> Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the Information Society >>> Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs >>> Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 >>> >>> "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry >>> ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Thu May 27 12:02:55 2010 From: subbiah at i-dns.net (S. Subbiah) Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 09:02:55 -0700 Subject: [governance] ICANN head warns against putting Internet addresses In-Reply-To: References: <4BFE30B6.5050106@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4BFE97AF.4080802@i-dns.net> Bertrand, I leave the debate of whether ICANN is nimble or not (relative to others are not) to the collective judgement of all observers - the record I think clearly speaks for itself. However, ss someone who headed the Singapore team that first went to an ICANN Chairman at ICANN's first meeting in March 1999 and offered the availability of IDN (having been largely concieved and invented at the National University of Singapore in 1997/8) and championed its cause since and as such probably know the history of IDN more than anyone else alive today, I find it offensive that Rod elects to give the example of IDN introduction as a centerpeice of ICANN's "nimbleness". In particular he uses the example of ".misr" (the name of egypt in arabic) - since the interview happens to be in Egypt. My company happens to have a copy of a contract signed in 2000 (predating ICANN's first interest in IDN in late 2000) by the same EGNIC for launching the same .misr (all technology was supplied and and in the end they did not launch it back then for various reasons inclduing ICANN's sudden interest in IDN). Oddly it was counter-signed by the then EGNIC chief, who is now the Minister of Information Technology of Egypt who recently launched virtually the same thing a decade later. In truth all ICANN did was delay things 10 years. If that is the best crowing example of ICANN's nimbleness, I wonder what slow is. And the fact that a new CEO who happens to proclaim widely that the IDN launch was historic and one of the most important things, if not the most important one, to happen to the Internet, is completely unaware of such IDN history and uses a failure in nimbleness as an example of great nimbleness, only highlights what Wolfgang said - ICANN has repeated itself for so long, over and over again, with new sets of unaware people proclaiming the old now new again. And the irony is that our new CEO is at it as well - no one can escape the curse of procrastination. If a failure in nimbleness of an organization can be celebrated as the epitome of nimbleness by the mouthpiece of that organization, the question of whether that organization is nimble or not pretty much answers itself. Perhaps it is simply nimble in its own mind. Cheers Subbiah Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > ICANN, NIMBLE ???? :-)) > > Not that replacing it with a UN body would improve things. The > challenge is how to build a more international, more globally > accountable and public interest oriented ICANN, not the mere > alternative : either the way ICANN (dis)functions today or another, > even more unappealing option. The AoC paves a way forward. Will we > collectively be able to move in the right direction ? That is the > right question. > > B. > > On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 10:43 AM, Ginger Paque > wrote: > > > ICANN head warns against putting Internet addresses under UN control > > Posted by Andrew Adams: > > This (Canadian) Globe and Mail article includes details of > Beckstrom's recent > statements against UN oversight of ICANN. > > http://tinyurl.com/38m78m2 > > Summary: UN oversight would make ICANN "less nimble" according to > Beckstrom. > > My opinion: could ICANN really be any less nimble given how > glacial it is at > introducing innovative ideas? Perhaps more international oversight > could > pressure ICANN into prioritising the real needs of users and less the > concerns of staff which may or may not coincide with user needs. > > -- > Professor Andrew A Adams > Professor at Graduate School of Business Administration, and > Deputy Director of the Centre for Business Information Ethics > Meiji University, Tokyo, Japan > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > -- > ____________________ > Bertrand de La Chapelle > Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for > the Information Society > Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of > Foreign and European Affairs > Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 > > "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de > Saint Exupéry > ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeanette at wzb.eu Thu May 27 12:15:29 2010 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 17:15:29 +0100 Subject: [governance] ICANN head warns against putting Internet addresses In-Reply-To: <4BFE97AF.4080802@i-dns.net> References: <4BFE30B6.5050106@gmail.com> <4BFE97AF.4080802@i-dns.net> Message-ID: <4BFE9AA1.5090700@wzb.eu> If a > failure in nimbleness of an organization can be celebrated as the > epitome of nimbleness by the mouthpiece of that organization, the > question of whether that organization is nimble or not pretty much > answers itself. > > Perhaps it is simply nimble in its own mind. Here a quote from my endnote file: "institutional theories in their extreme forms define organizations as dramatic enactments of the rationalized myths pervading modern societies" (Meyer & Rowan 1977: Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony). ICANN as a dramatic enactment, isn't that a hilarious suggestion? jeanette > Cheers > > Subbiah > > > > Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > >> ICANN, NIMBLE ???? :-)) >> >> Not that replacing it with a UN body would improve things. The >> challenge is how to build a more international, more globally >> accountable and public interest oriented ICANN, not the mere >> alternative : either the way ICANN (dis)functions today or another, >> even more unappealing option. The AoC paves a way forward. Will we >> collectively be able to move in the right direction ? That is the >> right question. >> B. >> >> On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 10:43 AM, Ginger Paque > > wrote: >> >> >> ICANN head warns against putting Internet addresses under UN control >> >> Posted by Andrew Adams: >> >> This (Canadian) Globe and Mail article includes details of >> Beckstrom's recent >> statements against UN oversight of ICANN. >> >> http://tinyurl.com/38m78m2 >> >> Summary: UN oversight would make ICANN "less nimble" according to >> Beckstrom. >> >> My opinion: could ICANN really be any less nimble given how >> glacial it is at >> introducing innovative ideas? Perhaps more international oversight >> could >> pressure ICANN into prioritising the real needs of users and less the >> concerns of staff which may or may not coincide with user needs. >> >> -- Professor Andrew A Adams >> Professor at Graduate School of Business Administration, and >> Deputy Director of the Centre for Business Information Ethics >> Meiji University, Tokyo, Japan >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> >> -- >> ____________________ >> Bertrand de La Chapelle >> Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for >> the Information Society >> Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of >> Foreign and European Affairs >> Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 >> >> "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de >> Saint Exupéry >> ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From bdelachapelle at gmail.com Thu May 27 12:14:40 2010 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 18:14:40 +0200 Subject: [governance] ICANN head warns against putting Internet In-Reply-To: References: <4BFE30B6.5050106@gmail.com> Message-ID: Dear George, Thanks for the challenge :-) This is the topic of the whole accountability and transparency review, as well as the consultation on meeting organization, both currently ongoing. A few remarks though. I'm not sure that nimbleness is the principal adjective that would come to mind for an organization that - legitimately - is more and more developing global policies in its specific domain, acting as the regulator of the semantic spectrum and as the competition authority for the secondary domain name market. The right criteria are more about trust, public interest, inclusion and capacity to build consensus. Reactivity, capacity to keep up with change and adapt to new challenges or even anticipate them, sure that can probably be qualified as being nimble, but we are not in Jon Postel time any more and you know that the picture is broader. And the challenges higher. But I'm not someone to shy away from your concrete question. Let me give one single answer (in addition to the numerous comments made in writing or orally in ICANN processes, that all point in the same direction). Let's take nimbleness as the capacity to address and resolve, in a timely manner, key policy issues. What could help ICANN be better at that ? One suggestion is : a key factor of efficiency for any policy-making process is to ask the right questions, to get out of false alternatives, as they invariably lead to endless and inconclusive debates. Let's take a very concrete example currently generating more than 1200 emails (so far) on the list regarding vertical integration for new gTLDs (or vertical separation) and apologies for those on the list who are not versed in the intricacies of ICANN-speak. The question asked by the Board is : should there be or should there not be vertical integration/separation ? An all or nothing alternative. Are you surprised that it only pitches opposite vested interests one against the other, with most other stakeholders watching helplessly ? Wouldn't the discussion be more efficient if the question were : "when and why should there be vertical separation ? and for what purpose ?". Maybe there is a better wording. But certainly the current debate has started on a wrong basis. Jovan Kurbalija once told me : "the major difficulty in Internet Governance is closure". Being able to take decisions in a truly deliberative process involving all stakeholders is a major challenge. No doubt about it. But asking the right questions is critical to consensus-building and identifying them is the priority task. As for Adam's remarks, I have sufficiently defended the "embodiment of WSIS Principles in Internet Governance processes" (to recall one of the mandates of the IGF) and the participation of all stakeholders in UN organizations to understand fully what he means. And he's right. ICANN will strengthen its legitimacy by being every day truer to its commitments to participatory processes and by continuing to improve them. Governments in the Tunis Agenda (para 55) have "*recognize(d) that ** the existing arrangements for Internet governance have worked effectively to make the Internet the highly robust, dynamic and geographically diverse medium that it is today, with the private sector taking the lead in day-to-day operations, and with innovation and value creation at the edges* ". ICANN or UN is not the valid question today. The right question is : "how to make ICANN fit for the growing tasks at hand ?" Answering it is our common responsibility. And it needs to be answered. Best Bertrand On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 4:37 PM, George Sadowsky < george.sadowsky at attglobal.net> wrote: > Bertrand, > > Given Adam's comments below, perhaps you would be willing to suggest some > concrete areas in which ICANN could be more nimble (or choose your own > adjectives) while ensuring responsiveness to community inputs. > > George > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > At 6:43 PM +0900 5/27/10, Adam Peake wrote: > >> At 11:06 AM +0200 5/27/10, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: >> >>> ICANN, NIMBLE ???? :-)) >>> >>> Not that replacing it with a UN body would improve things. The challenge >>> is how to build a more international, more globally accountable and public >>> interest oriented ICANN, not the mere alternative : either the way ICANN >>> (dis)functions today or another, even more unappealing option. The AoC paves >>> a way forward. >>> >> >> >> Exactly. I think we would all question whether ICANN was nimble (but at >> the same time many of us are asking for increased checks and balances, added >> process such as additional time for comment and translation, that make is >> less nimble... though there are other larger factors.) But very clear from >> the AoC, and that ICANN conducts regular reviews, supports policy >> development bodies representing different stakeholders, that it does >> consider multistakeholder participation important and does attempt to >> evolve. Of all the organizations asked by the secretary general for input >> on enhanced cooperation has any other organization done more to address >> para's 66-71 of the Tunis Agenda? >> >> Some have done absolutely nothing. >> >> At the World Telecommunication Development Conference, Hyderabad, today, >> ITU is again discussing how it will extend its reach into cybersecurity, ICT >> applications and Internet-related issues (of course IP address allocation, >> TLD management and control etc.) Is there a non-commercial stakeholders >> group in Hyderabad able to join the discussion, a group for end users able >> to draft responses on all documents and policy... >> >> Back to the recent thread on CSTD begun by Anriette's very helpful note, >> it's the failure of some organizations to address the Tunis Agenda we should >> be demanding governments address. >> >> Can someone remind me what are the Geneva Principles on Internet >> governance. >> >> Adam >> >> >> Will we collectively be able to move in the right direction ? That is the >>> right question. >>> >>> B. >>> >>> On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 10:43 AM, Ginger Paque <>> >gpaque at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> ICANN head warns against putting Internet addresses under UN control >>> >>> Posted by Andrew Adams: >>> >>> This (Canadian) Globe and Mail article includes details of Beckstrom's >>> recent >>> statements against UN oversight of ICANN. >>> >>> http://tinyurl.com/38m78m2 >>> >>> Summary: UN oversight would make ICANN "less nimble" according to >>> Beckstrom. >>> >>> My opinion: could ICANN really be any less nimble given how glacial it is >>> at >>> introducing innovative ideas? Perhaps more international oversight could >>> pressure ICANN into prioritising the real needs of users and less the >>> concerns of staff which may or may not coincide with user needs. >>> >>> -- >>> Professor Andrew A Adams >>> Professor at Graduate School of Business Administration, and >>> Deputy Director of the Centre for Business Information Ethics >>> Meiji University, Tokyo, Japan >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> >>> >>> >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> >>> >>> >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> Translate this email: >>> http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> ____________________ >>> Bertrand de La Chapelle >>> Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the >>> Information Society >>> Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of >>> Foreign and European Affairs >>> Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 >>> >>> "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de >>> Saint Exupéry >>> ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the Information Society Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Thu May 27 12:31:55 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 22:01:55 +0530 Subject: [governance] CSTD In-Reply-To: References: <03346C7B01EB4149A64C79514B667458@userPC> Message-ID: <4BFE9E7B.8000906@itforchange.net> The final resolution adopted by CSTD is now available and is enclosed. Three main things 1. An open consultation meeting on enhanced cooperation should be held before the ned of 2010 2. A CSTD working group to be set up on improvements to the IGF And, 3. Importantly, a clear reaffirmation that Recognizes that the Internet Governance related outcomes of WSIS, namely the process towards 'enhanced cooperation' and the convening of the IGF, are to be pursued by the UN Secretary General through two distinct processes and further recognizes that the two processes may be complementary to one another, There were some efforts to get into the draft something to the effect that enhanced cooperation is being carried out at the IGF, which has been one of the ways to subvert the mandate to commence this process. This para is clear that the SG is to take up a distinct process of enhanced cooperation. Parminder ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Resolution WSIS (FINAL) .doc Type: application/msword Size: 62464 bytes Desc: not available URL: From karl at cavebear.com Thu May 27 18:57:36 2010 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 15:57:36 -0700 Subject: [governance] ICANN head warns against putting Internet In-Reply-To: References: <4BFE30B6.5050106@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4BFEF8E0.2080307@cavebear.com> On 05/27/2010 07:37 AM, George Sadowsky wrote: > Given Adam's comments below, perhaps you would be willing to suggest > some concrete areas in which ICANN could be more nimble (or choose your > own adjectives) while ensuring responsiveness to community inputs. Well there is one big way to "nimblefy" ICANN: That would be to step back and ask "what job is ICANN supposed to be doing?" I would posit that the answer does not include the kind of economic and business regulation that is absorbing nearly all of ICANN's time and efforts. How do we measure what is properly ICANN's task? I would suggest that we go back tothe original mantra of "technical coordination" and define that. I suggest the following formulation: Technical coordination of DNS is the task of assuring (not guaranteeing) that at the upper tiers of DNS (root tier and delegation to TLD) domain name query packets are promptly, efficiently, and accurately transformed into domain name response packets without prejudice against the source of the query packet or against any particular "question" or resource record that is contained in those packets. By that metric ICANN could be "nimblified" back to size in which all of its people could fit into a Volkswagen or two. I mean, for example, what reasonable grounds exist to sustain an argument that rules against cross-ownership of registrars and registries is somehow part of "technical coordination"? ICANN and the US government have recently "affirmed" that ICANN is not an instrumentality of the US government and that ICANN does not have any government imbued privileges or immunities. That leaves ICANN rather naked against claims that what it is doing outside of the realm of "technical coordination" is restraint of lawful trade and the imposition of an incumbent protecting guild structure onto the internet. Most modern nations have laws, complex laws, about that kind of thing. Many of those laws impose draconian penalties. By my rough measure ICANN could find itself facing claims amounting to billions upon billions of dollars in damages. Even if ICANN were to prevail in the end, the fights would utterly ossify ICANN during the legal proceedings. ICANN's chosen structure is to have ICANN at the vertex of a pyramid of contractual relations. If ICANN suffers a blow on the grounds that it is engaged in improper restraint of trade, in any of the hundreds of jurisdictions around the world, by virtue of its expansive activities, then that vertex could shatter and the entire hierarchy of contracts will shake and possibly collapse. And because ICANN has purposely excluded third party beneficiary rights from that hierarchy of contracts only the parties and not the public for whose benefits those contracts (and ICANN's legal existence) are premised, will not be able to step forth and demand that the terms be enforced. --karl-- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nhklein at gmx.net Thu May 27 21:03:02 2010 From: nhklein at gmx.net (Norbert Klein) Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 08:03:02 +0700 Subject: [governance] ICANN head warns against putting Internet In-Reply-To: <4BFEF8E0.2080307@cavebear.com> References: <4BFE30B6.5050106@gmail.com> <4BFEF8E0.2080307@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <4BFF1646.1090708@gmx.net> My language is not English: “nimble”? Though English is not my native language, I feel fairly comfortable to handle it without using a dictionary for weeks. When I read that ICANN is nimble, I was puzzled. “Doesn't nimble mean something like swift, smart, flexible?” Well – that was a case to get and look up the dictionary again. Surprise. Having been involved in ICANN since 1999, I never had thought of that word to describe ICANN. My 2 cents. -- If you want to know what is going on in Cambodia, please visit The Mirror, a regular review of the Cambodian language press in English. This is the latest weekly editorial of the Mirror: “The Right to Know” and to Participate Sunday, 23.5.2010 http://wp.me/p2Gyf-1rZ (to read it, click on the line above.) And here is something new every day: http://cambodiamirror.wordpress.com ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Fri May 28 05:33:47 2010 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 11:33:47 +0200 Subject: [governance] ICANN head warns against putting Internet In-Reply-To: References: <4BFE30B6.5050106@gmail.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20100527213846.0645e138@jefsey.com> At 16:37 27/05/2010, George Sadowsky wrote: >Bertrand, > >Given Adam's comments below, perhaps you would be willing to suggest >some concrete areas in which ICANN could be more nimble (or choose >your own adjectives) while ensuring responsiveness to community inputs. George, I am sorry, but no one could be more nimble than our current ICANN CEO! Nobody else, including IESG, IAB, WG/IDNABIS and its Chair (Vint Cerf), Application AD, etc. was aware that/how IDNA2008 can be tested by users. The real ICANN break-through is that from Rod Beckstrom on, no technology is necessary anymore for the ICANNet to expand and offer new technical services. jfc ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From george.sadowsky at attglobal.net Fri May 28 07:51:23 2010 From: george.sadowsky at attglobal.net (George Sadowsky) Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 07:51:23 -0400 Subject: [governance] ICANN head warns against putting Internet In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20100527213846.0645e138@jefsey.com> References: <4BFE30B6.5050106@gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20100527213846.0645e138@jefsey.com> Message-ID: JFC, This is an unhelpful comment. First, I can't understand what you are saying. Second, I sense a high level of sarcasm that occludes the meaning. Third, it is devoid of constructive suggestions. There is an old Quaker saying that I recommend to you. "Don't speak unless you can improve upon the quality of silence." I regret that you chose not to provide a constructive response to my query. George At 11:33 AM +0200 5/28/10, JFC Morfin wrote: >At 16:37 27/05/2010, George Sadowsky wrote: >>Bertrand, >> >>Given Adam's comments below, perhaps you would be willing to >>suggest some concrete areas in which ICANN could be more nimble (or >>choose your own adjectives) while ensuring responsiveness to >>community inputs. > >George, > >I am sorry, but no one could be more nimble than our current ICANN CEO! > >Nobody else, including IESG, IAB, WG/IDNABIS and its Chair (Vint >Cerf), Application AD, etc. was aware that/how IDNA2008 can be >tested by users. The real ICANN break-through is that from Rod >Beckstrom on, no technology is necessary anymore for the ICANNet to >expand and offer new technical services. > >jfc > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From krum.jonev at dir.bg Fri May 28 14:09:24 2010 From: krum.jonev at dir.bg (krum.jonev at dir.bg) Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 20:09:24 +0200 Subject: [governance] ICANN declined Bulgarian IDN fast-track request Message-ID: Hello, I am new to this list, but I would like to bring to your attention an issue that recently appeared in Bulgaria. The Ministry of Transport, IT and Communications announced that ICANN has declined the Bulgarian application in the new IDN ccTLD fast-track process, as the proposed string .бг looked too much like the existing ccTLD of Brazil (.br). However, the people in Bulgaria that are in favor of introducing an IDN ccTLD are practically mad of this decision. A few user groups sent protest letters to the Ministry, advising them to appeal the ICANN`s decision. Others just sit and doesn't know what to do. Therefore, I am looking for your opinion on those questions - do you think that the string .бг "presents an unacceptably high risk of user confusion" with .br (as said in ICANN reply); and does Bulgaria have any chance if decides to appeal, as this is the desire of the majority of the Internet community? There were even two proposals of imposing a requirement for the IDN ccTLD registry, to allow only registration of domain names that contain an unique Cyrillic letter - in this way, all similarities would be avoided. Thank you in advance for you time. Kind regards, Krum Jonev ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Fri May 28 14:13:35 2010 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 21:13:35 +0300 Subject: [governance] ICANN declined Bulgarian IDN fast-track request In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi, On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 9:09 PM, wrote: > Hello, > > Therefore, I am looking for your opinion on those questions - do you think > that the string .бг "presents an unacceptably high risk of user confusion" > with .br yes (as said in ICANN reply); and does Bulgaria have any chance if > decides to appeal, as this is the desire of the majority of the Internet > community? maybe, is there an appeals process for IDNs? -- 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 hongxueipr at gmail.com Fri May 28 14:24:22 2010 From: hongxueipr at gmail.com (Hong Xue) Date: Sat, 29 May 2010 02:24:22 +0800 Subject: [governance] ICANN declined Bulgarian IDN fast-track request In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks for the information. Is it a formal "announcement" of ICANN? I cannot find it on ICANN website. Or, is it only an outcome of string evaluation? In the latter case, you may wish to further communicate with ICANN. The restrictive registration policy you mentioned may somewhat erase the concerns of user confusion. But domain names are accessible globally. An IDN string non-confusing to local community might inflict phishing in other part of the world. Well, we are right in the mud of how to evaluate "confusingly similarity" between IDN scripts and Latin scripts. Hong On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 2:09 AM, wrote: > Hello, > > I am new to this list, but I would like to bring to your attention an issue > that recently appeared in Bulgaria. > > The Ministry of Transport, IT and Communications announced that ICANN has > declined the Bulgarian application in the new IDN ccTLD fast-track process, > as the proposed string .бг looked too much like the existing ccTLD of Brazil > (.br). > > However, the people in Bulgaria that are in favor of introducing an IDN > ccTLD are practically mad of this decision. A few user groups sent protest > letters to the Ministry, advising them to appeal the ICANN`s decision. > Others just sit and doesn't know what to do. > > Therefore, I am looking for your opinion on those questions - do you think > that the string .бг "presents an unacceptably high risk of user confusion" > with .br (as said in ICANN reply); and does Bulgaria have any chance if > decides to appeal, as this is the desire of the majority of the Internet > community? There were even two proposals of imposing a requirement for the > IDN ccTLD registry, to allow only registration of domain names that contain > an unique Cyrillic letter - in this way, all similarities would be avoided. > > Thank you in advance for you time. > > Kind regards, > Krum Jonev > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >    governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- Dr. Hong Xue Professor of Law Director of Institute for the Internet Policy & Law (IIPL) Beijing Normal University http://www.cdnua.org/ 19 Xin Jie Kou Wai Street Beijing 100875 China ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From yrjo_lansipuro at hotmail.com Fri May 28 16:28:46 2010 From: yrjo_lansipuro at hotmail.com (=?utf-8?B?WXJqw7YgTMOkbnNpcHVybw==?=) Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 23:28:46 +0300 Subject: [governance] ICANN declined Bulgarian IDN fast-track request In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi, Would there be another meaningful Cyrillic string that would stand for Bulgaria? After all, in many cases IDN ccTLD's are not exact translitterations of the ASCII ccTLD, since in many languages/scripts such abbreviations don't make sense. Please note, too, that Russia could not have a Cyrillic translitteration of .ru, because it would have been identical with ASCII .py (Paraguay) Best Yrjö Länsipuro > From: krum.jonev at dir.bg > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 20:09:24 +0200 > Subject: [governance] ICANN declined Bulgarian IDN fast-track request > > Hello, > > I am new to this list, but I would like to bring to your attention an > issue that recently appeared in Bulgaria. > > The Ministry of Transport, IT and Communications announced that ICANN > has declined the Bulgarian application in the new IDN ccTLD fast-track > process, as the proposed string .бг looked too much like the existing > ccTLD of Brazil (.br). > > However, the people in Bulgaria that are in favor of introducing an > IDN ccTLD are practically mad of this decision. A few user groups sent > protest letters to the Ministry, advising them to appeal the ICANN`s > decision. Others just sit and doesn't know what to do. > > Therefore, I am looking for your opinion on those questions - do you > think that the string .бг "presents an unacceptably high risk of user > confusion" with .br (as said in ICANN reply); and does Bulgaria have > any chance if decides to appeal, as this is the desire of the majority > of the Internet community? There were even two proposals of imposing a > requirement for the IDN ccTLD registry, to allow only registration of > domain names that contain an unique Cyrillic letter - in this way, all > similarities would be avoided. > > Thank you in advance for you time. > > Kind regards, > Krum Jonev > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 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 krum.jonev at dir.bg Fri May 28 17:00:48 2010 From: krum.jonev at dir.bg (krum.jonev at dir.bg) Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 23:00:48 +0200 Subject: [governance] ICANN declined Bulgarian IDN fast-track In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi, .бг is the most meaningful representation (was selected with a full consensus between all interested parties) - and the local Internet community doesn`t want to give it up without at least an "appeal attempt" from the government. Now we are trying to make the government communicate with ICANN and actually do something. That`s why I wanted to ask if we should appeal - maybe write to ICANN ombudsman, etc. However, there isn`t any formal appeal process for the decisions taken in the string evaluation part. Among the proposed other options are .бгр (first association is Belgrade, not Bulgaria), .бул (first association is "bull") and .българия (which is ridiculously long for a tld). There are more and more oppinions that any other IDN ccTLD string will "kill the idea", and even some people say that if we can not keep .бг, its better for Bulgaria not to have an IDN ccTLD at all. Regards, Krum On Fri, 28 May 2010 23:28:46 +0300 Yrjö Länsipuro wrote: > > Hi, > Would there be another meaningful Cyrillic string that would stand >for Bulgaria? After all, in many cases IDN ccTLD's are not exact >translitterations of the ASCII ccTLD, since in many languages/scripts >such abbreviations don't make sense. > Please note, too, that Russia could not have a Cyrillic >translitteration of .ru, because it would have been identical with >ASCII .py (Paraguay) > Best > Yrjö Länsipuro > > >> From: krum.jonev at dir.bg >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >> Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 20:09:24 +0200 >> Subject: [governance] ICANN declined Bulgarian IDN fast-track >>request >> >> Hello, >> >> I am new to this list, but I would like to bring to your attention >>an >> issue that recently appeared in Bulgaria. >> >> The Ministry of Transport, IT and Communications announced that >>ICANN >> has declined the Bulgarian application in the new IDN ccTLD >>fast-track >> process, as the proposed string .бг looked too much like the >>existing >> ccTLD of Brazil (.br). >> >> However, the people in Bulgaria that are in favor of introducing an >> IDN ccTLD are practically mad of this decision. A few user groups >>sent >> protest letters to the Ministry, advising them to appeal the ICANN`s >> decision. Others just sit and doesn't know what to do. >> >> Therefore, I am looking for your opinion on those questions - do you >> think that the string .бг "presents an unacceptably high risk of >>user >> confusion" with .br (as said in ICANN reply); and does Bulgaria have >> any chance if decides to appeal, as this is the desire of the >>majority >> of the Internet community? There were even two proposals of imposing >>a >> requirement for the IDN ccTLD registry, to allow only registration >>of >> domain names that contain an unique Cyrillic letter - in this way, >>all >> similarities would be avoided. >> >> Thank you in advance for you time. >> >> Kind regards, >> Krum Jonev >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 powerful SPAM protection. > https://signup.live.com/signup.aspx?id=60969 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at psg.com Fri May 28 17:10:02 2010 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 17:10:02 -0400 Subject: [governance] ICANN declined Bulgarian IDN fast-track request In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7C3193F8-05A6-4AE5-897B-2D529934B5BF@psg.com> On 28 May 2010, at 14:13, McTim wrote: > > > (as said in ICANN reply); and does Bulgaria have any chance if >> decides to appeal, as this is the desire of the majority of the Internet >> community? > > maybe, is there an appeals process for IDNs? was it already subjected to the extended review? I don't know if there are any appeals from IANA decisions, but if there are, it is the ICANN Board. 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 jefsey at jefsey.com Fri May 28 17:11:09 2010 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 23:11:09 +0200 Subject: [governance] ICANN head warns against putting Internet In-Reply-To: References: <4BFE30B6.5050106@gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20100527213846.0645e138@jefsey.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20100528154546.05f2ea00@jefsey.com> At 13:51 28/05/2010, George Sadowsky wrote: >JFC, >This is an unhelpful comment. First, I can't understand what you >are saying. Second, I sense a high level of sarcasm that occludes >the meaning. Third, it is devoid of constructive suggestions. There >is an old Quaker saying that I recommend to you. "Don't speak >unless you can improve upon the quality of silence." Dear George, I chair the Projet.FRA for a French speaking space, a language that - as you certainly know - IDNA occludes the semantics. This may explain that I also found some typos in your "don't speak when eating your oatmeal cereals unless ICANN improves their QoS" commercial. I did enjoyed the pun: Quicker! ICANN the Quaker (netquake nimble survivor?)! OK, after som fun, let's turn serious now. I am not here to help, but rather to negotiate. Now, I must say without sarcasm, but with sadness, that this is a very helpful comment of yours. It explicitly documents that ICANN board members have not yet realized that "their" ICANN does not belong to the same world as the Internet Users' world and that they are not even trying anymore to understand what Users are saying when they contribute. In addition, they jump to negative conclusions and engage in unproductive reactions (something of which you did not get us used to). In the Internet Users' world, technology comes first because it says whether things are possible or not in a network made of bandwidth, protocols, and machines. In ICANN's world, political beliefs come first and says whether the intellectual network of contracts, media releases, reports etc. is credible enough to support the stakeholders' agenda. ICANN is obviously not nimble. However, Rod is. What he says is technically absurd. However, it is politically credible. Up to now, politics and engineers went roughly along together because they made a couple that roughly shared a common knowledge of what the other one thinks the network is (cf. Karl's post). I am afraid that this has definitely changed on January 7, 2010. On that day, the IESG approved IDNA2008, (1) under the pressure of Rod's press announcements - cf. WG/IDNABIS Chair (Vint Cerf)'s mails on this, and (2) after having considered what the Internet Users' resulting technical, adminance, and governance moves will be (http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-iucg-afra-reports-00.txt). In addition to technology and politics, use (and adminance, i.e. what decides on the possible use) is now a real component of Internet life. Therefore, - on the one hand, ICANN is pretending to test something that is by far not released yet and refuses to discuss the way that it could be worked out, even under its proposed "technical leadership" (?), - on the another hand, the entire IETF process (IAB ongoing work, AD oppositions, regular IETF appeal procedure) definitely refuses to consider the ICANN moves as having any technical importance. - and the rest of the body (users' use) has now been set technically free to go where it wants. In this situation, - ICANN staff and contributors have fully shown their inability to make the ICANN situation internally understood and to cooperate to reach a solution. - IETF has to decide if usage architecture belongs to its scope or not: I do not expect to have a fully documented and digested IAB answer before the end of the year. - Internet Users comprise three main general categories: (1) active users (this kind of governance lists) (2) end users (we never hear from them but they vote with their dollar bills), and (3) lead users who face and have to admin any new problems first. Lead users now have an architectural place in the Internet and a technological/governance empowerment capacity. This is not a couple anymore but rather a trio. - The stakeholders at this stage are mostly Unicode/ISOC/Google led ICANN actually faces the choice that Rod alludes to: - either to ossify the de facto ISOCANN enhanced co-operation (UN support could help but would probably lead to politico/technical confusions), - either be de facto replaced by the long planned DNSSEC oriented USG emanation - or to be identified with a "nimble Rod" able to contribute with swift responses in negotiationsor power conflicts on behalf of the current stakeholders' IN class and USG's DNSSEC strategy. IN Class commercial and DNSSEC political interests will resist rogue users wandering around for a certain time. IDNA, not. Nimble Rod's IDNA "make believe" action certainly is what currently protects ICANN in that area. The best for all strategy of which ICANN can follow is: - to support Rod, - make him informed so that he has a better command of the issue, - make him negotiate the best way out/compromise in the interest of the IN Class, stakeholders' Group, and USG's DNSSEC strategy - before the Internet is shacked by the malignant uses of the IDNA2008 implied Internet architectural extensions. ICANN's mistake was to unfairly favor a few IDNccTLDs over IDNgTLDs, and to not ensure that they themselves understand first as to what IDNA2008 really is. >I regret that you chose not to provide a constructive response to my query. As you saw, I did provide you and ICANN with a pair's response. The ball is now in your field. After several other board members, you will not be able to claim I did not warn you. Anyway the Draft is public as if my IESG appeal (http://www.ietf.org/iesg/appeal/morfin-2010-03-10.pdf), the IESG response (http://www.ietf.org/iesg/appeal/response-to-morfin-2010-03-10.txt) and will be my IAB appeal in a few days and the IAB response. Best. jfc >George > > > >At 11:33 AM +0200 5/28/10, JFC Morfin wrote: >>At 16:37 27/05/2010, George Sadowsky wrote: >>>Bertrand, >>> >>>Given Adam's comments below, perhaps you would be willing to >>>suggest some concrete areas in which ICANN could be more nimble >>>(or choose your own adjectives) while ensuring responsiveness to >>>community inputs. >> >>George, >> >>I am sorry, but no one could be more nimble than our current ICANN CEO! >> >>Nobody else, including IESG, IAB, WG/IDNABIS and its Chair (Vint >>Cerf), Application AD, etc. was aware that/how IDNA2008 can be >>tested by users. The real ICANN break-through is that from Rod >>Beckstrom on, no technology is necessary anymore for the ICANNet to >>expand and offer new technical services. >> >>jfc ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From karl at cavebear.com Fri May 28 17:30:25 2010 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 14:30:25 -0700 Subject: [governance] ICANN declined Bulgarian IDN fast-track request In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4C0035F1.2040602@cavebear.com> On 05/28/2010 11:09 AM, krum.jonev at dir.bg wrote: > The Ministry of Transport, IT and Communications announced that ICANN > has declined the Bulgarian application in the new IDN ccTLD fast-track > process, as the proposed string .бг looked too much like the existing > ccTLD of Brazil (.br). The standard of "presents an unacceptably high risk of user confusion" is entirely subjective. Normally those kinds of choices need to be refined over the years by building a set of principled decisions, decisions that express their logic, rationale, and weighing of the competing interests. However, ICANN is rather week when it comes to building compendiums of principles to guide these choices. I have my own TLD, .ewe (not in the ICANN root - see http://eweregistry.cavebear.com/ - it's a prototype, not active) - Anyway, some say that it is too close to .eu to which I sheepishly answer with this question: Which came first, female sheep or the European Union? One could get into endless arguments about which came first, Bulgaria or Brazil. And they would be fruitless arguments. But such arguments would reveal a meta issue: Why should Brazil get automatic priority, why is .6r considered as causing an unacceptable confusion to people using .br. Why is the question not put the other way around, i.e. might .br be unacceptably confusing to users of .6r? If the principle that we pull from this is "first in time, first in right", then fine. But what then do we say to people who have been using or advocating certain TLDs for a long time, such as IOD's 2000 proposal to ICANN (for which IOD paid ICANN a $50,000 application fee) for .web, and what about the .biz that was in existence and operating before there even was an ICANN? And how does the standard of "user confusion" fare when faced with the increasing technical and cultural reality in which domain names are fading as visible identifiers as opposed to address books, shortnames (e.g. .ly, tinyurl, etc), facebook logins, twitter ids, etc etc? Perhaps that standard is more the creation of the overheated mind of some trademark lawyers who, like the old monarchs of Spain and Portugal, are out to plant their flag of ownership on everything than it is the result of a reasoned, but perhaps transient, choice among actual users on the rapidly evolving internet? The argument of "unacceptable user" confusion could have been levied against the internet back in the 1970s when there were a multiplicity of different email systems. And US telephone users are routinely confused by country codes on telephone numbers. The point is that confusion of some degree will always exist, we ought not to hold back progress because some people can't handle the "future shock". --karl-- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Fri May 28 17:34:25 2010 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 17:34:25 -0400 Subject: [governance] ICANN declined Bulgarian IDN fast-track request In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701DC2B2841@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > > Therefore, I am looking for your opinion on those questions - do you > think that the string .бг "presents an unacceptably high risk of user > confusion" with .br No. I don't have any trouble distinguishing between a 6 and a b. > and does Bulgaria have > any chance if decides to appeal, as this is the desire of the majority > of the Internet community? ICANN has no formal accountability mechanisms. This is a problem for all of us, not just you. However, if by appeal, you mean, "Can I get my government and a bunch of other powerful people to make enough noise to scare ICANN into changing its decision, it is possible. But that is about the only option you have. > There were even two proposals of imposing a > requirement for the IDN ccTLD registry, to allow only registration of > domain names that contain an unique Cyrillic letter - in this way, all > similarities would be avoided. Some ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 28 17:58:43 2010 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sat, 29 May 2010 07:58:43 +1000 Subject: [governance] ICANN head warns against putting Internet addresses In-Reply-To: <4BFE97AF.4080802@i-dns.net> Message-ID: I'm not sure whether Rod Beckstrom said ICANN was nimble or not - didn't he just say that it would be less nimble under UN control? (that is a reasonable assumption..) I do not think ICANN could be described as nimble by anyone in its current state, but it is a good aspiration. To me, its an incredibly bloated organisation currently. Much of that is because of the lack of appropriate internet governance structures and ICANN becoming the default home for lots of things it shouldn't be involved in. Ian > From: "S. Subbiah" > Reply-To: , "S. Subbiah" > Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 09:02:55 -0700 > To: , Bertrand de LA CHAPELLE > > Cc: Ginger Paque > Subject: Re: [governance] ICANN head warns against putting Internet addresses > > Bertrand, > > I leave the debate of whether ICANN is nimble or not (relative to others > are not) to the collective judgement of all observers - the record I > think clearly speaks for itself. > > However, ss someone who headed the Singapore team that first went to an > ICANN Chairman at ICANN's first meeting in March 1999 and offered the > availability of IDN (having been largely concieved and invented at the > National University of Singapore in 1997/8) and championed its cause > since and as such probably know the history of IDN more than anyone else > alive today, I find it offensive that Rod elects to give the example of > IDN introduction as a centerpeice of ICANN's "nimbleness". > > In particular he uses the example of ".misr" (the name of egypt in > arabic) - since the interview happens to be in Egypt. My company happens > to have a copy of a contract signed in 2000 (predating ICANN's first > interest in IDN in late 2000) by the same EGNIC for launching the same > .misr (all technology was supplied and and in the end they did not > launch it back then for various reasons inclduing ICANN's sudden > interest in IDN). Oddly it was counter-signed by the then EGNIC chief, > who is now the Minister of Information Technology of Egypt who recently > launched virtually the same thing a decade later. > > In truth all ICANN did was delay things 10 years. If that is the best > crowing example of ICANN's nimbleness, I wonder what slow is. > > And the fact that a new CEO who happens to proclaim widely that the IDN > launch was historic and one of the most important things, if not the > most important one, to happen to the Internet, is completely unaware of > such IDN history and uses a failure in nimbleness as an example of great > nimbleness, only highlights what Wolfgang said - ICANN has repeated > itself for so long, over and over again, with new sets of unaware people > proclaiming the old now new again. And the irony is that our new CEO is > at it as well - no one can escape the curse of procrastination. If a > failure in nimbleness of an organization can be celebrated as the > epitome of nimbleness by the mouthpiece of that organization, the > question of whether that organization is nimble or not pretty much > answers itself. > > Perhaps it is simply nimble in its own mind. > > Cheers > > Subbiah > > > > Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > >> ICANN, NIMBLE ???? :-)) >> >> Not that replacing it with a UN body would improve things. The >> challenge is how to build a more international, more globally >> accountable and public interest oriented ICANN, not the mere >> alternative : either the way ICANN (dis)functions today or another, >> even more unappealing option. The AoC paves a way forward. Will we >> collectively be able to move in the right direction ? That is the >> right question. >> >> B. >> >> On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 10:43 AM, Ginger Paque > > wrote: >> >> >> ICANN head warns against putting Internet addresses under UN control >> >> Posted by Andrew Adams: >> >> This (Canadian) Globe and Mail article includes details of >> Beckstrom's recent >> statements against UN oversight of ICANN. >> >> http://tinyurl.com/38m78m2 >> >> Summary: UN oversight would make ICANN "less nimble" according to >> Beckstrom. >> >> My opinion: could ICANN really be any less nimble given how >> glacial it is at >> introducing innovative ideas? Perhaps more international oversight >> could >> pressure ICANN into prioritising the real needs of users and less the >> concerns of staff which may or may not coincide with user needs. >> >> -- >> Professor Andrew A Adams >> Professor at Graduate School of Business Administration, and >> Deputy Director of the Centre for Business Information Ethics >> Meiji University, Tokyo, Japan >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> >> -- >> ____________________ >> Bertrand de La Chapelle >> Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for >> the Information Society >> Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of >> Foreign and European Affairs >> Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 >> >> "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de >> Saint Exupéry >> ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Fri May 28 18:35:07 2010 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 18:35:07 -0400 Subject: [governance] ICANN declined Bulgarian IDN fast-track request In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701DC2B2841@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: ,<75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701DC2B2841@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0161D659DE@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Re appeal process or lack thereof: if there are no rules, then however you play the game must be fair. And while partial to .br for many reasons, I can't imagine why people or machines would confuse b with cyryllic script regularly. In fact it would seem o be a rather low probability action for either people or machines to get the 2 confused. So my 2 cents: go for it. Lee ________________________________________ From: Milton L Mueller [mueller at syr.edu] Sent: Friday, May 28, 2010 5:34 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'krum.jonev at dir.bg' Subject: RE: [governance] ICANN declined Bulgarian IDN fast-track request > -----Original Message----- > > Therefore, I am looking for your opinion on those questions - do you > think that the string .бг "presents an unacceptably high risk of user > confusion" with .br No. I don't have any trouble distinguishing between a 6 and a b. > and does Bulgaria have > any chance if decides to appeal, as this is the desire of the majority > of the Internet community? ICANN has no formal accountability mechanisms. This is a problem for all of us, not just you. However, if by appeal, you mean, "Can I get my government and a bunch of other powerful people to make enough noise to scare ICANN into changing its decision, it is possible. But that is about the only option you have. > There were even two proposals of imposing a > requirement for the IDN ccTLD registry, to allow only registration of > domain names that contain an unique Cyrillic letter - in this way, all > similarities would be avoided. Some ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 dmiloshevic at afilias.info Fri May 28 19:28:58 2010 From: dmiloshevic at afilias.info (Desiree Miloshevic) Date: Sat, 29 May 2010 00:28:58 +0100 Subject: [governance] ICANN declined Bulgarian IDN fast-track request In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <76D6357F-A03A-4AA6-A069-45FC512D15ED@afilias.info> On 28 May 2010, at 21:28, Yrjö Länsipuro wrote: > Hi, > > Would there be another meaningful Cyrillic string that would stand > for Bulgaria? After all, in many cases IDN ccTLD's are not exact > translitterations of the ASCII ccTLD, since in many languages/ > scripts such abbreviations don't make sense. > is .бг is less similar to .br then .бр would be? User's confusion with IDN strings in general, not just with Cyrillic and ASCII, is one of expected "by-products", as well as one of many trade-offs we have to live with. Desiree -- > Please note, too, that Russia could not have a Cyrillic > translitteration of .ru, because it would have been identical with > ASCII .py (Paraguay) > > Best > > Yrjö Länsipuro > > > > > From: krum.jonev at dir.bg > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 20:09:24 +0200 > > Subject: [governance] ICANN declined Bulgarian IDN fast-track > request > > > > Hello, > > > > I am new to this list, but I would like to bring to your attention > an > > issue that recently appeared in Bulgaria. > > > > The Ministry of Transport, IT and Communications announced that > ICANN > > has declined the Bulgarian application in the new IDN ccTLD fast- > track > > process, as the proposed string .бг looked too much like the > existing > > ccTLD of Brazil (.br). > > > > However, the people in Bulgaria that are in favor of introducing an > > IDN ccTLD are practically mad of this decision. A few user groups > sent > > protest letters to the Ministry, advising them to appeal the ICANN`s > > decision. Others just sit and doesn't know what to do. > > > > Therefore, I am looking for your opinion on those questions - do you > > think that the string .бг "presents an unacceptably high risk of > user > > confusion" with .br (as said in ICANN reply); and does Bulgaria have > > any chance if decides to appeal, as this is the desire of the > majority > > of the Internet community? There were even two proposals of > imposing a > > requirement for the IDN ccTLD registry, to allow only registration > of > > domain names that contain an unique Cyrillic letter - in this way, > all > > similarities would be avoided. > > > > Thank you in advance for you time. > > > > Kind regards, > > Krum Jonev > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Fri May 28 20:45:41 2010 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 20:45:41 -0400 Subject: [governance] ICANN declined Bulgarian IDN fast-track request In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0161D659DE@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: ,<75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701DC2B2841@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0161D659DE@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <2ABD26CC-D162-43D5-97D3-D9733891C49A@acm.org> On 28 May 2010, at 18:35, Lee W McKnight wrote: > > And while partial to .br for many reasons, I can't imagine why people or machines would confuse b with cyryllic script regularly. > > In fact it would seem o be a rather low probability action for either people or machines to get the 2 confused. > not that gtld review criteria have any relevance to idn cctld evaluation that i know of. but: and if they were to follow the criteria, untested as they are, for new gTLDs, then it is not the possibility of confusion that counts but the likelihood of confusion. and one could ask how many Bulgarians or others were likely to be confused. > 2.1.1.1.1 Review Procedures > The String Similarity Panel’s task is to identify visual string > similarities that would create a probability of user > confusion. ... > Standard for String Confusion – String confusion exists where > a string so nearly resembles another visually that it is likely to > deceive or cause confusion. For the likelihood of confusion > to exist, it must be probable, not merely possible that > confusion will arise in the mind of the average, reasonable > Internet user. Mere association, in the sense that the string > brings another string to mind, is insufficient to find a > likelihood of confusion. so the question is, does it meet these conditions? if so, i would suggest standing down. on the other hand if people who know what they are talking about can attest that there is no probability of confusion, you might have leg to stand on. but again, new gTLD draft criteria don't really hold a lot of water, just a place to start a discussion. 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 nhklein at gmx.net Fri May 28 22:10:16 2010 From: nhklein at gmx.net (Norbert Klein) Date: Sat, 29 May 2010 09:10:16 +0700 Subject: [governance] ICANN declined Bulgarian IDN fast-track request In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4C007788.5070707@gmx.net> Yrjö Länsipuro wrote: > > Would there be another meaningful Cyrillic string that would stand for > Bulgaria? Why look for another string? It is first of all those who stand for Bulgaria who decide what shortcode to use in the code that stands for their country, in their script. (Unless there would be an exact double rendering like .ru -> .py.) > After all, in many cases IDN ccTLD's are not exact translitterations > of the ASCII ccTLD, since in many languages/scripts such abbreviations > don't make sense. > > Please note, too, that Russia could not have a Cyrillic > translitteration of .ru, because it would have been identical with > ASCII .py (Paraguay) This reference is not appropriate, though an often used irrelevant example: ".ru" was probably made from the English word "Russia" (as a two-letter ISO country code - like .hu stands for Hungary and not for Magyarország in Hungarian) Russia would not have used ".py" (then an English abbreviation in Cyrillic script - "Russia" with an "u" is anyway different from Россия with an "o"). What was chosen in Russia is a Cyrillic rendering of the "Russian Federation" - рф (Русский федерации). To say that .бг is similar to .br would only be understandable if the many ICANN reservations and exclusions for "confusingly similar" would also include the "visually impaired" (I am - but I still see the difference)... Norbert Klein (living in the Bulgarian Embassy in Cambodia) -- If you want to know what is going on in Cambodia, please visit The Mirror, a regular review of the Cambodian language press in English. This is the latest weekly editorial of the Mirror: “The Right to Know” and to Participate Sunday, 23.5.2010 http://wp.me/p2Gyf-1rZ (to read it, click on the line above.) And here is something new every day: http://cambodiamirror.wordpress.com ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nhklein at gmx.net Fri May 28 22:23:42 2010 From: nhklein at gmx.net (Norbert Klein) Date: Sat, 29 May 2010 09:23:42 +0700 Subject: [governance] ICANN declined Bulgarian IDN fast-track In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4C007AAE.5020109@gmx.net> krum.jonev at dir.bg wrote: > .бг is the most meaningful representation (was selected with a full > consensus between all interested parties) - and the local Internet > community doesn`t want to give it up without at least an "appeal > attempt" from the government. If this is not considered to be the most important argument - what is then the relative weight of a COUNTRY as over against a special TEAM of ICANN, deciding for the rest of the world what is confusing and what is not? > > Now we are trying to make the government communicate with ICANN and > actually do something. That`s why I wanted to ask if we should appeal > - maybe write to ICANN ombudsman, etc. However, there isn`t any formal > appeal process for the decisions taken in the string evaluation part. > > Among the proposed other options are .бгр (first association is > Belgrade, not Bulgaria), .бул (first association is "bull") and > .българия (which is ridiculously long for a tld). Who made these - confusing - suggestions? Surely not those who selected .бг in a consensus of the interested and involved. > > There are more and more oppinions that any other IDN ccTLD string will > "kill the idea", and even some people say that if we can not keep .бг, > its better for Bulgaria not to have an IDN ccTLD at all. Don't give up. > > Regards, > Krum Norbert KIein (living in the Bulgarian Embassy in Cambodia) -- If you want to know what is going on in Cambodia, please visit The Mirror, a regular review of the Cambodian language press in English. This is the latest weekly editorial of the Mirror: “The Right to Know” and to Participate Sunday, 23.5.2010 http://wp.me/p2Gyf-1rZ (to read it, click on the line above.) And here is something new every day: http://cambodiamirror.wordpress.com ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Sat May 29 01:36:36 2010 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sat, 29 May 2010 08:36:36 +0300 Subject: [governance] ICANN head warns against putting Internet addresses In-Reply-To: References: <4BFE97AF.4080802@i-dns.net> Message-ID: HI Ian, On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 12:58 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > I'm not sure whether Rod Beckstrom said ICANN was nimble or not - didn't he > just say that it would be less nimble under UN control? (that is a > reasonable assumption..) tis > > I do not think ICANN could be described as nimble by anyone in its current > state, but it is a good aspiration. To me, its an incredibly bloated > organisation currently. Much of that is because of the lack of appropriate > internet governance structures and ICANN becoming the default home for lots > of things it shouldn't be involved in. I think that much of the growth of the staff and supporting structures (that you call "bloat") is a direct result of ICANN listening to its critics who have been demanding things like IDNs and new g(and geo)TLDs and of course from WSIS and the IGF. ICANN (and the other orgs involved in actual IG work) have all increased their staff as a result of EC. Next week, for example, at the AfNOG/AfriNIC meeting in Kigali, we are having a half day AfGWG (AfriNIC Government Working Group) Roundtable Meeting. A significant amount of staff time has gone into this "non core business effort (it's not the first meeting of it's kind) and AfriNIC has had to hire several new Communications types to do this sort of work. I find it highly ironic that while the folk who are willingly doing EC because of the Tunis Agenda have those efforts ignored by many on this list as well having their efforts called "bloat" by others. I guess it falls into the category of "be careful what you wish for". If you want new gTLDs, IDNs and EC, then you have to expect that their will be ppl hired to suport those efforts. Y'all can't have it both ways, why you try is beyond me. -- 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 fouadbajwa at gmail.com Sat May 29 04:04:24 2010 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Sat, 29 May 2010 13:04:24 +0500 Subject: [governance] Facebook Ban in Pakistan - Looking into various perspectives Message-ID: The following article was being shared amongst the members of a key mailing list on the issue in Pakistan. Kindly note that this message is being shared for information purposes only and shows the duality of Facebook's Terms of Service that has incited the actions that were undertaken to ban Facebook and another 600 websites. Kindly, also read the the communication between the writer and Facebook to understand how an issue is being ill-treated. In the next message I will forward the copy of a joint statement by SAFMA (South Asia Free Media Association) on the Facebook Ban: QT/; By Saad Mustafa Warraich, Karachi – Pakistan I had been banned from Facebook and my account had bn disabled a night before Facebook was banned in Pakistan. Before all this happened, I visited the blasphemous page “Draw Muhammad Day” and the content on the page hurt me badly. Once again a certain group of westerners called it the “freedom of expression” and went on to show extremism – something they always verbally disassociate themselves from. As a response to this lunacy, I thought it best to find out how they respond to others’ right of freedom of expression – I created an Adolf Hitler page right away and it read, “To all those who think they can ridicule Islam in the name of freedom of expression and yet punish those who speak of the genius of Hitler”. The comment on the wall read, “Let’s hit them where it hurts them the most”. Further I added some photos of the Fuhrer, Nazi Party and the Italian Footballer Paolo Di Canio who was banned and fined by FIFA two years ago for performing the “controversial” Roman Salute which according to him gave him a sense of belonging to his people. Within an hour tens of people joined the Hitler page which was named “H | T L E R”. The very next time I tried to log in I found out that my profile had been disabled for ‘violation of Facebook Regulations’. Facebook’s reply for my inquiry was as following Hi Saad, After reviewing your situation, we have determined that your violated our Statement of Rights and Responsibilities. One of Facebook’s main priorities is the comfort and safety of our users. We do not tolerate hate speech. Targeting people based on their race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, or disease is a serious violation of our standards and has resulted in the permanent loss of your account. We will not be able to reactivate your account for any reason. This decision is final. Kimmie User Operations, Facebook how is it that Hitler is trmd as the most evil person in history of mankind those that bomb Muslims, comit heinous crimes in thr countries, ridicule their Prophet and Quran and as a result hurt the sentiments of 1.2 billion Muslims are hailed as heroes? . Despite the protest of a large number of Muslims, Facebook has not removed the blasphemous page from the website. According the statement issued by Facebook their policy is to withhold such content in countries where it is controversial. The statement specifically says that we do not remove Nazi content from Facebook because it is illegal only in a few countries. 2 statements go, this one takes the prize. Perhaps b4 issuing the statement the Facebook did not realise that words like “Adolf Hitler”, “Sieg Heil” and “Nazi” are not allowed to be usd on Facebook to create new pgs. if all this and the removal of Hitler page and the permanent deactivation of my profile isn’t enough, here is a testament to Facebook’s vile hypocrisy. The statement issued by Facebook on 20 May says, “We strongly believe that Facebook users have the freedom to express their opinions, and we don’t typically take down content, groups or pages that speak out against countries, religions, political entities, or ideas.” While, in another instance, Facebook replied me in entirely different way. Excerpt and screenshot is given above. Now these two conflicting statements speak volumes about the discrimination by the Facebook. It simply means that Facebooka wants the world to believe that they are the torchbearers of freedom of expression and allow everyone to speak their minds out. On the other hand the face that individuals like me get to see is a much horrible one. It talks about hate and intolerance and all forms of so-called equality and unshakable resolve. , I wonder what gives them the right to remove a major chunk of my life from the web. I will always hate "Facebook" By Zain Alvi, Sr. Manager- International at Aptech /QT; ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Sat May 29 04:54:44 2010 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Sat, 29 May 2010 10:54:44 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] ICANN declined Bulgarian IDN fast-track References: <4C007AAE.5020109@gmx.net> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A06C83@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Dear List, I encourage the Bulgarian friends to be more innovative and just to respect that .bg in cyrillic is confusingly similar to .br. When the Russian started to discuss their string in cyrillic, their first choice was .ru in cyrillic, which was confusingly similar to .py, the ccTLD for Paraguay. There was a strong group in the Russian Internet community arguing in favour of .ru in cyrillic as an issue of "sovereignty and pride of the national Russian community". The argument, .ru is owned by Russia and not by ICANN, was used in some heated debates. However, constructive consultations between ICANN and the Russian community led to the .rf cyrllic code (which stands for Russian Federation) and now everybody in Russia is happy to have it. Even President Medwedjew likes .rf. Probably the Bulgarians will find a nice code which allows them to keep the national pride and to accept that you should avoid to confuse users (which than often is misused by all kinds of bad guys). Wolfgang ________________________________ Von: Norbert Klein im Auftrag von Norbert Klein Gesendet: Sa 29.05.2010 04:23 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; krum.jonev at dir.bg Betreff: Re: [governance] ICANN declined Bulgarian IDN fast-track krum.jonev at dir.bg wrote: > .?? is the most meaningful representation (was selected with a full > consensus between all interested parties) - and the local Internet > community doesn`t want to give it up without at least an "appeal > attempt" from the government. If this is not considered to be the most important argument - what is then the relative weight of a COUNTRY as over against a special TEAM of ICANN, deciding for the rest of the world what is confusing and what is not? > > Now we are trying to make the government communicate with ICANN and > actually do something. That`s why I wanted to ask if we should appeal > - maybe write to ICANN ombudsman, etc. However, there isn`t any formal > appeal process for the decisions taken in the string evaluation part. > > Among the proposed other options are .??? (first association is > Belgrade, not Bulgaria), .??? (first association is "bull") and > .???????? (which is ridiculously long for a tld). Who made these - confusing - suggestions? Surely not those who selected ..?? in a consensus of the interested and involved. > > There are more and more oppinions that any other IDN ccTLD string will > "kill the idea", and even some people say that if we can not keep .??, > its better for Bulgaria not to have an IDN ccTLD at all. Don't give up. > > Regards, > Krum Norbert KIein (living in the Bulgarian Embassy in Cambodia) -- If you want to know what is going on in Cambodia, please visit The Mirror, a regular review of the Cambodian language press in English. This is the latest weekly editorial of the Mirror: "The Right to Know" and to Participate Sunday, 23.5.2010 http://wp.me/p2Gyf-1rZ (to read it, click on the line above.) And here is something new every day: http://cambodiamirror.wordpress.com ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From everton.mre at gmail.com Sat May 29 13:40:13 2010 From: everton.mre at gmail.com (Everton Lucero) Date: Sat, 29 May 2010 14:40:13 -0300 Subject: [governance] ICANN head warns against putting Internet addresses In-Reply-To: References: <4BFE97AF.4080802@i-dns.net> Message-ID: I wonder from whom the Reuters reporter heard that "countries such as Iran and Brazil..." believe ICANN should cede its authority to the UN. As far as Brazil is concerned, that is total misinformation, to say the least. I am certain Mr. Beckstrom would have never said that nonsensical phrase. Perhaps Wolfgang is right: we are back at pre-WSIS times. But things (and countries' views) have gone a long way since then. Need to keep up! Everton 2010/5/29 McTim : > HI Ian, > > On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 12:58 AM, Ian Peter wrote: >> I'm not sure whether Rod Beckstrom said ICANN was nimble or not - didn't he >> just say that it would be less nimble under UN control? (that is a >> reasonable assumption..) > > tis > >> >> I do not think ICANN could be described as nimble by anyone in its current >> state, but it is a good aspiration. To me, its an incredibly bloated >> organisation currently. Much of that is because of the lack of appropriate >> internet governance structures and ICANN becoming the default home for lots >> of things it shouldn't be involved in. > > > I think that much of the growth of the staff and supporting structures > (that you call "bloat") is a direct result of ICANN listening to its > critics who have been demanding things like IDNs and new g(and > geo)TLDs and of course from WSIS and the IGF.  ICANN (and the other > orgs involved in actual IG work) have all increased their staff as a > result of EC. > > Next week, for example, at the AfNOG/AfriNIC meeting in Kigali, we are > having a half day AfGWG (AfriNIC Government Working Group) Roundtable > Meeting.  A significant amount of staff time has gone into this "non > core business effort (it's not the first meeting of it's kind) and > AfriNIC has had to hire several new Communications types to do this > sort of work. > > > I find it highly ironic that while the folk who are willingly  doing > EC because of the Tunis Agenda have those efforts ignored by many on > this list as well having their efforts called "bloat" by others. > > I guess it falls into the category of "be careful what you wish for". > If you want new gTLDs, IDNs and EC, then you have to expect that their > will be ppl hired to suport those efforts. > > Y'all can't have it both ways, why you try is beyond me. > > > -- > 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 > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at psg.com Sat May 29 14:02:04 2010 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 29 May 2010 14:02:04 -0400 Subject: [governance] ICANN head warns against putting Internet addresses In-Reply-To: References: <4BFE97AF.4080802@i-dns.net> Message-ID: On 29 May 2010, at 13:40, Everton Lucero wrote: > I am certain Mr. Beckstrom would have never said that > nonsensical phrase. You have more confidence in him than many. 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 ca at cafonso.ca Sat May 29 14:09:04 2010 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Sat, 29 May 2010 15:09:04 -0300 Subject: [governance] ICANN head warns against putting Internet addresses In-Reply-To: References: <4BFE97AF.4080802@i-dns.net> Message-ID: Curious indeed. Everton is right. As to Rod, I think he is being ill- advised to say the least. Does he really know *where* he is, for crying out loud? --c.a. enviado via iPhone On 29/05/2010, at 14:40, Everton Lucero wrote: > I wonder from whom the Reuters reporter heard that "countries such as > Iran and Brazil..." believe ICANN should cede its authority to the UN. > As far as Brazil is concerned, that is total misinformation, to say > the least. I am certain Mr. Beckstrom would have never said that > nonsensical phrase. > Perhaps Wolfgang is right: we are back at pre-WSIS times. But things > (and countries' views) have gone a long way since then. Need to keep > up! > Everton > > > 2010/5/29 McTim : >> HI Ian, >> >> On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 12:58 AM, Ian Peter >> wrote: >>> I'm not sure whether Rod Beckstrom said ICANN was nimble or not - >>> didn't he >>> just say that it would be less nimble under UN control? (that is a >>> reasonable assumption..) >> >> tis >> >>> >>> I do not think ICANN could be described as nimble by anyone in its >>> current >>> state, but it is a good aspiration. To me, its an incredibly bloated >>> organisation currently. Much of that is because of the lack of >>> appropriate >>> internet governance structures and ICANN becoming the default home >>> for lots >>> of things it shouldn't be involved in. >> >> >> I think that much of the growth of the staff and supporting >> structures >> (that you call "bloat") is a direct result of ICANN listening to its >> critics who have been demanding things like IDNs and new g(and >> geo)TLDs and of course from WSIS and the IGF. ICANN (and the other >> orgs involved in actual IG work) have all increased their staff as a >> result of EC. >> >> Next week, for example, at the AfNOG/AfriNIC meeting in Kigali, we >> are >> having a half day AfGWG (AfriNIC Government Working Group) Roundtable >> Meeting. A significant amount of staff time has gone into this "non >> core business effort (it's not the first meeting of it's kind) and >> AfriNIC has had to hire several new Communications types to do this >> sort of work. >> >> >> I find it highly ironic that while the folk who are willingly doing >> EC because of the Tunis Agenda have those efforts ignored by many on >> this list as well having their efforts called "bloat" by others. >> >> I guess it falls into the category of "be careful what you wish for". >> If you want new gTLDs, IDNs and EC, then you have to expect that >> their >> will be ppl hired to suport those efforts. >> >> Y'all can't have it both ways, why you try is beyond me. >> >> >> -- >> 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 >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 pouzin at well.com Sat May 29 16:29:12 2010 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin) Date: Sat, 29 May 2010 13:29:12 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] ICANN declined Bulgarian IDN fast-track request Message-ID: <201005292029.o4TKTCBx027704@well.com> Namaste, Using roman scripts has always been confusing. O (letter) 0 (number), I (letter) 1 (number). Using non roman scripts adds more confusion. B (roman) В (cyrillic), etc. Can you distinguish COM (roman) from СОМ (cyrillic) ? « Internet is for everyone » is just a slogan when the internet is not usable in native language. We need arabic, armenian, bengali, chinese, cri, cyrillic, ethiopic, french, greek, gujarati, farsi, hebrew, hindi, japanese, korean, latvian, malayalam, quechua, tamil, telugu, thai, tibetan, turkish, and many more. Of course, there are countless opportunities for confusion when mixing languages, be it due to alphabets, pronunciation, similarities, double meanings, or others. BAD means one thing in english and another in german. It's confusing, isn't. Should we forbid Germans using the word BAD ? The dispute about using .бг (.6r for ascians) as a native bulgarian ccTLD is both amusing and cheap. Amusing because similarities, ambiguities and look-alikes are a straight consequence of mixing scripts in a single context. Cheap because those who made that choice seem unable to admit the result, and furthermore hold legitimate users as troublemakers. After all, cyrillic was first used in Bulgaria in the 9th century. The Bulgarians know better than ICANN which abbreviation is appropriate for their native ccTLD, provided it does not collide with another cyrillic ccTLD. Arguments about confusion with .br are *irrelevant*. Such possible confusions are commonplace in domain names, even in a single script. So, what's new ? ICANN, as usual, ignores the UN WSIS Tunis agenda, which reads: « 63. Countries should not be involved in decisions regarding another country’s country-code Top-Level Domain (ccTLD). Their legitimate interests, as expressed and defined by each country, in diverse ways, regarding decisions affecting their ccTLDs, need to be respected, upheld and addressed via a flexible and improved framework and mechanisms. » Bulgarian friends ! why submit to a world monopoly imposed by a diktat of the US govt ? What if you set up a cyrillic DNS, shared with neighbouring countries using cyrillic. You would save extravagant fees. It would make it much simpler for cyrillic aware people to reach you, and that's a lot of people in central Europe and Asia. Are you afraid of becoming isolated from the rest of the world ? No point. You have a roman .bg ccTLD. That's what cyrillic unaware people will use to reach you. Instead of being captive of the ICANN gang, you could access two name spaces, or more ... Go and visit: http://www.idru.org Native languages are expanding in the internet. ICANN is an iceberg in a warm sea. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Sat May 29 16:52:17 2010 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 29 May 2010 16:52:17 -0400 Subject: [governance] ICANN declined Bulgarian IDN fast-track request In-Reply-To: <201005292029.o4TKTCBx027704@well.com> References: <201005292029.o4TKTCBx027704@well.com> Message-ID: Hi, Interseting note, and I am alway game for people who want to do away with the " diktat of the US govt ". reminds me of the good times in the 60's. One correction: > You would save extravagant fees. I think ccTLDs get it all for free or at most for a voluntary contribution. they do occupy a privileged position in the ICANN family. a. On 29 May 2010, at 16:29, Louis Pouzin wrote: > Namaste, > > Using roman scripts has always been confusing. O (letter) 0 (number), I > (letter) 1 (number). Using non roman scripts adds more confusion. B (roman) > В (cyrillic), etc. Can you distinguish COM (roman) from СОМ (cyrillic) ? > > « Internet is for everyone » is just a slogan when the internet is not usable in native language. We need arabic, armenian, bengali, chinese, cri, > cyrillic, ethiopic, french, greek, gujarati, farsi, hebrew, hindi, japanese, korean, latvian, malayalam, quechua, tamil, telugu, thai, tibetan, turkish, > and many more. > > Of course, there are countless opportunities for confusion when mixing > languages, be it due to alphabets, pronunciation, similarities, double > meanings, or others. BAD means one thing in english and another in german. > It's confusing, isn't. Should we forbid Germans using the word BAD ? > > The dispute about using .бг (.6r for ascians) as a native bulgarian ccTLD is both amusing and cheap. Amusing because similarities, ambiguities and > look-alikes are a straight consequence of mixing scripts in a single > context. Cheap because those who made that choice seem unable to admit the > result, and furthermore hold legitimate users as troublemakers. > > After all, cyrillic was first used in Bulgaria in the 9th century. The > Bulgarians know better than ICANN which abbreviation is appropriate for > their native ccTLD, provided it does not collide with another cyrillic ccTLD. > Arguments about confusion with .br are *irrelevant*. Such possible confusions are commonplace in domain names, even in a single script. So, > what's new ? > > ICANN, as usual, ignores the UN WSIS Tunis agenda, which reads: > > « 63. Countries should not be involved in decisions regarding another > country’s country-code Top-Level Domain (ccTLD). Their legitimate interests, as expressed and defined by each country, in diverse ways, regarding > decisions affecting their ccTLDs, need to be respected, upheld and addressed via a flexible and improved framework and mechanisms. » > > Bulgarian friends ! why submit to a world monopoly imposed by a diktat of the US govt ? > What if you set up a cyrillic DNS, shared with neighbouring countries using > cyrillic. You would save extravagant fees. It would make it much simpler for cyrillic aware people to reach you, and that's a lot of people in central > Europe and Asia. Are you afraid of becoming isolated from the rest of the > world ? No point. You have a roman .bg ccTLD. That's what cyrillic unaware > people will use to reach you. Instead of being captive of the ICANN gang, > you could access two name spaces, or more ... > > Go and visit: http://www.idru.org > > Native languages are expanding in the internet. > ICANN is an iceberg in a warm sea. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Sat May 29 17:35:35 2010 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Sat, 29 May 2010 23:35:35 +0200 Subject: [governance] ICANN declined Bulgarian IDN fast-track In-Reply-To: <7C3193F8-05A6-4AE5-897B-2D529934B5BF@psg.com> <4C0035F1.2040602@cavebear.com> <4C0035F1.2040602@cavebear.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701DC2B2841@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701DC2B2841@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0161D659DE@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <76D6357F-A03A-4AA6-A069-45FC512D15ED@afilias.info> <2ABD26CC-D162-43D5-97D3-D9733891C49A@acm.org> <4C007788.5070707@gmx.net> <4C007AAE.5020109@gmx.net> References: <7C3193F8-05A6-4AE5-897B-2D529934B5BF@psg.com> <4C0035F1.2040602@cavebear.com> <4C0035F1.2040602@cavebear.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701DC2B2841@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701DC2B2841@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4BFE97AF.4080802@i-dns.net> <4BFE97AF.4080802@i-dns.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701DC2B2841@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0161D659DE@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <76D6357F-A03A-4AA6-A069-45FC512D15ED@afilias.info> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701DC2B2841@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0161D659DE@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <2ABD26CC-D162-43D5-97D3-D9733891C49A@acm.org> <4C007788.5070707@gmx.net> <4C007AAE.5020109@gmx.net> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20100529132745.05f2ec90@jefsey.com> Dear all, This mail follows from the apparent ICANN denial of the IDNccTLD U-label that was chosen by the people and government of Romania. Introduction 1. This mail comes after years of ICANN's active lack of preparation of the only ICANN concern in the WSIS' Internet. ICANN's role, as assigned by the USG, is (1) a coordination of the cooperative governance and adminance of the so-called legacy "root file" and its (2) relations with RIRs (ICP-2). The rules to apply are defined in RFC 1591 and ICP-1. Their evolution is defined in the long forgot ICP-3. ICANN improperly considered the issues created by the IDNA, in which its positions are: - unfit to match the IDNA2008 context, - intrinsically foreign to the so-called IDNA2010 (practical application of IDNA2008 on the user side) - and IDNA2012 (administration, operations, maintenance, and future of the IDNA2008/IDNA2010 system). - In particular, ICANN is ignorant of the constraints imposed by the virtual root open unique matrix ("vroum") evolution. 2. This is why this mail is copied to those who have, or have partly, omitted the actual responsibility to address this point in conformance with the Internet design/architectural consistency principles as defined by RFC 1958, 3439, and IDNA2008: - the governance at list.cpsr.org mailing list (Annex 1 - debate on the list) where the Romanian question was raised. - the Chair of the ISO 3166 maintenance agency that decides on ccTLDs (RFC 1591, ISO 3166, and ICP-1) and ICANN is one of the ten members for that reason. - the IDNA2010 working list on the practical user implementations of the IDNA2008, not yet published, RFC set. - the IETF WG/NEWPREP that is under preparation (Annex 2 - Mail on the Internet Users preliminary questions before a possible Stringprep replacement cooperative work is to be carried out). - the Internet User Contributing Group. 3. This mail and its annexes will be attached to my appeal to the IAB that is under preparation prior to June 7. This appeal discusses the fundamental issues created by the lack of an IESG warning to the community in general, and to ICANN, in particular, due to the technical impossibility and risks of running a testing project such as FAST TRACK, especially if it only involves non-roman IDNccTLDs instead of temporary IDNgTLDs that are selected at least for their technical neutrality to phishing. 4. This mail must be considered in the IDNA2008/FAST TRACK/Internet Users triangular context. As emphasized yesterday in my mail to brother at arms George Sadowsky: (in ANNEX 3), in this domain, ICANN is technically impaired, its BoD is unaware of the Internet Users' world, and its CEO is politically nimble. TECHNICAL SITUATION SUMMARY The IDNA2008 success is based upon the fact that no "MUST" affects the users. Therefore, the Use side can be entirely flexible in the way it matches the Network side limitation in transcoding the user's presented characters in what IDNA may accept (this replaces stringprep). However, there MUST be a way for this flexibility to be organized among users. Otherwise, the way a domain name is mapped into an IDNA2008 conformant U-label in a browser may differ from the way it is mapped in another one. An attempt to document this has shown that it was possible, which in turn permitted the IDNA2008 consensus. That attempt was consensual at the WG (some considering it as the response, others - like me - as a default guidance). This is why the Area Director did not accept it and the document was declared "dead". Here is the final wrap-up on the matter by Vint Cerf (WG Chair) and Lisa Dusseault (Application AD). "Although the last poll regarding the "mappings" document seemed to show that most respondents wanted to proceed with submission to the IESG, the AD felt that there were mapping issues not addressed to her satisfaction. We were unable to agree on a version of mapping that would satisfy all concerns among the AD and editors. Reference to TR46 seemed to be desired by the AD but as you see from Patrik Faltsrom's detailed review of that draft document, there is much to discuss and debate. In the end, the only way forward seemed to be to declare the WG "mappings" document to be "dead" and to allow a version of it to be submitted for publication as an independent submission. vint" "To answer the question about my concerns, I was particularly worried about client implementations of mappings: the WG consensus call indicated that those who had plans to implement mappings, planned to implement TR46 rather than the WG product. "The WG had a lot of discussions a year ago about whether to leave mappings as a free-for-all and what I heard at that time was that a lot of people saw the value in consistent mappings across implementations -- so a user going from one browser to another, or from email to a browser, won't be surprised at where they end up. Unfortunately, we didn't arrive at a conclusion that provided that consistency, with one set of mappings proposed by the Unicode Consortium and another set proposed by this WG. I still hope for Unicode and IETF participants both to work on understanding why there are conflicting requirements and gain a realistic view of what is likely to be implemented (and over what transition period). So, work can continue thanks to individual contributions and reviews, or even through the possibility of a future WG. Lisa" Such a work does/will continue: - through my appeal to IESG/IAB for the needed clarifications and guidance and then the IUCG workon at iucg.org mailing list as well as under the supervision of the iucg at ietf.org mailing list. - the WG/NEWPREP preparation in order to discuss a consistent stringpreps convergence - possibly through the "locked" ICANN WG/IDNA, as Vint Cerf initially proposed it and Internet Users opposed it, since they do not feel that they are represented by ICANN. This work still to be done is actually what FAST TRACK should mainly test. So, FAST TRACK is a political way to make believe it was carried out and to influence or to block it. The rest of FAST TRACK is to test the ICANN IDNcc/gTLD selection and deployment process. NETWORK NEUTRALITY The main problem that Internet technology meets is to sustain network neutrality for all, that is: no one can be technically privileged for whatever reason. 1. The Internet had a linguistic bias. The task of reducing that architectural bias was started with IDNA2003. 2. IDNA2008 represents impressive steps ahead in that direction: one of them is to have IDNA disconnected from Unicode, while using Unicode codepoints to document the Internet User character set. This means that whatever the variations on the Internet use, the Internet DNS technology will remain unaffected. Since this is the part that ICANN is involved with, it means that there is _nothing_ to be tested related to the Internet. 3. However, 3.1. IDNA (on the user side and general adminance) is not completed, 3.2. Its architecture is questioned by the IAB and the Applications AD, 3.3. Several Internet users' sides are developing more or less actively RFC 1958/3439 and IDNA2008 conformant open alternatives, 3.4. Its punycode algorithm has not unified/simplified the Internet linguistic support. This means, in other words, everything that FAST TRACK is supposed to test (i.e. not the technology but the use of the technology) has not been agreed upon or documented yet. Rod Becktrom's action, therefore, tends to replace the Internet linguistic technical bias, by an Internet ICANNistic political bias, before the IETF, industry, standards, and users agree that the time has come for a new naming paradigm - where ICANN and its "naming industry" seek to continue to be a part of. There are many new architectural features, possibilities, and opportunities opened by IDNA2008 that will put Internet neutrality into a new perspective. In that perspective, it is entirely possible to navigate an immensely extended Internet (and its service and semantic continuations) without using a single root server system - from ICANN or any other root system. This means that no one can impeach Romanians from choosing and operating the xn-- tld that they want and to safely interoperate on the Internet - even if some of their customers start getting Brazilian friends and business by error. They will just not pay ICANN for what is worth $10 a year (registering a single DN). THE GRASSROOT SOLUTION WE (USERS) NEED AND WORK ON This means that other solutions/agreements/behaviors have to be found, documented, experimented, deployed, supported, and collectively operated, if possible after negotiation with all the stakeholders of this new game. You are welcome to join workon at idna2010.org (http://idna2010.org/mailman/listinfo/workon_idna2010.org) in order to start discussing this issue. The basic need that we have, and are working on, is a tool that is able to support network linguistic neutrality on the user side, which is the equivalent of as how IDNA2008 is currently able to ensure network linguistic neutrality on the network side. This means that IDN should not mean an "internationalized domain name" any more, but rather an "Internet domain name" differentiating them from other private, community, and (foreign) technologies interoperable domain names. To achieve this, the rule "first come, first serve" MUST continue to apply without resulting in possible visual confusion, phishing risk, and class conflicts. This means that 1. the IDNA2008 charset must be revised in two directions: - to support metadata (such as French majuscules) in order to not occlude any orthotypography - to be visually coded: this means that visual sorting and indexing do match. It also means that the Internet has its own charset where codepoints (Unicode) are regrouped by "visual equivalence codes" and registrations are "netically" (per netiquette) made on a first come first use basis (1) in using this Unisign/Unigraph (name it the way you want) charset (2) exclusively reserving the "two 0-Z" table to ISO3166 (3) other stringprep processes ranging from IETF technology to banks, police, IDs, etc. converge towards the same code standard. (this means that we do not speak anymore of "o", "cyrilic o", "omicron", but of "half-size circle on the bottom line". 2. the namespace governance is to be renegotiated before unilateral confusing decisions are taken by local, cultural, trade groups, or mafias...and by private Internet Users. This is to jointly explore all of this (rather than imposing a grass-root free of charge, but messy, system). Therefore, we created the workon at idna2010.org mailing list (http://idna2010.org/mailman/listinfo/workon_idna2010.org) The internet is an open @large place without monopoly but with alliances. jfc ANNEX 1 - Debate over the ITLD Romanian request. At 20:09 28/05/2010, krum.jonev at dir.bg wrote: >Hello, > >I am new to this list, but I would like to bring to your attention >an issue that recently appeared in Bulgaria. > >The Ministry of Transport, IT and Communications announced that >ICANN has declined the Bulgarian application in the new IDN ccTLD >fast-track process, as the proposed string .бг looked too much >like the existing ccTLD of Brazil (.br). > >However, the people in Bulgaria that are in favor of introducing an >IDN ccTLD are practically mad of this decision. A few user groups >sent protest letters to the Ministry, advising them to appeal the >ICANN`s decision. Others just sit and doesn't know what to do. > >Therefore, I am looking for your opinion on those questions - do you >think that the string .бг "presents an unacceptably high risk of >user confusion" with .br (as said in ICANN reply); and does Bulgaria >have any chance if decides to appeal, as this is the desire of the >majority of the Internet community? There were even two proposals of >imposing a requirement for the IDN ccTLD registry, to allow only >registration of domain names that contain an unique Cyrillic letter >- in this way, all similarities would be avoided. > >Thank you in advance for you time. > >Kind regards, >Krum Jonev At 20:13 28/05/2010, McTim wrote: >Hi, > >On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 9:09 PM, wrote: > > Hello, > > > > > > > Therefore, I am looking for your opinion on those questions - do you think > > that the string .бг "presents an unacceptably high risk of user > confusion" > > with .br > >yes > > (as said in ICANN reply); and does Bulgaria have any chance if > > decides to appeal, as this is the desire of the majority of the Internet > > community? > >maybe, is there an appeals process for IDNs? > >-- >Cheers, > >McTim At 20:24 28/05/2010, Hong Xue wrote: >Thanks for the information. Is it a formal "announcement" of ICANN? I >cannot find it on ICANN website. Or, is it only an outcome of string >evaluation? In the latter case, you may wish to further communicate >with ICANN. The restrictive registration policy you mentioned may >somewhat erase the concerns of user confusion. But domain names are >accessible globally. An IDN string non-confusing to local community >might inflict phishing in other part of the world. > >Well, we are right in the mud of how to evaluate "confusingly >similarity" between IDN scripts and Latin scripts. > >Hong At 22:28 28/05/2010, Yrjö Länsipuro wrote: >Hi, > >Would there be another meaningful Cyrillic string that would stand >for Bulgaria? After all, in many cases IDN ccTLD's are not exact >translitterations of the ASCII ccTLD, since in many >languages/scripts such abbreviations don't make sense. > >Please note, too, that Russia could not have a Cyrillic >translitteration of .ru, because it would have been identical with >ASCII .py (Paraguay) > >Best > >Yrjö Länsipuro At 23:00 28/05/2010, krum.jonev at dir.bg wrote: >Hi, > >.бг is the most meaningful representation (was selected with a >full consensus between all interested parties) - and the local >Internet community doesn`t want to give it up without at least an >"appeal attempt" from the government. > >Now we are trying to make the government communicate with ICANN and >actually do something. That`s why I wanted to ask if we should >appeal - maybe write to ICANN ombudsman, etc. However, there isn`t >any formal appeal process for the decisions taken in the string >evaluation part. > >Among the proposed other options are .бгр (first association is >Belgrade, not Bulgaria), .бул (first association is "bull") and >.българия (which is ridiculously long for a tld). > >There are more and more oppinions that any other IDN ccTLD string >will "kill the idea", and even some people say that if we can not >keep .бг, its better for Bulgaria not to have an IDN ccTLD at all. > >Regards, >Krum At 23:10 28/05/2010, Avri Doria wrote: >On 28 May 2010, at 14:13, McTim wrote: > > > > > > > (as said in ICANN reply); and does Bulgaria have any chance if > >> decides to appeal, as this is the desire of the majority of the Internet > >> community? > > > > maybe, is there an appeals process for IDNs? > > >was it already subjected to the extended review? > >I don't know if there are any appeals from IANA decisions, but if >there are, it is the ICANN Board. > >a. At 23:30 28/05/2010, Karl Auerbach wrote: >On 05/28/2010 11:09 AM, krum.jonev at dir.bg wrote: > >>The Ministry of Transport, IT and Communications announced that ICANN >>has declined the Bulgarian application in the new IDN ccTLD fast-track >>process, as the proposed string .бг looked too much like the existing >>ccTLD of Brazil (.br). > >The standard of "presents an unacceptably high risk of user >confusion" is entirely subjective. Normally those kinds of choices >need to be refined over the years by building a set of principled >decisions, decisions that express their logic, rationale, and >weighing of the competing interests. However, ICANN is rather week >when it comes to building compendiums of principles to guide these choices. > >I have my own TLD, .ewe (not in the ICANN root - see >http://eweregistry.cavebear.com/ - it's a prototype, not active) - >Anyway, some say that it is too close to .eu to which I sheepishly >answer with this question: > > Which came first, female sheep or the European Union? > >One could get into endless arguments about which came first, >Bulgaria or Brazil. And they would be fruitless arguments. > >But such arguments would reveal a meta issue: Why should Brazil get >automatic priority, why is .6r considered as causing an unacceptable >confusion to people using .br. Why is the question not put the >other way around, i.e. might .br be unacceptably confusing to users of .6r? > >If the principle that we pull from this is "first in time, first in >right", then fine. > >But what then do we say to people who have been using or advocating >certain TLDs for a long time, such as IOD's 2000 proposal to ICANN >(for which IOD paid ICANN a $50,000 application fee) for .web, and >what about the .biz that was in existence and operating before there >even was an ICANN? > >And how does the standard of "user confusion" fare when faced with >the increasing technical and cultural reality in which domain names >are fading as visible identifiers as opposed to address books, >shortnames (e.g. .ly, tinyurl, etc), facebook logins, twitter ids, etc etc? > >Perhaps that standard is more the creation of the overheated mind of >some trademark lawyers who, like the old monarchs of Spain and >Portugal, are out to plant their flag of ownership on everything >than it is the result of a reasoned, but perhaps transient, choice >among actual users on the rapidly evolving internet? > >The argument of "unacceptable user" confusion could have been levied >against the internet back in the 1970s when there were a >multiplicity of different email systems. > >And US telephone users are routinely confused by country codes on >telephone numbers. > >The point is that confusion of some degree will always exist, we >ought not to hold back progress because some people can't handle the >"future shock". > > --karl-- At 23:34 28/05/2010, Milton L Mueller wrote: >Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64> -----Original Message----- > > > > Therefore, I am looking for your opinion on those questions - do you > > think that the string .бг "presents an unacceptably high risk of user > > confusion" with .br > >No. I don't have any trouble distinguishing between a 6 and a b. > > > and does Bulgaria have >[žHÚ[˜ÙHif decides to appeal, as this is the desire of the majority > > of the Internet community? > >ICANN has no formal accountability mechanisms. This is a problem for >all of us, not just you. >However, if by appeal, you mean, "Can I get my government and a >bunch of other powerful people to make enough noise to scare ICANN >into changing its decision, it is possible. But that is about the >only option you have. > > > There were even two proposals of imposing a > > requirement for the IDN ccTLD registry, to allow only registration of > > domain names that contain an unique Cyrillic letter - in this way, all > > similarities would be avoided. > >Some At 00:35 29/05/2010, Lee W McKnight wrote: >Re appeal process or lack thereof: if there are no rules, then >however you play the game must be fair. > >And while partial to .br for many reasons, I can't imagine why >people or machines would confuse b with cyryllic script regularly. > > In fact it would seem o be a rather low probability action for > either people or machines to get the 2 confused. > >So my 2 cents: go for it. > >Lee At 01:28 29/05/2010, Desiree Miloshevic wrote: >On 28 May 2010, at 21:28, Yrjö Länsipuro wrote: > >>Hi, >> >>Would there be another meaningful Cyrillic string that would stand >>for Bulgaria? After all, in many cases IDN ccTLD's are not exact >>translitterations of the ASCII ccTLD, since in many >>languages/scripts such abbreviations don't make sense. > is .бг is less similar to .br then .бр would be? > >User's confusion with IDN strings in general, not just with Cyrillic >and ASCII, >is one of expected "by-products", as well as one of many trade-offs >we have to live with. > >Desiree At 02:45 29/05/2010, Avri Doria wrote: >On 28 May 2010, at 18:35, Lee W McKnight wrote: > > > > > And while partial to .br for many reasons, I can't imagine why > people or machines would confuse b with cyryllic script regularly. > > > > In fact it would seem o be a rather low probability action for > either people or machines to get the 2 confused. > > > > >not that gtld review criteria have any relevance to idn cctld >evaluation that i know of. >but: > >and if they were to follow the criteria, untested as they are, for >new gTLDs, then it is not the possibility of confusion that counts >but the likelihood of confusion. and one could ask how many >Bulgarians or others were likely to be confused. > > > > 2.1.1.1.1 Review Procedures > > The String Similarity Panel's task is to identify visual string > > similarities that would create a probability of user > > confusion. > >... > > > Standard for String Confusion ­ String confusion exists where > > a string so nearly resembles another visually that it is likely to > > deceive or cause confusion. For the likelihood of confusion > > to exist, it must be probable, not merely possible that > > confusion will arise in the mind of the average, reasonable > > Internet user. Mere association, in the sense that the string > > brings another string to mind, is insufficient to find a > > likelihood of confusion. > > >so the question is, does it meet these conditions? if so, i would >suggest standing down. > >on the other hand if people who know what they are talking about can >attest that there is no probability of confusion, you might >have leg to stand on. > >but again, new gTLD draft criteria don't really hold a lot of water, >just a place to start a discussion. > >a. At 04:10 29/05/2010, Norbert Klein wrote: >Yrjö Länsipuro wrote: > > > > Would there be another meaningful Cyrillic string that would stand for > > Bulgaria? >Why look for another string? It is first of all those who stand for >Bulgaria who decide what shortcode to use in the code that stands for >their country, in their script. (Unless there would be an exact double >rendering like .ru -> .py.) > > After all, in many cases IDN ccTLD's are not exact translitterations > > of the ASCII ccTLD, since in many languages/scripts such abbreviations > > don't make sense. > > > > Please note, too, that Russia could not have a Cyrillic > > translitteration of .ru, because it would have been identical with > > ASCII .py (Paraguay) >This reference is not appropriate, though an often used irrelevant >example: ".ru" was probably made from the English word "Russia" (as a >two-letter ISO country code - like .hu stands for Hungary and not for >Magyarország in Hungarian) Russia would not have used ".py" (then an >English abbreviation in Cyrillic script - "Russia" with an "u" is anyway >different from Россия with an "o"). What was chosen in Russia is a >Cyrillic rendering of the "Russian Federation" - рф (Ð >усский федерации). > >To say that .бг is similar to .br would only be understandable if the >many ICANN reservations and exclusions for "confusingly similar" would >also include the "visually impaired" (I am - but I still see the >difference)... > > >Norbert Klein >(living in the Bulgarian Embassy in Cambodia) >At 10:54 29/05/2010, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: >Dear List, > >I encourage the Bulgarian friends to be more innovative and just to >respect that .bg in cyrillic is confusingly similar to .br. When the >Russian started to discuss their string in cyrillic, their first >choice was .ru in cyrillic, which was confusingly similar to .py, >the ccTLD for Paraguay. There was a strong group in the Russian >Internet community arguing in favour of .ru in cyrillic as an issue >of "sovereignty and pride of the national Russian community". The >argument, .ru is owned by Russia and not by ICANN, was used in some >heated debates. However, constructive consultations between ICANN >and the Russian community led to the .rf cyrllic code (which stands >for Russian Federation) and now everybody in Russia is happy to have >it. Even President Medwedjew likes .rf. Probably the Bulgarians will >find a nice code which allows them to keep the national pride and to >accept that you should avoid to confuse users (which than often is >misused by all kinds of bad guys). > >Wolfgang ANNEX 2 - Response of JFC MORFIN to George Sadwosky on Rob Beckstrom affirmation that ICANN is a nimble organization. >At 11:33 AM +0200 5/28/10, JFC Morfin wrote: >>At 16:37 27/05/2010, George Sadowsky wrote: >>>Bertrand, >>> >>>Given Adam's comments below, perhaps you would be willing to >>>suggest some concrete areas in which ICANN could be more nimble >>>(or choose your own adjectives) while ensuring responsiveness to >>>community inputs. >> >>George, >> >>I am sorry, but no one could be more nimble than our current ICANN CEO! >> >>Nobody else, including IESG, IAB, WG/IDNABIS and its Chair (Vint >>Cerf), Application AD, etc. was aware that/how IDNA2008 can be >>tested by users. The real ICANN break-through is that from Rod >>Beckstrom on, no technology is necessary anymore for the ICANNet to >>expand and offer new technical services. >> >>jfc At 13:51 28/05/2010, George Sadowsky wrote: >JFC, >This is an unhelpful comment. First, I can't understand what you >are saying. Second, I sense a high level of sarcasm that occludes >the meaning. Third, it is devoid of constructive suggestions. There >is an old Quaker saying that I recommend to you. "Don't speak >unless you can improve upon the quality of silence." Dear George, I chair the Projet.FRA for a French speaking space, a language that - as you certainly know - IDNA occludes the semantics. This may explain that I also found some typos in your "don't speak when eating your oatmeal cereals unless ICANN improves their QoS" commercial. I did enjoyed the pun: Quicker! ICANN the Quaker (netquake nimble survivor?)! OK, after som fun, let's turn serious now. I am not here to help, but rather to negotiate. Now, I must say without sarcasm, but with sadness, that this is a very helpful comment of yours. It explicitly documents that ICANN board members have not yet realized that "their" ICANN does not belong to the same world as the Internet Users' world and that they are not even trying anymore to understand what Users are saying when they contribute. In addition, they jump to negative conclusions and engage in unproductive reactions (something of which you did not get us used to). In the Internet Users' world, technology comes first because it says whether things are possible or not in a network made of bandwidth, protocols, and machines. In ICANN's world, political beliefs come first and says whether the intellectual network of contracts, media releases, reports etc. is credible enough to support the stakeholders' agenda. ICANN is obviously not nimble. However, Rod is. What he says is technically absurd. However, it is politically credible. Up to now, politics and engineers went roughly along together because they made a couple that roughly shared a common knowledge of what the other one thinks the network is (cf. Karl's post). I am afraid that this has definitely changed on January 7, 2010. On that day, the IESG approved IDNA2008, (1) under the pressure of Rod's press announcements - cf. WG/IDNABIS Chair (Vint Cerf)'s mails on this, and (2) after having considered what the Internet Users' resulting technical, adminance, and governance moves will be (http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-iucg-afra-reports-00.txt). In addition to technology and politics, use (and adminance, i.e. what decides on the possible use) is now a real component of Internet life. Therefore, - on the one hand, ICANN is pretending to test something that is by far not released yet and refuses to discuss the way that it could be worked out, even under its proposed "technical leadership" (?), - on the another hand, the entire IETF process (IAB ongoing work, AD oppositions, regular IETF appeal procedure) definitely refuses to consider the ICANN moves as having any technical importance. - and the rest of the body (users' use) has now been set technically free to go where it wants. In this situation, - ICANN staff and contributors have fully shown their inability to make the ICANN situation internally understood and to cooperate to reach a solution. - IETF has to decide if usage architecture belongs to its scope or not: I do not expect to have a fully documented and digested IAB answer before the end of the year. - Internet Users comprise three main general categories: (1) active users (this kind of governance lists) (2) end users (we never hear from them but they vote with their dollar bills), and (3) lead users who face and have to admin any new problems first. Lead users now have an architectural place in the Internet and a technological/governance empowerment capacity. This is not a couple anymore but rather a trio. - The stakeholders at this stage are mostly Unicode/ISOC/Google led ICANN actually faces the choice that Rod alludes to: - either to ossify the de facto ISOCANN enhanced co-operation (UN support could help but would probably lead to politico/technical confusions), - either be de facto replaced by the long planned DNSSEC oriented USG emanation - or to be identified with a "nimble Rod" able to contribute with swift responses in negotiationsor power conflicts on behalf of the current stakeholders' IN class and USG's DNSSEC strategy. IN Class commercial and DNSSEC political interests will resist rogue users wandering around for a certain time. IDNA, not. Nimble Rod's IDNA "make believe" action certainly is what currently protects ICANN in that area. The best for all strategy of which ICANN can follow is: - to support Rod, - make him informed so that he has a better command of the issue, - make him negotiate the best way out/compromise in the interest of the IN Class, stakeholders' Group, and USG's DNSSEC strategy - before the Internet is shacked by the malignant uses of the IDNA2008 implied Internet architectural extensions. ICANN's mistake was to unfairly favor a few IDNccTLDs over IDNgTLDs, and to not ensure that they themselves understand first as to what IDNA2008 really is. >I regret that you chose not to provide a constructive response to my query. As you saw, I did provide you and ICANN with a pair's response. The ball is now in your field. After several other board members, you will not be able to claim I did not warn you. Anyway the Draft is public as if my IESG appeal (http://www.ietf.org/iesg/appeal/morfin-2010-03-10.pdf), the IESG response (http://www.ietf.org/iesg/appeal/response-to-morfin-2010-03-10.txt) and will be my IAB appeal in a few days and the IAB response. Best. jfc ANNEX 3 - IUCG clarification requirement concerning the IETF/NewPrep project >As you know, as Internet Users, we believe IDNA2008 represents >several major achievements. One is to uncouple the Internet and >Unicode while succeeding in using ISO 10646 Unicode generated >tables. This is a double big step ahead: > >- giving the Internet its own independent charset. >- advancing towards a better transtechnology/usage >operational scripting methods unification. > >However, IDNA still has to document three major issues that affect >stringprep and definitely disqualify any further involvement of >Unicode in the network support of strings: > >- lack of support of orthotypograhy (i.e. language script syntax) >- the multitude of "stringpreps" functions (at least one >per ISO 639-6 linguistic entity) that are now to be specified on the >users' side. >- how they will be administered together (what will then >also concern "newprep") > >This is why what you call "IDNA" (just what is IDNA DNS layer >related, not what will be User layer related) also cannot qualify at >this stage. Everything is to be discussed together; the different >stringpreps are equivalents to additional languages with their own >orthotypographies. > >Now, as users, we have a different, more pragmatic approach that >goes further and does not call on this endless kind of discussion. >This is because as Internet lead users we are more interested in >forward compatibility (i.e. with our needs, innovation, and >simplification) than in backward compatibility (installed basis). > >In a technological evolution, those who were in advance knew that >their solution might not be final. Cf. RFC 1958: the fundamental >Internet architectural principle of constant change. The second main >architectural Internet principle (RFC 1958 and 3439) is the >principle of simplicity. We are not interested in several stringprep >solutions due to historical or partial technical analysis. We are >interested in a stable, unique, comprehensive manner to format >strings in the world digital ecosystem, which is currently mainly >under Internet technology that prevents phishing and sustains a >single sorting and indexing order. > >This is our architectural target. Our implementation strategy is to >help and use every effort that can help reaching that target, and >oppose (IETF and real world operations) every attempt that would >confuse or delay it. > >This is because our main interest is not so much to "influence those >who design, use, and manage the Internet for it to work better", >(without a definition of what "better" may means RFC 3935is >meaningless anyway); our main interest is for us and our partners to >best use the Internet to better suit our common and present-day >needs. This SHOULD be the same. However, experience has shown that >it MIGHT not always be the same. > >This is why the best is to clarify this issue from the onset. I was >not responded to when we started the WG/LTRU on langtags and I had >to force the consensus the way we know. I was very clearly responded >to in the case of IDNA and we were able to fully support the consensus. > >--- > >My question is therefore: > >- "a need is identified by our Internet user contributing >party. This need is for a stable, unique, comprehensive manner to >orthotypographically format prepared strings whatever the script and >language. Such a format must prevent phishing and support a single >registry indexing and sorting order of every possible >orthotypographic string, throughout the Internet protocols, related >applications, and interoperated technologies. >- Is this or is this not also an immediate or ultimate goal >for the AD, WG Chair, and WG/newprep possible participants?" > >Depending on the response given, we will participate and try to help >this wg/newprep effort, or we will pursue our own project, with the >ambition to address our needs while keeping things as interoperable >with newprep-like endeavors as is possible. > >I thank you for your time, attention, and response. > >jfc -------------- 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 Sat May 29 22:08:23 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sun, 30 May 2010 10:08:23 +0800 Subject: [governance] CSTD In-Reply-To: <4BFE9E7B.8000906@itforchange.net> References: <03346C7B01EB4149A64C79514B667458@userPC> <4BFE9E7B.8000906@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <6FA7341A-461E-475A-843C-2BD8A814E288@ciroap.org> On 28/05/2010, at 12:31 AM, parminder wrote: > The final resolution adopted by CSTD is now available and is enclosed. > > Three main things > > 1. An open consultation meeting on enhanced cooperation should be held before the ned of 2010 Thanks Parminder. Together with the UN SG's comments on enhanced cooperation in his report on the continuation of the IGF, it is pleasing to see that enhanced cooperation is not as dead as it appeared. > 2. A CSTD working group to be set up on improvements to the IGF So we now have two separate avenues for our input on improvements to the IGF: the request for comments that the MAG has foreshadowed, plus we could perhaps provide input into this CSTD working group. I will be starting separate threads on different aspects of improvements to the IGF in due course. -- Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 CI is 50 Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010. Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer rights around the world. http://www.consumersinternational.org/50 Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sun May 30 05:37:08 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 30 May 2010 15:07:08 +0530 Subject: [governance] ICANN head warns against putting Internet addresses In-Reply-To: References: <4BFE97AF.4080802@i-dns.net> Message-ID: <4C0231C4.6050802@itforchange.net> Avri Doria wrote: > On 29 May 2010, at 13:40, Everton Lucero wrote: > > >> I am certain Mr. Beckstrom would have never said that >> nonsensical phrase. >> > > > You have more confidence in him than many. > > a. > Though I am quite sure, whatever Mr Beckstrom feels in his heart, he could not have afforded to take names directly, the real point here is different. This tendency extends much beyond ICANNists, the press in the North etc to also many in the civil society. It is of caricaturing in simplistic terms what the agenda of developing countries - including the more democratic among them - is at the global IG level. It is taken to be simple ' CONTROL (in deliberate caps) the Internet in order to control FoE'. And this single perspective completely blocks out all the other genuine concerns developing countries have vis a vis the governance of the Internet at the global level, when they can see how Internet keeps on increasingly to be shaped by the corporates and governments of the North to serve their partisan interests. It is the same attitude taken to 'enhanced cooperation'. Dont even mention that term - it is the code word for developing country governments being able to stifle FoE on the Internet (as if any country who really had wanted to do it needs much anything more than such controls as are already available domestically). The same people who are often most vocal in asserting that (1) the Internet is increasingly a part of almost all parts of our social life, and of almost every social structure , and (2) the Internet is inherently global, are strangely mute when it comes to the obvious implications of these assertions - that the governance of the Internet is an extremely important issue, and that it has to be done by all people, groups and nations in a democratic manner and not left to a few corporates and the more powerful governments. And the straightforward implication of that which is - we first of need to have a democratic global forum for shaping global Internet policies. EC for me is the only available direction towards that. Nothing in politics, or anywhere else, will ever be perfect, but I cant see how can we (as in, civil society in IG arena) be giving up our responsibility to pursue this available direction based on some pre-conceived notions of 'we know what developing country governments are up to'. Parminder > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- 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 krum.jonev at dir.bg Sun May 30 05:39:41 2010 From: krum.jonev at dir.bg (krum.jonev at dir.bg) Date: Sun, 30 May 2010 11:39:41 +0200 Subject: [governance] ICANN declined Bulgarian IDN fast-track In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A06C83@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <4C007AAE.5020109@gmx.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A06C83@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Dear Mr. Kleinwächter, People in Bulgaria want to see the government reaction - they dont want them to be passive and give up without at least an attempt for appeal. As an example is cited the denial of the European Central Bank to agree that the Bulgarian Euro banknotes to be known as ЕВРО (EVRO) as it should be in Bulgarian, and not as ЕУРО (EURO). After an appeal, the ECB agreed that the text will be like the government wanted. So people think the same may happen with the fast-track application if we make the government to appeal. The result from the string evaluation uses language as "we expect", "likelihood", "default presumption of confusability to which exceptions may be made in specific cases", "might", which seems unappropriate for such important decisions. Also, the result doesnt show any examples or tests for the confusion. Since the full letter will be made public around June 10, I will ask someone from the registry applicants to publish it here by then. And finally, nobody will be stubborn if the outcome of the discussion (appeal) shows that .бг can not be used as an IDN ccTLD. Regards, Krum On Sat, 29 May 2010 10:54:44 +0200 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: > Dear List, > > I encourage the Bulgarian friends to be more innovative and just to >respect that .bg in cyrillic is confusingly similar to .br. When the >Russian started to discuss their string in cyrillic, their first >choice was .ru in cyrillic, which was confusingly similar to .py, the >ccTLD for Paraguay. There was a strong group in the Russian Internet >community arguing in favour of .ru in cyrillic as an issue of >"sovereignty and pride of the national Russian community". The >argument, .ru is owned by Russia and not by ICANN, was used in some >heated debates. However, constructive consultations between ICANN and >the Russian community led to the .rf cyrllic code (which stands for >Russian Federation) and now everybody in Russia is happy to have it. >Even President Medwedjew likes .rf. Probably the Bulgarians will find >a nice code which allows them to keep the national pride and to >accept that you should avoid to confuse users (which than often is >misused by all kinds of bad guys). > > Wolfgang > > ________________________________ > > Von: Norbert Klein im Auftrag von Norbert Klein > Gesendet: Sa 29.05.2010 04:23 > An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; krum.jonev at dir.bg > Betreff: Re: [governance] ICANN declined Bulgarian IDN fast-track > > > > krum.jonev at dir.bg wrote: >> .?? is the most meaningful representation (was selected with a full >> consensus between all interested parties) - and the local Internet >> community doesn`t want to give it up without at least an "appeal >> attempt" from the government. > If this is not considered to be the most important argument - what >is > then the relative weight of a COUNTRY as over against a special TEAM >of > ICANN, deciding for the rest of the world what is confusing and what >is not? >> >> Now we are trying to make the government communicate with ICANN and >> actually do something. That`s why I wanted to ask if we should >>appeal >> - maybe write to ICANN ombudsman, etc. However, there isn`t any >>formal >> appeal process for the decisions taken in the string evaluation >>part. >> >> Among the proposed other options are .??? (first association is >> Belgrade, not Bulgaria), .??? (first association is "bull") and >> .???????? (which is ridiculously long for a tld). > Who made these - confusing - suggestions? Surely not those who >selected > ..?? in a consensus of the interested and involved. >> >> There are more and more oppinions that any other IDN ccTLD string >>will >> "kill the idea", and even some people say that if we can not keep >>.??, >> its better for Bulgaria not to have an IDN ccTLD at all. > Don't give up. >> >> Regards, >> Krum > Norbert KIein > (living in the Bulgarian Embassy in Cambodia) > > -- > If you want to know what is going on in Cambodia, please visit > The Mirror, a regular review of the Cambodian language press in >English. > > This is the latest weekly editorial of the Mirror: > > "The Right to Know" and to Participate > Sunday, 23.5.2010 > > http://wp.me/p2Gyf-1rZ > (to read it, click on the line above.) > > And here is something new every day: > http://cambodiamirror.wordpress.com > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Sun May 30 07:48:11 2010 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sun, 30 May 2010 14:48:11 +0300 Subject: [governance] ICANN head warns against putting Internet addresses In-Reply-To: <4C0231C4.6050802@itforchange.net> References: <4BFE97AF.4080802@i-dns.net> <4C0231C4.6050802@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Parminder, On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 12:37 PM, parminder wrote: > > This tendency extends much beyond ICANNists, the press in the North etc to > also many in the civil society. It is of caricaturing in simplistic terms > what the agenda of developing countries - including the more democratic > among them - is at the global IG level. It is taken to be simple ' CONTROL > (in deliberate caps) the Internet in order to control FoE'. > > And this single perspective completely blocks out all the other genuine > concerns developing countries have vis a vis the  governance  of the > Internet at the global level, when they can see how Internet keeps on > increasingly to be shaped by the corporates and governments of the North to > serve their partisan interests. Once again, your speculation runs contrary to my experience. tomorrow for example, I am flying to Kigali for the AfNOG/AfriNIC meetings. Here is a list of the registered attendees for the Public Policy meeting: http://meeting.afrinic.net/afrinic-12/index.php/register/participants-list of 125 folk on this list, I count: 36 PS 28.8% 30 CS 25% 20 Govs 16% 19 Internet Tech Community 15% 7 Intergovernmentals 6% The remainder I couldn't categorise. If these numbers are not acceptable to you, what percentages would be acceptable to you? > > The same people who are often most vocal in asserting that  (1) the Internet > is increasingly a part of almost all parts of our social life, and of almost > every social structure , and (2) the Internet is inherently global, are > strangely mute when it comes to the obvious implications of these assertions > - that the governance of the Internet is an extremely important issue, and > that it has to be done by all people, groups and nations in a democratic > manner and not left to a few corporates and the more powerful governments. My numbers above show that it is not "left to a few corporates and the more powerful governments". When folk like the Grameen Foundation, Our Rights, and the International Foundation For African Children turn up to help determine African IP addressing policy, I think we have a fairly inclusive, democratic IG "regime" to point to. -- 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 teleanu_sorina at yahoo.com Sun May 30 08:23:54 2010 From: teleanu_sorina at yahoo.com (teleanu sorina) Date: Sun, 30 May 2010 05:23:54 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] ICANN declined Bulgarian IDN fast-track In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20100529132745.05f2ec90@jefsey.com> Message-ID: <196242.39770.qm@web53207.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Hi! I am quite new to this list, but during the last couple of days I have been following the discussions on Bulgaria's application ... The e-mail bellow is at least confusing to me... Is it about Bulgaria or about Romania? Although we are neighbours, we are not the same country... And, to my knowledge, there has been no application from Romania for a IDN ccTLD (we use the Roman script, afterall). Some clarifications would be helpfull. Thanks a lot. Sorina Teleanu(Romania) --- On Sat, 5/29/10, JFC Morfin wrote: From: JFC Morfin Subject: Re: [governance] ICANN declined Bulgarian IDN fast-track To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "gerard lang" , workon at idna2010.org Cc: newprep at ietf.org, iucg at ietf.org Date: Saturday, May 29, 2010, 2:35 PM Dear all,   This mail follows from the apparent ICANN denial of the IDNccTLD U-label that was chosen by the people and government of Romania.   Introduction   1. This mail comes after years of ICANN’s active lack of preparation of the only ICANN concern in the WSIS' Internet. ICANN’s role, as assigned by the USG, is (1) a coordination of the cooperative governance and adminance of the so-called legacy "root file" and its (2) relations with RIRs (ICP-2). The rules to apply are defined in RFC 1591 and ICP-1. Their evolution is defined in the long forgot ICP-3.   ICANN improperly considered the issues created by the IDNA, in which its positions are:   - unfit to match the IDNA2008 context, - intrinsically foreign to the so-called IDNA2010 (practical application of IDNA2008 on the user side) - and IDNA2012 (administration, operations, maintenance, and future of the IDNA2008/IDNA2010 system). - In particular, ICANN is ignorant of the constraints imposed by the virtual root open unique matrix ("vroum") evolution.   2. This is why this mail is copied to those who have, or have partly, omitted the actual responsibility to address this point in conformance with the Internet design/architectural consistency principles as defined by RFC 1958, 3439, and IDNA2008:   - the governance at list.cpsr.org mailing list (Annex 1 - debate on the list) where the Romanian question was raised. - the Chair of the ISO 3166 maintenance agency that decides on ccTLDs (RFC 1591, ISO 3166, and ICP-1) and ICANN is one of the ten members for that reason. - the IDNA2010 working list on the practical user implementations of the IDNA2008, not yet published, RFC set. - the IETF WG/NEWPREP that is under preparation (Annex 2 - Mail on the Internet Users preliminary questions before a possible Stringprep replacement cooperative work is to be carried out). - the Internet User Contributing Group.   3. This mail and its annexes will be attached to my appeal to the IAB that is under preparation prior to June 7. This appeal discusses the fundamental issues created by the lack of an IESG warning to the community in general, and to ICANN, in particular, due to the technical impossibility and risks of running a testing project such as FAST TRACK, especially if it only involves non-roman IDNccTLDs instead of temporary IDNgTLDs that are selected at least for their technical neutrality to phishing.   4. This mail must be considered in the IDNA2008/FAST TRACK/Internet Users triangular context. As emphasized yesterday in my mail to brother at arms George Sadowsky: (in ANNEX 3), in this domain, ICANN is technically impaired, its BoD is unaware of the Internet Users’ world, and its CEO is politically nimble.   TECHNICAL SITUATION SUMMARY The IDNA2008 success is based upon the fact that no "MUST" affects the users. Therefore, the Use side can be entirely flexible in the way it matches the Network side limitation in transcoding the user's presented characters in what IDNA may accept (this replaces stringprep). However, there MUST be a way for this flexibility to be organized among users. Otherwise, the way a domain name is mapped into an IDNA2008 conformant U-label in a browser may differ from the way it is mapped in another one.   An attempt to document this has shown that it was possible, which in turn permitted the IDNA2008 consensus. That attempt was consensual at the WG (some considering it as the response, others - like me - as a default guidance). This is why the Area Director did not accept it and the document was declared "dead". Here is the final wrap-up on the matter by Vint Cerf (WG Chair) and Lisa Dusseault (Application AD). "Although the last poll regarding the "mappings" document seemed to show that most respondents wanted to proceed with submission to the IESG, the AD felt that there were mapping issues not addressed to her satisfaction. We were unable to agree on a version of mapping that would satisfy all concerns among the AD and editors. Reference to TR46 seemed to be desired by the AD but as you see from Patrik Faltsrom's detailed review of that draft document, there is much to discuss and debate. In the end, the only way forward seemed to be to declare the WG "mappings" document to be "dead" and to allow a version of it to be submitted for publication as an independent submission. vint" "To answer the question about my concerns, I was particularly worried about client implementations of mappings: the WG consensus call indicated that those who had plans to implement mappings, planned to implement TR46 rather than the WG product.  "The WG had a lot of discussions a year ago about whether to leave mappings as a free-for-all and what I heard at that time was that a lot of people saw the value in consistent mappings across implementations -- so a user going from one browser to another, or from email to a browser, won't be surprised at where they end up.  Unfortunately, we didn't arrive at a conclusion that provided that consistency, with one set of mappings proposed by the Unicode Consortium and another set proposed by this WG.  I still hope for Unicode and IETF participants both to work on understanding why there are conflicting requirements and gain a realistic view of what is likely to be implemented (and over what transition period).  So, work can continue thanks to individual contributions and reviews, or even through the possibility of a future WG. Lisa" Such a work does/will continue:   - through my appeal to IESG/IAB for the needed clarifications and guidance and then the IUCG workon at iucg.org mailing list as well as under the supervision of the iucg at ietf.org mailing list. - the WG/NEWPREP preparation in order to discuss a consistent stringpreps convergence - possibly through the “locked” ICANN WG/IDNA, as Vint Cerf initially proposed it and Internet Users opposed it, since they do not feel that they are represented by ICANN.   This work still to be done is actually what FAST TRACK should mainly test. So, FAST TRACK is a political way to make believe it was carried out and to influence or to block it. The rest of FAST TRACK is to test the ICANN IDNcc/gTLD selection and deployment process.     NETWORK NEUTRALITY   The main problem that Internet technology meets is to sustain network neutrality for all, that is: no one can be technically privileged for whatever reason.   1. The Internet had a linguistic bias. The task of reducing that architectural bias was started with IDNA2003.   2. IDNA2008 represents impressive steps ahead in that direction: one of them is to have IDNA disconnected from Unicode, while using Unicode codepoints to document the Internet User character set. This means that whatever the variations on the Internet use, the Internet DNS technology will remain unaffected. Since this is the part that ICANN is involved with, it means that there is _nothing_ to be tested related to the Internet.   3. However,   3.1. IDNA (on the user side and general adminance) is not completed, 3.2. Its architecture is questioned by the IAB and the Applications AD, 3.3. Several Internet users’ sides are developing more or less actively RFC 1958/3439 and IDNA2008 conformant open alternatives, 3.4. Its punycode algorithm has not unified/simplified the Internet linguistic support.   This means, in other words, everything that FAST TRACK is supposed to test (i.e. not the technology but the use of the technology) has not been agreed upon or documented yet.   Rod Becktrom's action, therefore, tends to replace the Internet linguistic technical bias, by an Internet ICANNistic political bias, before the IETF, industry, standards, and users agree that the time has come for a new naming paradigm - where ICANN and its "naming industry" seek to continue to be a part of.   There are many new architectural features, possibilities, and opportunities opened by IDNA2008 that will put Internet neutrality into a new perspective. In that perspective, it is entirely possible to navigate an immensely extended Internet (and its service and semantic continuations) without using a single root server system - from ICANN or any other root system. This means that no one can impeach Romanians from choosing and operating the xn-- tld that they want and to safely interoperate on the Internet - even if some of their customers start getting Brazilian friends and business by error. They will just not pay ICANN for what is worth $10 a year (registering a single DN).   THE GRASSROOT SOLUTION WE (USERS) NEED AND WORK ON This means that other solutions/agreements/behaviors have to be found, documented, experimented, deployed, supported, and collectively operated, if possible after negotiation with all the stakeholders of this new game. You are welcome to join workon at idna2010.org ( http://idna2010.org/mailman/listinfo/workon_idna2010.org) in order to start discussing this issue.   The basic need that we have, and are working on, is a tool that is able to support network linguistic neutrality on the user side, which is the equivalent of  as how IDNA2008 is currently able to ensure network linguistic neutrality on the network side. This means that IDN should not mean an "internationalized domain name" any more, but rather an "Internet domain name" differentiating them from other private, community, and (foreign) technologies interoperable domain names.   To achieve this, the rule "first come, first serve" MUST continue to apply without resulting in possible visual confusion, phishing risk, and class conflicts. This means that   1.  the IDNA2008 charset must be revised in two directions:   - to support metadata (such as French majuscules) in order to not occlude any orthotypography - to be visually coded: this means that visual sorting and indexing do match. It also means that the Internet has its own charset where codepoints (Unicode) are regrouped by “visual equivalence codes” and registrations are “netically” (per netiquette) made on a first come first use basis (1) in using this Unisign/Unigraph (name it the way you want) charset (2) exclusively reserving the “two 0-Z” table to ISO3166 (3) other stringprep processes ranging from IETF technology to banks, police, IDs, etc. converge towards the same code standard. (this means that we do not speak anymore of “o”, “cyrilic o”, “omicron”, but of “half-size circle on the bottom line”.   2. the namespace governance is to be renegotiated before unilateral confusing decisions are taken by local, cultural, trade groups, or mafias...and by private Internet Users. This is to jointly explore all of this (rather than imposing a grass-root free of charge, but messy, system). Therefore, we created the workon at idna2010.org mailing list ( http://idna2010.org/mailman/listinfo/workon_idna2010.org) The internet is an open @large place without monopoly but with alliances. jfc ANNEX 1 - Debate over the ITLD Romanian request. At 20:09 28/05/2010, krum.jonev at dir.bg wrote: Hello, I am new to this list, but I would like to bring to your attention an issue that recently appeared in Bulgaria. The Ministry of Transport, IT and Communications announced that ICANN has declined the Bulgarian application in the new IDN ccTLD fast-track process, as the proposed string .бг looked too much like the existing ccTLD of Brazil (.br). However, the people in Bulgaria that are in favor of introducing an IDN ccTLD are practically mad of this decision. A few user groups sent protest letters to the Ministry, advising them to appeal the ICANN`s decision. Others just sit and doesn't know what to do. Therefore, I am looking for your opinion on those questions - do you think that the string .бг "presents an unacceptably high risk of user confusion" with .br (as said in ICANN reply); and does Bulgaria have any chance if decides to appeal, as this is the desire of the majority of the Internet community? There were even two proposals of imposing a requirement for the IDN ccTLD registry, to allow only registration of domain names that contain an unique Cyrillic letter - in this way, all similarities would be avoided. Thank you in advance for you time. Kind regards, Krum Jonev At 20:13 28/05/2010, McTim wrote: Hi, On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 9:09 PM,  wrote: > Hello, > > Therefore, I am looking for your opinion on those questions - do you think > that the string .бг "presents an unacceptably high risk of user confusion" > with .br yes  (as said in ICANN reply); and does Bulgaria have any chance if > decides to appeal, as this is the desire of the majority of the Internet > community? maybe, is there an appeals process for IDNs? -- Cheers, McTim At 20:24 28/05/2010, Hong Xue wrote: Thanks for the information. Is it a formal "announcement" of ICANN? I cannot find it on ICANN website. Or, is it only an outcome of string evaluation? In the latter case, you may wish to further communicate with ICANN. The restrictive registration policy you mentioned may somewhat erase the concerns of user confusion. But domain names are accessible globally. An IDN string non-confusing to local  community might inflict phishing in other part of the world. Well, we are right in the mud of how to evaluate "confusingly similarity" between IDN scripts and Latin scripts. Hong At 22:28 28/05/2010, Yrjö Länsipuro wrote: Hi, Would there be another meaningful Cyrillic string that would stand for Bulgaria? After all, in many cases IDN ccTLD's are not exact translitterations of the ASCII ccTLD, since in many languages/scripts such abbreviations don't make sense. Please note, too, that Russia could not have a Cyrillic translitteration of .ru, because it would have been identical with ASCII .py (Paraguay) Best Yrjö Länsipuro At 23:00 28/05/2010, krum.jonev at dir.bg wrote: Hi, .бг is the most meaningful representation (was selected with a full consensus between all interested parties) - and the local Internet community doesn`t want to give it up without at least an "appeal attempt" from the government. Now we are trying to make the government communicate with ICANN and actually do something. That`s why I wanted to ask if we should appeal - maybe write to ICANN ombudsman, etc. However, there isn`t any formal appeal process for the decisions taken in the string evaluation part. Among the proposed other options are .бгр (first association is Belgrade, not Bulgaria), .бул (first association is "bull") and .българиÑ� (which is ridiculously long for a tld). There are more and more oppinions that any other IDN ccTLD string will "kill the idea", and even some people say that if we can not keep .бг, its better for Bulgaria not to have an IDN ccTLD at all. Regards, Krum At 23:10 28/05/2010, Avri Doria wrote: On 28 May 2010, at 14:13, McTim wrote: > > > (as said in ICANN reply); and does Bulgaria have any chance if >> decides to appeal, as this is the desire of the majority of the Internet >> community? > > maybe, is there an appeals process for IDNs? was it already subjected to the extended review? I don't know if there are any appeals from IANA decisions, but if there are, it is the ICANN Board. a. At 23:30 28/05/2010, Karl Auerbach wrote: On 05/28/2010 11:09 AM, krum.jonev at dir.bg wrote: The Ministry of Transport, IT and Communications announced that ICANN has declined the Bulgarian application in the new IDN ccTLD fast-track process, as the proposed string .бг looked too much like the existing ccTLD of Brazil (.br). The standard of "presents an unacceptably high risk of user confusion" is entirely subjective.  Normally those kinds of choices need to be refined over the years by building a set of principled decisions, decisions that express their logic, rationale, and weighing of the competing interests.  However, ICANN is rather week when it comes to building compendiums of principles to guide these choices. I have my own TLD, .ewe (not in the ICANN root - see http://eweregistry.cavebear.com/ - it's a prototype, not active) - Anyway, some say that it is too close to .eu to which I sheepishly answer with this question:    Which came first, female sheep or the European Union? One could get into endless arguments about which came first, Bulgaria or Brazil.  And they would be fruitless arguments. But such arguments would reveal a meta issue: Why should Brazil get automatic priority, why is .6r considered as causing an unacceptable confusion to people using .br.  Why is the question not put the other way around, i.e. might .br be unacceptably confusing to users of .6r? If the principle that we pull from this is "first in time, first in right", then fine. But what then do we say to people who have been using or advocating certain TLDs for a long time, such as IOD's 2000 proposal to ICANN (for which IOD paid ICANN a $50,000 application fee) for .web, and what about the .biz that was in existence and operating before there even was an ICANN? And how does the standard of "user confusion" fare when faced with the increasing technical and cultural reality in which domain names are fading as visible identifiers as opposed to address books, shortnames (e.g. .ly, tinyurl, etc), facebook logins, twitter ids, etc etc? Perhaps that standard is more the creation of the overheated mind of some trademark lawyers who, like the old monarchs of Spain and Portugal, are out to plant their flag of ownership on everything than it is the result of a reasoned, but perhaps transient, choice among actual users on the rapidly evolving internet? The argument of "unacceptable user" confusion could have been levied against the internet back in the 1970s when there were a multiplicity of different email systems. And US telephone users are routinely confused by country codes on telephone numbers. The point is that confusion of some degree will always exist, we ought not to hold back progress because some people can't handle the "future shock".                   --karl-- At 23:34 28/05/2010, Milton L Mueller wrote: Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64> -----Original Message----- > > Therefore, I am looking for your opinion on those questions - do you > think that the string .бг "presents an unacceptably high risk of user > confusion" with .br No. I don't have any trouble distinguishing between a 6 and a b. > and does Bulgaria have [žHÚ[˜ÙHif decides to appeal, as this is the desire of the majority > of the Internet community? ICANN has no formal accountability mechanisms. This is a problem for all of us, not just you. However, if by appeal, you mean, "Can I get my government and a bunch of other powerful people to make enough noise to scare ICANN into changing its decision, it is possible. But that is about the only option you have. > There were even two proposals of imposing a > requirement for the IDN ccTLD registry, to allow only registration of > domain names that contain an unique Cyrillic letter - in this way, all > similarities would be avoided. Some At 00:35 29/05/2010, Lee W McKnight wrote: Re appeal process or lack thereof:  if there are no rules, then however you play the game must be fair. And while partial to .br for many reasons, I can't imagine why people or machines would confuse b with cyryllic script regularly.  In fact it would seem o be a rather low probability action for either people or machines to get the 2 confused. So my 2 cents: go for it. Lee At 01:28 29/05/2010, Desiree Miloshevic wrote: On 28 May 2010, at 21:28, Yrjö Länsipuro wrote: Hi, Would there be another meaningful Cyrillic string that would stand for Bulgaria? After all, in many cases IDN ccTLD's are not exact translitterations of the ASCII ccTLD, since in many languages/scripts such abbreviations don't make sense.  is .бг is less similar to .br then .бр would be? User's confusion with IDN strings in general, not just with Cyrillic and ASCII, is one of expected "by-products", as well as one of many trade-offs we have to live with. Desiree At 02:45 29/05/2010, Avri Doria wrote: On 28 May 2010, at 18:35, Lee W McKnight wrote: > > And while partial to .br for many reasons, I can't imagine why people or machines would confuse b with cyryllic script regularly. > > In fact it would seem o be a rather low probability action for either people or machines to get the 2 confused. > not that gtld review criteria have any relevance to idn cctld evaluation that i know of. but: and if they were to follow the criteria, untested as they are, for new gTLDs, then it is not the possibility of confusion that counts but the likelihood of confusion.  and one could ask how many Bulgarians or others  were likely to be confused. > 2.1.1.1.1 Review Procedures > The String Similarity Panel’s task is to identify visual string > similarities that would create a probability of user > confusion. ... > Standard for String Confusion ­ String confusion exists where > a string so nearly resembles another visually that it is likely to > deceive or cause confusion. For the likelihood of confusion > to exist, it must be probable, not merely possible that > confusion will arise in the mind of the average, reasonable > Internet user. Mere association, in the sense that the string > brings another string to mind, is insufficient to find a > likelihood of confusion. so the question is, does it meet these conditions?  if so, i would suggest standing down. on the other hand if people who know what they are talking about can attest that there is no probability of confusion, you might have  leg to stand on. but again, new gTLD draft criteria don't really hold a lot of water, just a place to start a discussion. a. At 04:10 29/05/2010, Norbert Klein wrote: Yrjö Länsipuro wrote: > > Would there be another meaningful Cyrillic string that would stand for > Bulgaria? Why look for another string? It is first of all those who stand for Bulgaria who decide what shortcode to use in the code that stands for their country, in their script. (Unless there would be an exact double rendering like .ru  ->  .py.) > After all, in many cases IDN ccTLD's are not exact translitterations > of the ASCII ccTLD, since in many languages/scripts such abbreviations > don't make sense. > > Please note, too, that Russia could not have a Cyrillic > translitteration of .ru, because it would have been identical with > ASCII .py (Paraguay) This reference is not appropriate, though an often used irrelevant example: ".ru" was probably made from the English word "Russia" (as a two-letter ISO country code - like .hu stands for Hungary and not for Magyarország in Hungarian) Russia would not have used ".py" (then an English abbreviation in Cyrillic script - "Russia" with an "u" is anyway different from РоÑ�Ñ�иÑ� with an "o"). What was chosen in Russia is a Cyrillic rendering of the "Russian Federation" - рф (РуÑ�Ñ�кий федерации). To say that .бг is similar to .br would only be understandable if the many ICANN reservations and exclusions for "confusingly similar" would also include the "visually impaired" (I am - but I still see the difference)... Norbert Klein (living in the Bulgarian Embassy in Cambodia) At 10:54 29/05/2010, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: Dear List,   I encourage the Bulgarian friends to be more innovative and just to respect that .bg in cyrillic is confusingly similar to .br. When the Russian started to discuss their string in cyrillic, their first choice was .ru in cyrillic, which was confusingly similar to .py, the ccTLD for Paraguay. There was a strong group in the Russian Internet community arguing in favour of .ru in cyrillic as an issue of "sovereignty and pride of the national Russian community". The argument, .ru is owned by Russia and not by ICANN, was used in some heated debates. However, constructive consultations between ICANN and the Russian community led to the .rf cyrllic code (which stands for Russian Federation) and now everybody in Russia is happy to have it. Even President Medwedjew likes .rf. Probably the Bulgarians will find a nice code which allows them to keep the national pride and to accept that you should avoid to confuse users (which than often is misused by all kinds of bad guys).   Wolfgang ANNEX 2 - Response of JFC MORFIN to George Sadwosky on Rob Beckstrom affirmation that ICANN is a nimble organization. At 11:33 AM +0200 5/28/10, JFC Morfin wrote: At 16:37 27/05/2010, George Sadowsky wrote: Bertrand, Given Adam's comments below, perhaps you would be willing to suggest some concrete areas in which ICANN could be more nimble (or choose your own adjectives) while ensuring responsiveness to community inputs. George, I am sorry, but no one could be more nimble than our current ICANN CEO! Nobody else, including IESG, IAB, WG/IDNABIS and its Chair (Vint Cerf), Application AD, etc. was aware that/how IDNA2008 can be tested by users. The real ICANN break-through is that  from Rod Beckstrom on, no technology is necessary anymore for the ICANNet to expand and offer new technical services. jfc At 13:51 28/05/2010, George Sadowsky wrote: JFC, This is an unhelpful comment.  First, I can't understand what you are saying.  Second, I sense a high level of sarcasm that occludes the meaning.  Third, it is devoid of constructive suggestions. There is an old Quaker saying that I recommend to you.  "Don't speak unless you can improve upon the quality of silence." Dear George, I chair the Projet.FRA for a French speaking space, a language that - as you certainly know - IDNA occludes the semantics. This may explain that I also found some typos in your "don't speak when eating your oatmeal cereals unless ICANN improves their QoS" commercial. I did enjoyed the pun: Quicker! ICANN the Quaker (netquake nimble survivor?)! OK, after som fun, let's turn serious now. I am not here to help, but rather to negotiate. Now, I must say without sarcasm, but with sadness, that this is a very helpful comment of yours. It explicitly documents that ICANN board members have not yet realized that "their" ICANN does not belong to the same world as the Internet Users' world and that they are not even trying anymore to understand what Users are saying when they contribute. In addition, they jump to negative conclusions and engage in unproductive reactions (something of which you did not get us used to). In the Internet Users' world, technology comes first because it says whether things are possible or not in a network made of bandwidth, protocols, and machines. In ICANN's world, political beliefs come first and says whether the intellectual network of contracts, media releases, reports etc. is credible enough to support the stakeholders' agenda. ICANN is obviously not nimble. However, Rod is. What he says is technically absurd. However, it is politically credible. Up to now, politics and engineers went roughly along together because they made a couple that roughly shared a common knowledge of what the other one thinks the network is (cf. Karl's post). I am afraid that this has definitely changed on January 7, 2010. On that day, the IESG approved IDNA2008, (1) under the pressure of Rod's press announcements - cf. WG/IDNABIS Chair (Vint Cerf)'s mails on this, and (2) after having considered what the Internet Users' resulting technical, adminance, and governance moves will be ( http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-iucg-afra-reports-00.txt). In addition to technology and politics, use (and adminance, i.e. what decides on the possible use) is now a real component of Internet life. Therefore, - on the one hand, ICANN is pretending to test something that is by far not released yet and refuses to discuss the way that it could be worked out, even under its proposed "technical leadership" (?), - on the another hand, the entire IETF process (IAB ongoing work, AD oppositions, regular IETF appeal procedure) definitely refuses to consider the ICANN moves as having any technical importance. - and the rest of the body (users' use) has now been set technically free to go where it wants. In this situation, - ICANN staff and contributors have fully shown their inability to make the ICANN situation internally understood and to cooperate to reach a solution. - IETF has to decide if usage architecture belongs to its scope or not: I do not expect to have a fully documented and digested IAB answer before the end of the year. - Internet Users comprise three main general categories: (1) active users (this kind of governance lists) (2) end users (we never hear from them but they vote with their dollar bills), and (3) lead users who face and have to admin any new problems first. Lead users now have an architectural place in the Internet and a technological/governance empowerment capacity. This is not a couple anymore but rather a trio. - The stakeholders at this stage are mostly Unicode/ISOC/Google led ICANN actually faces the choice that Rod alludes to: - either to ossify the de facto ISOCANN enhanced co-operation (UN support could help but would probably lead to politico/technical confusions), - either be de facto replaced by the long planned DNSSEC oriented USG emanation - or to be identified with a "nimble Rod" able to contribute with swift responses in negotiationsor power conflicts on behalf of the current stakeholders' IN class and USG's DNSSEC strategy. IN Class commercial and DNSSEC political interests will resist rogue users wandering around for a certain time. IDNA, not. Nimble Rod's IDNA "make believe" action certainly is what currently protects ICANN in that area. The best for all strategy of which ICANN can follow is: - to support Rod, - make him informed so that he has a better command of the issue, - make him negotiate the best way out/compromise in the interest of the IN Class, stakeholders' Group, and USG's DNSSEC strategy - before the Internet is shacked by the malignant uses of the IDNA2008 implied Internet architectural extensions. ICANN's mistake was to unfairly favor a few IDNccTLDs over IDNgTLDs, and to not ensure that they themselves understand first as to what IDNA2008 really is. I regret that you chose not to provide a constructive response to my query. As you saw, I did provide you and ICANN with a pair's response. The ball is now in your field. After several other board members, you will not be able to claim  I did not warn you. Anyway the Draft is public as if my IESG appeal ( http://www.ietf.org/iesg/appeal/morfin-2010-03-10.pdf), the IESG response ( http://www.ietf.org/iesg/appeal/response-to-morfin-2010-03-10.txt) and will be my IAB appeal in a few days and the IAB response. Best. jfc ANNEX 3 - IUCG clarification requirement concerning the IETF/NewPrep project As you know, as Internet Users, we believe IDNA2008 represents several major achievements. One is to uncouple the Internet and Unicode while succeeding in using ISO 10646 Unicode generated tables. This is a double big step ahead: -          giving the Internet its own independent charset. -          advancing towards a better transtechnology/usage operational scripting methods unification. However, IDNA still has to document three major issues that affect stringprep and definitely disqualify any further involvement of Unicode in the network support of strings: -          lack of support of orthotypograhy (i.e. language script syntax) -          the multitude of "stringpreps" functions (at least one per ISO 639-6 linguistic entity) that are now to be specified on the users' side. -          how they will be administered together (what will then also concern "newprep") This is why what you call "IDNA" (just what is IDNA DNS layer related, not what will be User layer related) also cannot qualify at this stage. Everything is to be discussed together; the different stringpreps are equivalents to additional languages with their own orthotypographies. Now, as users, we have a different, more pragmatic approach that goes further and does not call on this endless kind of discussion. This is because as Internet lead users we are more interested in forward compatibility (i.e. with our needs, innovation, and simplification) than in backward compatibility (installed basis). In a technological evolution, those who were in advance knew that their solution might not be final. Cf. RFC 1958: the fundamental Internet architectural principle of constant change. The second main architectural Internet principle (RFC 1958 and 3439) is the principle of simplicity. We are not interested in several stringprep solutions due to historical or partial technical analysis. We are interested in a stable, unique, comprehensive manner to format strings in the world digital ecosystem, which is currently mainly under Internet technology that prevents phishing and sustains a single sorting and indexing order. This is our architectural target. Our implementation strategy is to help and use every effort that can help reaching that target, and oppose (IETF and real world operations) every attempt that would confuse or delay it. This is because our main interest is not so much to "influence those who design, use, and manage the Internet for it to work better", (without a definition of what "better" may means RFC 3935is meaningless anyway); our main interest is for us and our partners to best use the Internet to better suit our common and present-day needs. This SHOULD be the same. However, experience has shown that it MIGHT not always be the same. This is why the best is to clarify this issue from the onset. I was not responded to when we started the WG/LTRU on langtags and I had to force the consensus the way we know. I was very clearly responded to in the case of IDNA and we were able to fully support the consensus. --- My question is therefore: -          "a need is identified by our Internet user contributing party. This need is for a stable, unique, comprehensive manner to orthotypographically format prepared strings whatever the script and language. Such a format must prevent phishing and support a single registry indexing and sorting order of every possible orthotypographic string, throughout the Internet protocols, related applications, and interoperated technologies. -          Is this or is this not also an immediate or ultimate goal for the AD, WG Chair, and WG/newprep possible participants?" Depending on the response given, we will participate and try to help this wg/newprep effort, or we will pursue our own project, with the ambition to address our needs while keeping things as interoperable with newprep-like endeavors as is possible. I thank you for your time, attention, and response. jfc -----Inline Attachment Follows----- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From isolatedn at gmail.com Sun May 30 08:35:01 2010 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M) Date: Sun, 30 May 2010 18:05:01 +0530 Subject: [governance] ICANN head warns against putting Internet addresses In-Reply-To: References: <4BFE97AF.4080802@i-dns.net> Message-ID: On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 3:28 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > I'm not sure whether Rod Beckstrom said ICANN was nimble or not - didn't he > just say that it would be less nimble under UN control? (that is a > reasonable assumption..) > > I do not think ICANN could be described as nimble by anyone in its current > state, but it is a good aspiration. To me, its an incredibly bloated > organisation currently. Dear Ian What can we possible expect ICANN to be, as an unusual organization with a an unusual design of public participation? Would we allow ICANN to be nimble? At the atLarge Advisory Committee (don't discuss at-large on this thread, it is quoted as an example situation) there was a proposal to delegate responsibilities of routine decisions to an executive committee of five out fifteen members. There was an uproar. Everything MUST be discussed by the whole committe of fifteen before any decision is taken. So it takes time to deliberate within alac, with atLarge at large on every issue that is brought up. One person or a closely knit committee can't take snap decisions and plunge into action. Same is true of the GNSO, or the NCSG. Would any of these constituencies be willing to authorize a small group or an individual to make decisions and act upon such decisions on behalf of the whole group? Would the icann community authorize its CEO to take snap decisions? If a working group that I am part of didn't consider my comments and still made the sanest and wisest decision I would still not keep quiet and would like the decision of the working group reviewed to reconsider my points of view. This happens all around, in every working group of every constituency on every decision. This in a sense is in the spirit of public participation. The pay off is that decisions and actions aren't as swift as happens in a private organizations with a somewhat arbitrary decision making process. We can't possibly complain that ICANN isn't nimble enough. What Beckstrom probably meant is that under UN the process would become lethargic, which can't possibly be a word that you can use to describe the present state of ICANN processes. Sivasubramanian M. > Much of that is because of the lack of appropriate > internet governance structures and ICANN becoming the default home for lots > of things it shouldn't be involved in. > > Ian > > > > From: "S. Subbiah" > > Reply-To: , "S. Subbiah" > > Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 09:02:55 -0700 > > To: , Bertrand de LA CHAPELLE > > > > Cc: Ginger Paque > > Subject: Re: [governance] ICANN head warns against putting Internet > addresses > > > > Bertrand, > > > > I leave the debate of whether ICANN is nimble or not (relative to others > > are not) to the collective judgement of all observers - the record I > > think clearly speaks for itself. > > > > However, ss someone who headed the Singapore team that first went to an > > ICANN Chairman at ICANN's first meeting in March 1999 and offered the > > availability of IDN (having been largely concieved and invented at the > > National University of Singapore in 1997/8) and championed its cause > > since and as such probably know the history of IDN more than anyone else > > alive today, I find it offensive that Rod elects to give the example of > > IDN introduction as a centerpeice of ICANN's "nimbleness". > > > > In particular he uses the example of ".misr" (the name of egypt in > > arabic) - since the interview happens to be in Egypt. My company happens > > to have a copy of a contract signed in 2000 (predating ICANN's first > > interest in IDN in late 2000) by the same EGNIC for launching the same > > .misr (all technology was supplied and and in the end they did not > > launch it back then for various reasons inclduing ICANN's sudden > > interest in IDN). Oddly it was counter-signed by the then EGNIC chief, > > who is now the Minister of Information Technology of Egypt who recently > > launched virtually the same thing a decade later. > > > > In truth all ICANN did was delay things 10 years. If that is the best > > crowing example of ICANN's nimbleness, I wonder what slow is. > > > > And the fact that a new CEO who happens to proclaim widely that the IDN > > launch was historic and one of the most important things, if not the > > most important one, to happen to the Internet, is completely unaware of > > such IDN history and uses a failure in nimbleness as an example of great > > nimbleness, only highlights what Wolfgang said - ICANN has repeated > > itself for so long, over and over again, with new sets of unaware people > > proclaiming the old now new again. And the irony is that our new CEO is > > at it as well - no one can escape the curse of procrastination. If a > > failure in nimbleness of an organization can be celebrated as the > > epitome of nimbleness by the mouthpiece of that organization, the > > question of whether that organization is nimble or not pretty much > > answers itself. > > > > Perhaps it is simply nimble in its own mind. > > > > Cheers > > > > Subbiah > > > > > > > > Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > > > >> ICANN, NIMBLE ???? :-)) > >> > >> Not that replacing it with a UN body would improve things. The > >> challenge is how to build a more international, more globally > >> accountable and public interest oriented ICANN, not the mere > >> alternative : either the way ICANN (dis)functions today or another, > >> even more unappealing option. The AoC paves a way forward. Will we > >> collectively be able to move in the right direction ? That is the > >> right question. > >> > >> B. > >> > >> On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 10:43 AM, Ginger Paque >> > wrote: > >> > >> > >> ICANN head warns against putting Internet addresses under UN control > >> > >> Posted by Andrew Adams: > >> > >> This (Canadian) Globe and Mail article includes details of > >> Beckstrom's recent > >> statements against UN oversight of ICANN. > >> > >> http://tinyurl.com/38m78m2 > >> > >> Summary: UN oversight would make ICANN "less nimble" according to > >> Beckstrom. > >> > >> My opinion: could ICANN really be any less nimble given how > >> glacial it is at > >> introducing innovative ideas? Perhaps more international oversight > >> could > >> pressure ICANN into prioritising the real needs of users and less > the > >> concerns of staff which may or may not coincide with user needs. > >> > >> -- > >> Professor Andrew A Adams > >> Professor at Graduate School of Business Administration, and > >> Deputy Director of the Centre for Business Information Ethics > >> Meiji University, Tokyo, Japan > >> > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >> > >> > >> For all list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >> > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> ____________________ > >> Bertrand de La Chapelle > >> Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for > >> the Information Society > >> Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of > >> Foreign and European Affairs > >> Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 > >> > >> "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de > >> Saint Exupéry > >> ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") > >> > >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >> > >> For all list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >> > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >> > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 30 08:44:45 2010 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (jefsey) Date: Sun, 30 May 2010 14:44:45 +0200 Subject: [governance] ICANN declined Bulgarian IDN fast-track In-Reply-To: <201005292029.o4TKTCBx027704@well.com> References: <201005292029.o4TKTCBx027704@well.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20100530141059.05bb4238@jefsey.com> At 22:29 29/05/2010, Louis Pouzin wrote: >What if you set up a cyrillic DNS, shared with neighbouring countries using >cyrillic. You would save extravagant fees. It would make it much >simpler for cyrillic aware people to reach you, and that's a lot of >people in central >Europe and Asia. Are you afraid of becoming isolated from the rest of the >world ? No point. You have a roman .bg ccTLD. That's what cyrillic unaware >people will use to reach you. Instead of being captive of the ICANN gang, >you could access two name spaces, or more ... >Go and visit: http://www.idru.org Louis, I am not sure I understand the technical and the administrative proposition of IDRU. - what "cross-patching"? are they daisy chaining roots through "*" entries or using an hyper-root? It seems they advocate "distributed root": is this related to Otha's initial proposition? - they seems reserved to ICANN IDNgTLD candidates? Serious TLD candidates should not be limited by ICANN logic? Thx jfc >Native languages are expanding in the internet. >ICANN is an iceberg in a warm sea. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 30 09:19:38 2010 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Sun, 30 May 2010 15:19:38 +0200 Subject: [governance] ICANN declined Bulgarian IDN fast-track Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20100530145221.05bb4610@jefsey.com> In the initial version of this mail related to the declined Bulgarian IDN, I refered to Romania by mistake at late hours in the night. The reason why is that I had a first paragraph saying that ICANN at least had corrected the imballance of FAST TRACK anti-Roman discrimination, in discriminating both Romania for using Roman characters and its Bulgarian neighbor for using Roman like figures. However this was not much relevant in an IETF copied mail. I apologize for this confusion, induced by ICANN preoccupation of removing confusion. jfc ----- Dear all, This mail follows from the apparent ICANN denial of the IDNccTLD U-label that was chosen by the people and government of Bulgaria. Introduction 1. This mail comes after years of ICANN's active lack of preparation of the only ICANN concern in the WSIS' Internet. ICANN's role, as assigned by the USG, is (1) a coordination of the cooperative governance and adminance of the so-called legacy "root file" and its (2) relations with RIRs (ICP-2). The rules to apply are defined in RFC 1591 and ICP-1. Their evolution is defined in the long forgot ICP-3. ICANN improperly considered the issues created by the IDNA, in which its positions are: - unfit to match the IDNA2008 context, - intrinsically foreign to the so-called IDNA2010 (practical application of IDNA2008 on the user side) - and IDNA2012 (administration, operations, maintenance, and future of the IDNA2008/IDNA2010 system). - In particular, ICANN is ignorant of the constraints imposed by the virtual root open unique matrix ("vroum") evolution. 2. This is why this mail is copied to those who have, or have partly, omitted the actual responsibility to address this point in conformance with the Internet design/architectural consistency principles as defined by RFC 1958, 3439, and IDNA2008: - the governance at list.cpsr.org mailing list (Annex 1 - debate on the list) where the Bulgarian question was raised. - the Chair of the ISO 3166 maintenance agency that decides on ccTLDs (RFC 1591, ISO 3166, and ICP-1) and ICANN is one of the ten members for that reason. - the IDNA2010 working list on the practical user implementations of the IDNA2008, not yet published, RFC set. - the IETF WG/NEWPREP that is under preparation (Annex 2 - Mail on the Internet Users preliminary questions before a possible Stringprep replacement cooperative work is to be carried out). - the Internet User Contributing Group. 3. This mail and its annexes will be attached to my appeal to the IAB that is under preparation prior to June 7. This appeal discusses the fundamental issues created by the lack of an IESG warning to the community in general, and to ICANN, in particular, due to the technical impossibility and risks of running a testing project such as FAST TRACK, especially if it only involves non-roman IDNccTLDs instead of temporary IDNgTLDs that are selected at least for their technical neutrality to phishing. 4. This mail must be considered in the IDNA2008/FAST TRACK/Internet Users triangular context. As emphasized yesterday in my mail to brother at arms George Sadowsky: (in ANNEX 3), in this domain, ICANN is technically impaired, its BoD is unaware of the Internet Users' world, and its CEO is politically nimble. TECHNICAL SITUATION SUMMARY The IDNA2008 success is based upon the fact that no "MUST" affects the users. Therefore, the Use side can be entirely flexible in the way it matches the Network side limitation in transcoding the user's presented characters in what IDNA may accept (this replaces stringprep). However, there MUST be a way for this flexibility to be organized among users. Otherwise, the way a domain name is mapped into an IDNA2008 conformant U-label in a browser may differ from the way it is mapped in another one. An attempt to document this has shown that it was possible, which in turn permitted the IDNA2008 consensus. That attempt was consensual at the WG (some considering it as the response, others - like me - as a default guidance). This is why the Area Director did not accept it and the document was declared "dead". Here is the final wrap-up on the matter by Vint Cerf (WG Chair) and Lisa Dusseault (Application AD). "Although the last poll regarding the "mappings" document seemed to show that most respondents wanted to proceed with submission to the IESG, the AD felt that there were mapping issues not addressed to her satisfaction. We were unable to agree on a version of mapping that would satisfy all concerns among the AD and editors. Reference to TR46 seemed to be desired by the AD but as you see from Patrik Faltsrom's detailed review of that draft document, there is much to discuss and debate. In the end, the only way forward seemed to be to declare the WG "mappings" document to be "dead" and to allow a version of it to be submitted for publication as an independent submission. vint" "To answer the question about my concerns, I was particularly worried about client implementations of mappings: the WG consensus call indicated that those who had plans to implement mappings, planned to implement TR46 rather than the WG product. "The WG had a lot of discussions a year ago about whether to leave mappings as a free-for-all and what I heard at that time was that a lot of people saw the value in consistent mappings across implementations -- so a user going from one browser to another, or from email to a browser, won't be surprised at where they end up. Unfortunately, we didn't arrive at a conclusion that provided that consistency, with one set of mappings proposed by the Unicode Consortium and another set proposed by this WG. I still hope for Unicode and IETF participants both to work on understanding why there are conflicting requirements and gain a realistic view of what is likely to be implemented (and over what transition period). So, work can continue thanks to individual contributions and reviews, or even through the possibility of a future WG. Lisa" Such a work does/will continue: - through my appeal to IESG/IAB for the needed clarifications and guidance and then the IUCG workon at iucg.org mailing list as well as under the supervision of the iucg at ietf.org mailing list. - the WG/NEWPREP preparation in order to discuss a consistent stringpreps convergence - possibly through the "locked" ICANN WG/IDNA, as Vint Cerf initially proposed it and Internet Users opposed it, since they do not feel that they are represented by ICANN. This work still to be done is actually what FAST TRACK should mainly test. So, FAST TRACK is a political way to make believe it was carried out and to influence or to block it. The rest of FAST TRACK is to test the ICANN IDNcc/gTLD selection and deployment process. NETWORK NEUTRALITY The main problem that Internet technology meets is to sustain network neutrality for all, that is: no one can be technically privileged for whatever reason. 1. The Internet had a linguistic bias. The task of reducing that architectural bias was started with IDNA2003. 2. IDNA2008 represents impressive steps ahead in that direction: one of them is to have IDNA disconnected from Unicode, while using Unicode codepoints to document the Internet User character set. This means that whatever the variations on the Internet use, the Internet DNS technology will remain unaffected. Since this is the part that ICANN is involved with, it means that there is _nothing_ to be tested related to the Internet. 3. However, 3.1. IDNA (on the user side and general adminance) is not completed, 3.2. Its architecture is questioned by the IAB and the Applications AD, 3.3. Several Internet users' sides are developing more or less actively RFC 1958/3439 and IDNA2008 conformant open alternatives, 3.4. Its punycode algorithm has not unified/simplified the Internet linguistic support. This means, in other words, everything that FAST TRACK is supposed to test (i.e. not the technology but the use of the technology) has not been agreed upon or documented yet. Rod Becktrom's action, therefore, tends to replace the Internet linguistic technical bias, by an Internet ICANNistic political bias, before the IETF, industry, standards, and users agree that the time has come for a new naming paradigm - where ICANN and its "naming industry" seek to continue to be a part of. There are many new architectural features, possibilities, and opportunities opened by IDNA2008 that will put Internet neutrality into a new perspective. In that perspective, it is entirely possible to navigate an immensely extended Internet (and its service and semantic continuations) without using a single root server system - from ICANN or any other root system. This means that no one can impeach Bulgarians from choosing and operating the xn-- tld that they want and to safely interoperate on the Internet - even if some of their customers start getting Brazilian friends and business by error. They will just not pay ICANN for what is worth $10 a year (registering a single DN). THE GRASSROOT SOLUTION WE (USERS) NEED AND WORK ON This means that other solutions/agreements/behaviors have to be found, documented, experimented, deployed, supported, and collectively operated, if possible after negotiation with all the stakeholders of this new game. You are welcome to join workon at idna2010.org (http://idna2010.org/mailman/listinfo/workon_idna2010.org) in order to start discussing this issue. The basic need that we have, and are working on, is a tool that is able to support network linguistic neutrality on the user side, which is the equivalent of as how IDNA2008 is currently able to ensure network linguistic neutrality on the network side. This means that IDN should not mean an "internationalized domain name" any more, but rather an "Internet domain name" differentiating them from other private, community, and (foreign) technologies interoperable domain names. To achieve this, the rule "first come, first serve" MUST continue to apply without resulting in possible visual confusion, phishing risk, and class conflicts. This means that 1. the IDNA2008 charset must be revised in two directions: - to support metadata (such as French majuscules) in order to not occlude any orthotypography - to be visually coded: this means that visual sorting and indexing do match. It also means that the Internet has its own charset where codepoints (Unicode) are regrouped by "visual equivalence codes" and registrations are "netically" (per netiquette) made on a first come first use basis (1) in using this Unisign/Unigraph (name it the way you want) charset (2) exclusively reserving the "two 0-Z" table to ISO3166 (3) other stringprep processes ranging from IETF technology to banks, police, IDs, etc. converge towards the same code standard. (this means that we do not speak anymore of "o", "cyrilic o", "omicron", but of "half-size circle on the bottom line". 2. the namespace governance is to be renegotiated before unilateral confusing decisions are taken by local, cultural, trade groups, or mafias...and by private Internet Users. This is to jointly explore all of this (rather than imposing a grass-root free of charge, but messy, system). Therefore, we created the workon at idna2010.org mailing list (http://idna2010.org/mailman/listinfo/workon_idna2010.org) The internet is an open @large place without monopoly but with alliances. jfc ANNEX 1 - Debate over the ITLD Bulgarian request. At 20:09 28/05/2010, krum.jonev at dir.bg wrote: >Hello, > >I am new to this list, but I would like to bring to your attention >an issue that recently appeared in Bulgaria. > >The Ministry of Transport, IT and Communications announced that >ICANN has declined the Bulgarian application in the new IDN ccTLD >fast-track process, as the proposed string .бг looked too much >like the existing ccTLD of Brazil (.br). > >However, the people in Bulgaria that are in favor of introducing an >IDN ccTLD are practically mad of this decision. A few user groups >sent protest letters to the Ministry, advising them to appeal the >ICANN`s decision. Others just sit and doesn't know what to do. > >Therefore, I am looking for your opinion on those questions - do you >think that the string .бг "presents an unacceptably high risk of >user confusion" with .br (as said in ICANN reply); and does Bulgaria >have any chance if decides to appeal, as this is the desire of the >majority of the Internet community? There were even two proposals of >imposing a requirement for the IDN ccTLD registry, to allow only >registration of domain names that contain an unique Cyrillic letter >- in this way, all similarities would be avoided. > >Thank you in advance for you time. > >Kind regards, >Krum Jonev At 20:13 28/05/2010, McTim wrote: >Hi, > >On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 9:09 PM, wrote: > > Hello, > > > > > > > Therefore, I am looking for your opinion on those questions - do you think > > that the string .бг "presents an unacceptably high risk of user > confusion" > > with .br > >yes > > (as said in ICANN reply); and does Bulgaria have any chance if > > decides to appeal, as this is the desire of the majority of the Internet > > community? > >maybe, is there an appeals process for IDNs? > >-- >Cheers, > >McTim At 20:24 28/05/2010, Hong Xue wrote: >Thanks for the information. Is it a formal "announcement" of ICANN? I >cannot find it on ICANN website. Or, is it only an outcome of string >evaluation? In the latter case, you may wish to further communicate >with ICANN. The restrictive registration policy you mentioned may >somewhat erase the concerns of user confusion. But domain names are >accessible globally. An IDN string non-confusing to local community >might inflict phishing in other part of the world. > >Well, we are right in the mud of how to evaluate "confusingly >similarity" between IDN scripts and Latin scripts. > >Hong At 22:28 28/05/2010, Yrjö Länsipuro wrote: >Hi, > >Would there be another meaningful Cyrillic string that would stand >for Bulgaria? After all, in many cases IDN ccTLD's are not exact >translitterations of the ASCII ccTLD, since in many >languages/scripts such abbreviations don't make sense. > >Please note, too, that Russia could not have a Cyrillic >translitteration of .ru, because it would have been identical with >ASCII .py (Paraguay) > >Best > >Yrjö Länsipuro At 23:00 28/05/2010, krum.jonev at dir.bg wrote: >Hi, > >.бг is the most meaningful representation (was selected with a >full consensus between all interested parties) - and the local >Internet community doesn`t want to give it up without at least an >"appeal attempt" from the government. > >Now we are trying to make the government communicate with ICANN and >actually do something. That`s why I wanted to ask if we should >appeal - maybe write to ICANN ombudsman, etc. However, there isn`t >any formal appeal process for the decisions taken in the string >evaluation part. > >Among the proposed other options are .бгр (first association is >Belgrade, not Bulgaria), .бул (first association is "bull") and >.българия (which is ridiculously long for a tld). > >There are more and more oppinions that any other IDN ccTLD string >will "kill the idea", and even some people say that if we can not >keep .бг, its better for Bulgaria not to have an IDN ccTLD at all. > >Regards, >Krum At 23:10 28/05/2010, Avri Doria wrote: >On 28 May 2010, at 14:13, McTim wrote: > > > > > > > (as said in ICANN reply); and does Bulgaria have any chance if > >> decides to appeal, as this is the desire of the majority of the Internet > >> community? > > > > maybe, is there an appeals process for IDNs? > > >was it already subjected to the extended review? > >I don't know if there are any appeals from IANA decisions, but if >there are, it is the ICANN Board. > >a. At 23:30 28/05/2010, Karl Auerbach wrote: >On 05/28/2010 11:09 AM, krum.jonev at dir.bg wrote: > >>The Ministry of Transport, IT and Communications announced that ICANN >>has declined the Bulgarian application in the new IDN ccTLD fast-track >>process, as the proposed string .бг looked too much like the existing >>ccTLD of Brazil (.br). > >The standard of "presents an unacceptably high risk of user >confusion" is entirely subjective. Normally those kinds of choices >need to be refined over the years by building a set of principled >decisions, decisions that express their logic, rationale, and >weighing of the competing interests. However, ICANN is rather week >when it comes to building compendiums of principles to guide these choices. > >I have my own TLD, .ewe (not in the ICANN root - see >http://eweregistry.cavebear.com/ - it's a prototype, not active) - >Anyway, some say that it is too close to .eu to which I sheepishly >answer with this question: > > Which came first, female sheep or the European Union? > >One could get into endless arguments about which came first, >Bulgaria or Brazil. And they would be fruitless arguments. > >But such arguments would reveal a meta issue: Why should Brazil get >automatic priority, why is .6r considered as causing an unacceptable >confusion to people using .br. Why is the question not put the >other way around, i.e. might .br be unacceptably confusing to users of .6r? > >If the principle that we pull from this is "first in time, first in >right", then fine. > >But what then do we say to people who have been using or advocating >certain TLDs for a long time, such as IOD's 2000 proposal to ICANN >(for which IOD paid ICANN a $50,000 application fee) for .web, and >what about the .biz that was in existence and operating before there >even was an ICANN? > >And how does the standard of "user confusion" fare when faced with >the increasing technical and cultural reality in which domain names >are fading as visible identifiers as opposed to address books, >shortnames (e.g. .ly, tinyurl, etc), facebook logins, twitter ids, etc etc? > >Perhaps that standard is more the creation of the overheated mind of >some trademark lawyers who, like the old monarchs of Spain and >Portugal, are out to plant their flag of ownership on everything >than it is the result of a reasoned, but perhaps transient, choice >among actual users on the rapidly evolving internet? > >The argument of "unacceptable user" confusion could have been levied >against the internet back in the 1970s when there were a >multiplicity of different email systems. > >And US telephone users are routinely confused by country codes on >telephone numbers. > >The point is that confusion of some degree will always exist, we >ought not to hold back progress because some people can't handle the >"future shock". > > --karl-- At 23:34 28/05/2010, Milton L Mueller wrote: >Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64> -----Original Message----- > > > > Therefore, I am looking for your opinion on those questions - do you > > think that the string .бг "presents an unacceptably high risk of user > > confusion" with .br > >No. I don't have any trouble distinguishing between a 6 and a b. > > > and does Bulgaria have >[žHÚ[˜ÙHif decides to appeal, as this is the desire of the majority > > of the Internet community? > >ICANN has no formal accountability mechanisms. This is a problem for >all of us, not just you. >However, if by appeal, you mean, "Can I get my government and a >bunch of other powerful people to make enough noise to scare ICANN >into changing its decision, it is possible. But that is about the >only option you have. > > > There were even two proposals of imposing a > > requirement for the IDN ccTLD registry, to allow only registration of > > domain names that contain an unique Cyrillic letter - in this way, all > > similarities would be avoided. > >Some At 00:35 29/05/2010, Lee W McKnight wrote: >Re appeal process or lack thereof: if there are no rules, then >however you play the game must be fair. > >And while partial to .br for many reasons, I can't imagine why >people or machines would confuse b with cyryllic script regularly. > > In fact it would seem o be a rather low probability action for > either people or machines to get the 2 confused. > >So my 2 cents: go for it. > >Lee At 01:28 29/05/2010, Desiree Miloshevic wrote: >On 28 May 2010, at 21:28, Yrjö Länsipuro wrote: > >>Hi, >> >>Would there be another meaningful Cyrillic string that would stand >>for Bulgaria? After all, in many cases IDN ccTLD's are not exact >>translitterations of the ASCII ccTLD, since in many >>languages/scripts such abbreviations don't make sense. > is .бг is less similar to .br then .бр would be? > >User's confusion with IDN strings in general, not just with Cyrillic >and ASCII, >is one of expected "by-products", as well as one of many trade-offs >we have to live with. > >Desiree At 02:45 29/05/2010, Avri Doria wrote: >On 28 May 2010, at 18:35, Lee W McKnight wrote: > > > > > And while partial to .br for many reasons, I can't imagine why > people or machines would confuse b with cyryllic script regularly. > > > > In fact it would seem o be a rather low probability action for > either people or machines to get the 2 confused. > > > > >not that gtld review criteria have any relevance to idn cctld >evaluation that i know of. >but: > >and if they were to follow the criteria, untested as they are, for >new gTLDs, then it is not the possibility of confusion that counts >but the likelihood of confusion. and one could ask how many >Bulgarians or others were likely to be confused. > > > > 2.1.1.1.1 Review Procedures > > The String Similarity Panel's task is to identify visual string > > similarities that would create a probability of user > > confusion. > >... > > > Standard for String Confusion ­ String confusion exists where > > a string so nearly resembles another visually that it is likely to > > deceive or cause confusion. For the likelihood of confusion > > to exist, it must be probable, not merely possible that > > confusion will arise in the mind of the average, reasonable > > Internet user. Mere association, in the sense that the string > > brings another string to mind, is insufficient to find a > > likelihood of confusion. > > >so the question is, does it meet these conditions? if so, i would >suggest standing down. > >on the other hand if people who know what they are talking about can >attest that there is no probability of confusion, you might >have leg to stand on. > >but again, new gTLD draft criteria don't really hold a lot of water, >just a place to start a discussion. > >a. At 04:10 29/05/2010, Norbert Klein wrote: >Yrjö Länsipuro wrote: > > > > Would there be another meaningful Cyrillic string that would stand for > > Bulgaria? >Why look for another string? It is first of all those who stand for >Bulgaria who decide what shortcode to use in the code that stands for >their country, in their script. (Unless there would be an exact double >rendering like .ru -> .py.) > > After all, in many cases IDN ccTLD's are not exact translitterations > > of the ASCII ccTLD, since in many languages/scripts such abbreviations > > don't make sense. > > > > Please note, too, that Russia could not have a Cyrillic > > translitteration of .ru, because it would have been identical with > > ASCII .py (Paraguay) >This reference is not appropriate, though an often used irrelevant >example: ".ru" was probably made from the English word "Russia" (as a >two-letter ISO country code - like .hu stands for Hungary and not for >Magyarország in Hungarian) Russia would not have used ".py" (then an >English abbreviation in Cyrillic script - "Russia" with an "u" is anyway >different from Россия with an "o"). What was chosen in Russia is a >Cyrillic rendering of the "Russian Federation" - рф (Ð >усский федерации). > >To say that .бг is similar to .br would only be understandable if the >many ICANN reservations and exclusions for "confusingly similar" would >also include the "visually impaired" (I am - but I still see the >difference)... > > >Norbert Klein >(living in the Bulgarian Embassy in Cambodia) >At 10:54 29/05/2010, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: >Dear List, > >I encourage the Bulgarian friends to be more innovative and just to >respect that .bg in cyrillic is confusingly similar to .br. When the >Russian started to discuss their string in cyrillic, their first >choice was .ru in cyrillic, which was confusingly similar to .py, >the ccTLD for Paraguay. There was a strong group in the Russian >Internet community arguing in favour of .ru in cyrillic as an issue >of "sovereignty and pride of the national Russian community". The >argument, .ru is owned by Russia and not by ICANN, was used in some >heated debates. However, constructive consultations between ICANN >and the Russian community led to the .rf cyrllic code (which stands >for Russian Federation) and now everybody in Russia is happy to have >it. Even President Medwedjew likes .rf. Probably the Bulgarians will >find a nice code which allows them to keep the national pride and to >accept that you should avoid to confuse users (which than often is >misused by all kinds of bad guys). > >Wolfgang ANNEX 2 - Response of JFC MORFIN to George Sadwosky on Rob Beckstrom affirmation that ICANN is a nimble organization. >At 11:33 AM +0200 5/28/10, JFC Morfin wrote: >>At 16:37 27/05/2010, George Sadowsky wrote: >>>Bertrand, >>> >>>Given Adam's comments below, perhaps you would be willing to >>>suggest some concrete areas in which ICANN could be more nimble >>>(or choose your own adjectives) while ensuring responsiveness to >>>community inputs. >> >>George, >> >>I am sorry, but no one could be more nimble than our current ICANN CEO! >> >>Nobody else, including IESG, IAB, WG/IDNABIS and its Chair (Vint >>Cerf), Application AD, etc. was aware that/how IDNA2008 can be >>tested by users. The real ICANN break-through is that from Rod >>Beckstrom on, no technology is necessary anymore for the ICANNet to >>expand and offer new technical services. >> >>jfc At 13:51 28/05/2010, George Sadowsky wrote: >JFC, >This is an unhelpful comment. First, I can't understand what you >are saying. Second, I sense a high level of sarcasm that occludes >the meaning. Third, it is devoid of constructive suggestions. There >is an old Quaker saying that I recommend to you. "Don't speak >unless you can improve upon the quality of silence." Dear George, I chair the Projet.FRA for a French speaking space, a language that - as you certainly know - IDNA occludes the semantics. This may explain that I also found some typos in your "don't speak when eating your oatmeal cereals unless ICANN improves their QoS" commercial. I did enjoyed the pun: Quicker! ICANN the Quaker (netquake nimble survivor?)! OK, after som fun, let's turn serious now. I am not here to help, but rather to negotiate. Now, I must say without sarcasm, but with sadness, that this is a very helpful comment of yours. It explicitly documents that ICANN board members have not yet realized that "their" ICANN does not belong to the same world as the Internet Users' world and that they are not even trying anymore to understand what Users are saying when they contribute. In addition, they jump to negative conclusions and engage in unproductive reactions (something of which you did not get us used to). In the Internet Users' world, technology comes first because it says whether things are possible or not in a network made of bandwidth, protocols, and machines. In ICANN's world, political beliefs come first and says whether the intellectual network of contracts, media releases, reports etc. is credible enough to support the stakeholders' agenda. ICANN is obviously not nimble. However, Rod is. What he says is technically absurd. However, it is politically credible. Up to now, politics and engineers went roughly along together because they made a couple that roughly shared a common knowledge of what the other one thinks the network is (cf. Karl's post). I am afraid that this has definitely changed on January 7, 2010. On that day, the IESG approved IDNA2008, (1) under the pressure of Rod's press announcements - cf. WG/IDNABIS Chair (Vint Cerf)'s mails on this, and (2) after having considered what the Internet Users' resulting technical, adminance, and governance moves will be (http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-iucg-afra-reports-00.txt). In addition to technology and politics, use (and adminance, i.e. what decides on the possible use) is now a real component of Internet life. Therefore, - on the one hand, ICANN is pretending to test something that is by far not released yet and refuses to discuss the way that it could be worked out, even under its proposed "technical leadership" (?), - on the another hand, the entire IETF process (IAB ongoing work, AD oppositions, regular IETF appeal procedure) definitely refuses to consider the ICANN moves as having any technical importance. - and the rest of the body (users' use) has now been set technically free to go where it wants. In this situation, - ICANN staff and contributors have fully shown their inability to make the ICANN situation internally understood and to cooperate to reach a solution. - IETF has to decide if usage architecture belongs to its scope or not: I do not expect to have a fully documented and digested IAB answer before the end of the year. - Internet Users comprise three main general categories: (1) active users (this kind of governance lists) (2) end users (we never hear from them but they vote with their dollar bills), and (3) lead users who face and have to admin any new problems first. Lead users now have an architectural place in the Internet and a technological/governance empowerment capacity. This is not a couple anymore but rather a trio. - The stakeholders at this stage are mostly Unicode/ISOC/Google led ICANN actually faces the choice that Rod alludes to: - either to ossify the de facto ISOCANN enhanced co-operation (UN support could help but would probably lead to politico/technical confusions), - either be de facto replaced by the long planned DNSSEC oriented USG emanation - or to be identified with a "nimble Rod" able to contribute with swift responses in negotiationsor power conflicts on behalf of the current stakeholders' IN class and USG's DNSSEC strategy. IN Class commercial and DNSSEC political interests will resist rogue users wandering around for a certain time. IDNA, not. Nimble Rod's IDNA "make believe" action certainly is what currently protects ICANN in that area. The best for all strategy of which ICANN can follow is: - to support Rod, - make him informed so that he has a better command of the issue, - make him negotiate the best way out/compromise in the interest of the IN Class, stakeholders' Group, and USG's DNSSEC strategy - before the Internet is shacked by the malignant uses of the IDNA2008 implied Internet architectural extensions. ICANN's mistake was to unfairly favor a few IDNccTLDs over IDNgTLDs, and to not ensure that they themselves understand first as to what IDNA2008 really is. >I regret that you chose not to provide a constructive response to my query. As you saw, I did provide you and ICANN with a pair's response. The ball is now in your field. After several other board members, you will not be able to claim I did not warn you. Anyway the Draft is public as if my IESG appeal (http://www.ietf.org/iesg/appeal/morfin-2010-03-10.pdf), the IESG response (http://www.ietf.org/iesg/appeal/response-to-morfin-2010-03-10.txt) and will be my IAB appeal in a few days and the IAB response. Best. jfc ANNEX 3 - IUCG clarification requirement concerning the IETF/NewPrep project >As you know, as Internet Users, we believe IDNA2008 represents >several major achievements. One is to uncouple the Internet and >Unicode while succeeding in using ISO 10646 Unicode generated >tables. This is a double big step ahead: > >- giving the Internet its own independent charset. >- advancing towards a better transtechnology/usage >operational scripting methods unification. > >However, IDNA still has to document three major issues that affect >stringprep and definitely disqualify any further involvement of >Unicode in the network support of strings: > >- lack of support of orthotypograhy (i.e. language script syntax) >- the multitude of "stringpreps" functions (at least one >per ISO 639-6 linguistic entity) that are now to be specified on the >users' side. >- how they will be administered together (what will then >also concern "newprep") > >This is why what you call "IDNA" (just what is IDNA DNS layer >related, not what will be User layer related) also cannot qualify at >this stage. Everything is to be discussed together; the different >stringpreps are equivalents to additional languages with their own >orthotypographies. > >Now, as users, we have a different, more pragmatic approach that >goes further and does not call on this endless kind of discussion. >This is because as Internet lead users we are more interested in >forward compatibility (i.e. with our needs, innovation, and >simplification) than in backward compatibility (installed basis). > >In a technological evolution, those who were in advance knew that >their solution might not be final. Cf. RFC 1958: the fundamental >Internet architectural principle of constant change. The second main >architectural Internet principle (RFC 1958 and 3439) is the >principle of simplicity. We are not interested in several stringprep >solutions due to historical or partial technical analysis. We are >interested in a stable, unique, comprehensive manner to format >strings in the world digital ecosystem, which is currently mainly >under Internet technology that prevents phishing and sustains a >single sorting and indexing order. > >This is our architectural target. Our implementation strategy is to >help and use every effort that can help reaching that target, and >oppose (IETF and real world operations) every attempt that would >confuse or delay it. > >This is because our main interest is not so much to "influence those >who design, use, and manage the Internet for it to work better", >(without a definition of what "better" may means RFC 3935is >meaningless anyway); our main interest is for us and our partners to >best use the Internet to better suit our common and present-day >needs. This SHOULD be the same. However, experience has shown that >it MIGHT not always be the same. > >This is why the best is to clarify this issue from the onset. I was >not responded to when we started the WG/LTRU on langtags and I had >to force the consensus the way we know. I was very clearly responded >to in the case of IDNA and we were able to fully support the consensus. > >--- > >My question is therefore: > >- "a need is identified by our Internet user contributing >party. This need is for a stable, unique, comprehensive manner to >orthotypographically format prepared strings whatever the script and >language. Such a format must prevent phishing and support a single >registry indexing and sorting order of every possible >orthotypographic string, throughout the Internet protocols, related >applications, and interoperated technologies. >- Is this or is this not also an immediate or ultimate goal >for the AD, WG Chair, and WG/newprep possible participants?" > >Depending on the response given, we will participate and try to help >this wg/newprep effort, or we will pursue our own project, with the >ambition to address our needs while keeping things as interoperable >with newprep-like endeavors as is possible. > >I thank you for your time, attention, and response. > >jfc -------------- 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 ajp at glocom.ac.jp Sun May 30 09:20:15 2010 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Sun, 30 May 2010 22:20:15 +0900 Subject: [governance] ICANN declined Bulgarian IDN fast-track In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: how would .бг be confusing when the second/third levels would also be Cyrillic? Will be interesting to hear all sides of this during the Brussels ICANN meeting. Adam On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 6:00 AM, wrote: > Hi, > > .бг is the most meaningful representation (was selected with a full > consensus between all interested parties) - and the local Internet community > doesn`t want to give it up without at least an "appeal attempt" from the > government. > > Now we are trying to make the government communicate with ICANN and actually > do something. That`s why I wanted to ask if we should appeal - maybe write > to ICANN ombudsman, etc. However, there isn`t any formal appeal process for > the decisions taken in the string evaluation part. > > Among the proposed other options are .бгр (first association is Belgrade, > not Bulgaria), .бул (first association is "bull") and .българия (which is > ridiculously long for a tld). > > There are more and more oppinions that any other IDN ccTLD string will "kill > the idea", and even some people say that if we can not keep .бг, its better > for Bulgaria not to have an IDN ccTLD at all. > > Regards, > Krum > > On Fri, 28 May 2010 23:28:46 +0300 >  Yrjö Länsipuro wrote: >> >> Hi, >> Would there be another meaningful Cyrillic string that would stand for >> Bulgaria? After all, in many cases IDN ccTLD's are not exact >> translitterations of the ASCII ccTLD, since in many languages/scripts such >> abbreviations don't make sense. Please note, too, that Russia could not have >> a Cyrillic translitteration of .ru, because it would have been identical >> with ASCII .py (Paraguay) >> Best Yrjö Länsipuro >> >> >>> From: krum.jonev at dir.bg >>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 20:09:24 +0200 >>> Subject: [governance] ICANN declined Bulgarian IDN fast-track request >>> >>> Hello, >>> >>> I am new to this list, but I would like to bring to your attention an >>> issue that recently appeared in Bulgaria. >>> >>> The Ministry of Transport, IT and Communications announced that ICANN has >>> declined the Bulgarian application in the new IDN ccTLD fast-track process, >>> as the proposed string .бг looked too much like the existing ccTLD of Brazil >>> (.br). >>> >>> However, the people in Bulgaria that are in favor of introducing an IDN >>> ccTLD are practically mad of this decision. A few user groups sent protest >>> letters to the Ministry, advising them to appeal the ICANN`s decision. >>> Others just sit and doesn't know what to do. >>> >>> Therefore, I am looking for your opinion on those questions - do you >>> think that the string .бг "presents an unacceptably high risk of user >>> confusion" with .br (as said in ICANN reply); and does Bulgaria have any >>> chance if decides to appeal, as this is the desire of the majority of the >>> Internet community? There were even two proposals of imposing a requirement >>> for the IDN ccTLD registry, to allow only registration of domain names that >>> contain an unique Cyrillic letter - in this way, all similarities would be >>> avoided. >>> >>> Thank you in advance for you time. >>> >>> Kind regards, >>> Krum Jonev >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 powerful SPAM protection. >> https://signup.live.com/signup.aspx?id=60969 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >    governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 bdelachapelle at gmail.com Sun May 30 09:55:34 2010 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Sun, 30 May 2010 15:55:34 +0200 Subject: [governance] CSTD draft resolution : paragraphs on enhanced cooperation and IGF improvements Message-ID: Dear all, For information, please find attached the draft resolution prepared by the CSTD on WSIS follow-up. This draft is transmitted for adoption by the ECOSOC in July, hopefully with little - if any - modifications. The draft resolution, if adopted by ECOSOC, will initiate two complementary processes on, respectively, the process towards enhanced cooperation and possible improvements to the IGF. This was the result of truly intense negotiations but is only another step in the long road towards collaboratively designing the interaction modalities among all stakeholders. The key paragraphs of the draft resolution related to Internet governance are : 21. Recognizes that the Internet Governance related outcomes of WSIS, namely the process towards 'enhanced cooperation' and the convening of the IGF, are to be pursued by the UN Secretary General through two distinct processes and further recognizes that the two processes may be complementary to one another, *Enhanced cooperation* (...) 24. Invites the UN Secretary General to convene open and inclusive consultations involving all member states and all other stakeholders to proceed with the process towards the implementation of enhanced cooperation in order to enable governments, on an equal footing to carry out their roles and responsibilities in international public policy issues pertaining to the internet, but not in the day-to-day technical and operational matters, that do not impact on international public policy issues, through a balanced participation of all stakeholders in their respective roles and responsibilities, as stated in paragraph 35 of the Tunis Agenda. These consultations will be held before the end of 2010, the outcomes of which will be submitted to the 66th UN General Assembly for consideration through ECOSOC; *Internet Governance Forum* (...) 30. Invites the chair of the CSTD to establish, in an open and inclusive manner, a working group, to seek, compile and review inputs from all UN member States and all other stakeholders on improvements to the IGF in line with its mandate as set out in the Tunis Agenda for the Information Society, and report to its next substantive session in 2011 with recommendations as appropriate. This report is to constitute an input from the Commission to the General Assembly, through ECOSOC, for consideration, should the mandate of the IGF be extended,. Best Bertrand -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the Information Society Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Resolution WSIS (FINAL) .doc Type: application/msword Size: 54272 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Sun May 30 10:05:52 2010 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (jefsey) Date: Sun, 30 May 2010 16:05:52 +0200 Subject: [governance] ICANN declined Bulgarian IDN fast-track In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20100530160147.05bb4380@jefsey.com> At 15:20 30/05/2010, Adam Peake wrote: >how would .бг be confusing when the second/third levels would also >be Cyrillic? >Will be interesting to hear all sides of this during the Brussels >ICANN meeting. Started http://iucg.org/wiki/Talk:Sharikov:_Cyrilic_IDN_Registrations based upon Sharikov I_D and the comments I sent. Best jfc >Adam > > > >On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 6:00 AM, wrote: > > Hi, > > > > .бг is the most meaningful representation (was selected with a full > > consensus between all interested parties) - and the local > Internet community > > doesn`t want to give it up without at least an "appeal attempt" from the > > government. > > > > Now we are trying to make the government communicate with ICANN > and actually > > do something. That`s why I wanted to ask if we should appeal - maybe write > > to ICANN ombudsman, etc. However, there isn`t any formal appeal process for > > the decisions taken in the string evaluation part. > > > > Among the proposed other options are .бгр (first association > is Belgrade, > > not Bulgaria), .бул (first association is "bull") and > .българия (which is > > ridiculously long for a tld). > > > > There are more and more oppinions that any other IDN ccTLD string > will "kill > > the idea", and even some people say that if we can not keep > .бг, its better > > for Bulgaria not to have an IDN ccTLD at all. > > > > Regards, > > Krum > > > > On Fri, 28 May 2010 23:28:46 +0300 > > Yrjö Länsipuro wrote: > >> > >> Hi, > >> Would there be another meaningful Cyrillic string that would stand for > >> Bulgaria? After all, in many cases IDN ccTLD's are not exact > >> translitterations of the ASCII ccTLD, since in many languages/scripts such > >> abbreviations don't make sense. Please note, too, that Russia > could not have > >> a Cyrillic translitteration of .ru, because it would have been identical > >> with ASCII .py (Paraguay) > >> Best Yrjö Länsipuro > >> > >> > >>> From: krum.jonev at dir.bg > >>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > >>> Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 20:09:24 +0200 > >>> Subject: [governance] ICANN declined Bulgarian IDN fast-track request > >>> > >>> Hello, > >>> > >>> I am new to this list, but I would like to bring to your attention an > >>> issue that recently appeared in Bulgaria. > >>> > >>> The Ministry of Transport, IT and Communications announced that ICANN has > >>> declined the Bulgarian application in the new IDN ccTLD > fast-track process, > >>> as the proposed string .бг looked too much like the existing > ccTLD of Brazil > >>> (.br). > >>> > >>> However, the people in Bulgaria that are in favor of introducing an IDN > >>> ccTLD are practically mad of this decision. A few user groups > sent protest > >>> letters to the Ministry, advising them to appeal the ICANN`s decision. > >>> Others just sit and doesn't know what to do. > >>> > >>> Therefore, I am looking for your opinion on those questions - do you > >>> think that the string .бг "presents an unacceptably high risk of user > >>> confusion" with .br (as said in ICANN reply); and does Bulgaria have any > >>> chance if decides to appeal, as this is the desire of the majority of the > >>> Internet community? There were even two proposals of imposing a > requirement > >>> for the IDN ccTLD registry, to allow only registration of > domain names that > >>> contain an unique Cyrillic letter - in this way, all > similarities would be > >>> avoided. > >>> > >>> Thank you in advance for you time. > >>> > >>> Kind regards, > >>> Krum Jonev > >>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 powerful SPAM protection. > >> https://signup.live.com/signup.aspx?id=60969 > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 Sun May 30 10:11:03 2010 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 30 May 2010 10:11:03 -0400 Subject: [governance] ICANN declined Bulgarian IDN fast-track In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi, while I am not siding with those who say it would be confusingly similar, I also do not see any reason to assume that there would only be Cyrillic at the second level. a. On 30 May 2010, at 09:20, Adam Peake wrote: > how would .бг be confusing when the second/third levels would also be Cyrillic? > > Will be interesting to hear all sides of this during the Brussels ICANN meeting. > > Adam > > > > On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 6:00 AM, wrote: >> Hi, >> >> .бг is the most meaningful representation (was selected with a full >> consensus between all interested parties) - and the local Internet community >> doesn`t want to give it up without at least an "appeal attempt" from the >> government. >> >> Now we are trying to make the government communicate with ICANN and actually >> do something. That`s why I wanted to ask if we should appeal - maybe write >> to ICANN ombudsman, etc. However, there isn`t any formal appeal process for >> the decisions taken in the string evaluation part. >> >> Among the proposed other options are .бгр (first association is Belgrade, >> not Bulgaria), .бул (first association is "bull") and .българия (which is >> ridiculously long for a tld). >> >> There are more and more oppinions that any other IDN ccTLD string will "kill >> the idea", and even some people say that if we can not keep .бг, its better >> for Bulgaria not to have an IDN ccTLD at all. >> >> Regards, >> Krum >> >> On Fri, 28 May 2010 23:28:46 +0300 >> Yrjö Länsipuro wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> Would there be another meaningful Cyrillic string that would stand for >>> Bulgaria? After all, in many cases IDN ccTLD's are not exact >>> translitterations of the ASCII ccTLD, since in many languages/scripts such >>> abbreviations don't make sense. Please note, too, that Russia could not have >>> a Cyrillic translitteration of .ru, because it would have been identical >>> with ASCII .py (Paraguay) >>> Best Yrjö Länsipuro >>> >>> >>>> From: krum.jonev at dir.bg >>>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>> Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 20:09:24 +0200 >>>> Subject: [governance] ICANN declined Bulgarian IDN fast-track request >>>> >>>> Hello, >>>> >>>> I am new to this list, but I would like to bring to your attention an >>>> issue that recently appeared in Bulgaria. >>>> >>>> The Ministry of Transport, IT and Communications announced that ICANN has >>>> declined the Bulgarian application in the new IDN ccTLD fast-track process, >>>> as the proposed string .бг looked too much like the existing ccTLD of Brazil >>>> (.br). >>>> >>>> However, the people in Bulgaria that are in favor of introducing an IDN >>>> ccTLD are practically mad of this decision. A few user groups sent protest >>>> letters to the Ministry, advising them to appeal the ICANN`s decision. >>>> Others just sit and doesn't know what to do. >>>> >>>> Therefore, I am looking for your opinion on those questions - do you >>>> think that the string .бг "presents an unacceptably high risk of user >>>> confusion" with .br (as said in ICANN reply); and does Bulgaria have any >>>> chance if decides to appeal, as this is the desire of the majority of the >>>> Internet community? There were even two proposals of imposing a requirement >>>> for the IDN ccTLD registry, to allow only registration of domain names that >>>> contain an unique Cyrillic letter - in this way, all similarities would be >>>> avoided. >>>> >>>> Thank you in advance for you time. >>>> >>>> Kind regards, >>>> Krum Jonev >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 powerful SPAM protection. >>> https://signup.live.com/signup.aspx?id=60969 >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Sun May 30 10:38:02 2010 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sun, 30 May 2010 15:38:02 +0100 Subject: [governance] ICANN declined Bulgarian IDN fast-track In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <$6tuV$kKhnAMFAvP@perry.co.uk> In message , at 10:11:03 on Sun, 30 May 2010, Avri Doria writes >while I am not siding with those who say it would be confusingly similar, >I also do not see any reason to assume that there would only be Cyrillic >at the second level. Could it be a "third" script. For example a Chinese Bank with a branch in Bulgaria? I've been meaning to find someone to ask about that. And in Egypt they have a set of standardised second level domains: .org.eg .gov.eg .com.eg and so on. Is the org/gov/com always, or optionally, in script in an Egyptian IDN? -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Sun May 30 10:59:02 2010 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 30 May 2010 10:59:02 -0400 Subject: [governance] ICANN declined Bulgarian IDN fast-track In-Reply-To: <$6tuV$kKhnAMFAvP@perry.co.uk> References: <$6tuV$kKhnAMFAvP@perry.co.uk> Message-ID: <96587A11-760F-4D95-A061-2EB1A0D105E1@acm.org> Hi, Yes, while the technical and policy rules forbid mixing scripts except in some special cases within a single label (demarcated by the dots) mixing scripts at different levels is ok as long as these are also not mixed labels (caveats for special exceptions) - though there are some who would try to limit that, i do not see how they could be successful as that cat is well out of the bag already a. On 30 May 2010, at 10:38, Roland Perry wrote: > In message , at 10:11:03 on Sun, 30 May 2010, Avri Doria writes > >> while I am not siding with those who say it would be confusingly similar, >> I also do not see any reason to assume that there would only be Cyrillic >> at the second level. > > Could it be a "third" script. For example a Chinese Bank with a branch in Bulgaria? I've been meaning to find someone to ask about that. > > And in Egypt they have a set of standardised second level domains: .org.eg .gov.eg .com.eg and so on. > > Is the org/gov/com always, or optionally, in script in an Egyptian IDN? > -- > Roland Perry > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Sun May 30 11:03:11 2010 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sun, 30 May 2010 16:03:11 +0100 Subject: [governance] ICANN declined Bulgarian IDN fast-track In-Reply-To: <96587A11-760F-4D95-A061-2EB1A0D105E1@acm.org> References: <$6tuV$kKhnAMFAvP@perry.co.uk> <96587A11-760F-4D95-A061-2EB1A0D105E1@acm.org> Message-ID: <1qEsBxlv4nAMFAO8@perry.co.uk> In message <96587A11-760F-4D95-A061-2EB1A0D105E1 at acm.org>, at 10:59:02 on Sun, 30 May 2010, Avri Doria writes >mixing scripts at different levels is ok Very interesting. Thanks. -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From d.r.newman at qub.ac.uk Sun May 30 11:10:04 2010 From: d.r.newman at qub.ac.uk (D. R. Newman) Date: Sun, 30 May 2010 16:10:04 +0100 Subject: [governance] ICANN declined Bulgarian IDN fast-track In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20100529132745.05f2ec90@jefsey.com> References: <4BFE97AF.4080802@i-dns.net> <4BFE97AF.4080802@i-dns.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701DC2B2841@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0161D659DE@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <76D6357F-A03A-4AA6-A069-45FC512D15ED@afilias.info> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701DC2B2841@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0161D659DE@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <2ABD26CC-D162-43D5-97D3-D9733891C49A@acm.org> <4C007788.5070707@gmx.net> <4C007AAE.5020109@gmx.net> <7.0.1.0.2.20100529132745.05f2ec90@jefsey.com> Message-ID: <4C027FCC.5020005@qub.ac.uk> On 29/05/10 22:35, JFC Morfin wrote: > Dear all, > > This mail follows from the apparent ICANN denial of the IDNccTLD U-label > that was chosen by the people and government of Romania. Don't you mean Bulgaria? Romania uses a latin script (it was settled by former Roman legionaries). -- Dr. David R. Newman, Queen's University Belfast, School of Management and Economics, BELFAST BT7 1NN, Northern Ireland (UK) Tel. +44 28 9097 3643 mailto:d.r.newman at qub.ac.uk http://www.qub.ac.uk/mgt/ http://www.e-consultation.org/ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From krum.jonev at dir.bg Sun May 30 11:14:46 2010 From: krum.jonev at dir.bg (krum.jonev at dir.bg) Date: Sun, 30 May 2010 17:14:46 +0200 Subject: [governance] ICANN declined Bulgarian IDN fast-track In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi, Two of the three applicant organizations to manage the IDN ccTLD have stated that only Bulgarian Cyrillic will be supported at the second level. The same two applicants also proposed that all registered domains should contain at least one unique Cyrillic character - б, г, д, ж, и, й, л, п, ф, ц, ч, ш, щ, ь, ъ, ю, я Regards, Krum On Sun, 30 May 2010 10:11:03 -0400 Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > while I am not siding with those who say it would be confusingly >similar, I also do not see any reason to assume that there would only >be Cyrillic at the second level. > > a. > > On 30 May 2010, at 09:20, Adam Peake wrote: > >> how would .бг be confusing when the second/third levels would also >>be Cyrillic? >> >> Will be interesting to hear all sides of this during the Brussels >>ICANN meeting. >> >> Adam >> >> >> >> On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 6:00 AM, wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> .бг is the most meaningful representation (was selected with a full >>> consensus between all interested parties) - and the local Internet >>>community >>> doesn`t want to give it up without at least an "appeal attempt" from >>>the >>> government. >>> >>> Now we are trying to make the government communicate with ICANN and >>>actually >>> do something. That`s why I wanted to ask if we should appeal - maybe >>>write >>> to ICANN ombudsman, etc. However, there isn`t any formal appeal >>>process for >>> the decisions taken in the string evaluation part. >>> >>> Among the proposed other options are .бгр (first association is >>>Belgrade, >>> not Bulgaria), .бул (first association is "bull") and .българия >>>(which is >>> ridiculously long for a tld). >>> >>> There are more and more oppinions that any other IDN ccTLD string >>>will "kill >>> the idea", and even some people say that if we can not keep .бг, its >>>better >>> for Bulgaria not to have an IDN ccTLD at all. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Krum >>> >>> On Fri, 28 May 2010 23:28:46 +0300 >>> Yrjö Länsipuro wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> Would there be another meaningful Cyrillic string that would stand >>>>for >>>> Bulgaria? After all, in many cases IDN ccTLD's are not exact >>>> translitterations of the ASCII ccTLD, since in many >>>>languages/scripts such >>>> abbreviations don't make sense. Please note, too, that Russia could >>>>not have >>>> a Cyrillic translitteration of .ru, because it would have been >>>>identical >>>> with ASCII .py (Paraguay) >>>> Best Yrjö Länsipuro >>>> >>>> >>>>> From: krum.jonev at dir.bg >>>>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>>> Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 20:09:24 +0200 >>>>> Subject: [governance] ICANN declined Bulgarian IDN fast-track >>>>>request >>>>> >>>>> Hello, >>>>> >>>>> I am new to this list, but I would like to bring to your attention >>>>>an >>>>> issue that recently appeared in Bulgaria. >>>>> >>>>> The Ministry of Transport, IT and Communications announced that >>>>>ICANN has >>>>> declined the Bulgarian application in the new IDN ccTLD fast-track >>>>>process, >>>>> as the proposed string .бг looked too much like the existing ccTLD >>>>>of Brazil >>>>> (.br). >>>>> >>>>> However, the people in Bulgaria that are in favor of introducing an >>>>>IDN >>>>> ccTLD are practically mad of this decision. A few user groups sent >>>>>protest >>>>> letters to the Ministry, advising them to appeal the ICANN`s >>>>>decision. >>>>> Others just sit and doesn't know what to do. >>>>> >>>>> Therefore, I am looking for your opinion on those questions - do you >>>>> think that the string .бг "presents an unacceptably high risk of >>>>>user >>>>> confusion" with .br (as said in ICANN reply); and does Bulgaria have >>>>>any >>>>> chance if decides to appeal, as this is the desire of the majority >>>>>of the >>>>> Internet community? There were even two proposals of imposing a >>>>>requirement >>>>> for the IDN ccTLD registry, to allow only registration of domain >>>>>names that >>>>> contain an unique Cyrillic letter - in this way, all similarities >>>>>would be >>>>> avoided. >>>>> >>>>> Thank you in advance for you time. >>>>> >>>>> Kind regards, >>>>> Krum Jonev >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 powerful SPAM protection. >>>> https://signup.live.com/signup.aspx?id=60969 >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Sun May 30 11:42:59 2010 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sun, 30 May 2010 16:42:59 +0100 Subject: [governance] ICANN declined Bulgarian IDN fast-track In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4mfvyfrDeoAMFA$s@perry.co.uk> In message , at 17:14:46 on Sun, 30 May 2010, krum.jonev at dir.bg writes >Two of the three applicant organizations to manage the IDN ccTLD have >stated that only Bulgarian Cyrillic will be supported at the second >level. > >The same two applicants also proposed that all registered domains >should contain at least one unique Cyrillic character And also the hostname? (see "srv." above) -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Sun May 30 12:03:41 2010 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Sun, 30 May 2010 13:03:41 -0300 Subject: [governance] ICANN declined Bulgarian IDN fast-track In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4C028C5D.9000504@cafonso.ca> Obviously! Another good point, Adam. frt rgds --c.a. Adam Peake wrote: > how would .бг be confusing when the second/third levels would also be Cyrillic? > > Will be interesting to hear all sides of this during the Brussels ICANN meeting. > > Adam > > > > On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 6:00 AM, wrote: >> Hi, >> >> .бг is the most meaningful representation (was selected with a full >> consensus between all interested parties) - and the local Internet community >> doesn`t want to give it up without at least an "appeal attempt" from the >> government. >> >> Now we are trying to make the government communicate with ICANN and actually >> do something. That`s why I wanted to ask if we should appeal - maybe write >> to ICANN ombudsman, etc. However, there isn`t any formal appeal process for >> the decisions taken in the string evaluation part. >> >> Among the proposed other options are .бгр (first association is Belgrade, >> not Bulgaria), .бул (first association is "bull") and .българия (which is >> ridiculously long for a tld). >> >> There are more and more oppinions that any other IDN ccTLD string will "kill >> the idea", and even some people say that if we can not keep .бг, its better >> for Bulgaria not to have an IDN ccTLD at all. >> >> Regards, >> Krum >> >> On Fri, 28 May 2010 23:28:46 +0300 >> Yrjö Länsipuro wrote: >>> Hi, >>> Would there be another meaningful Cyrillic string that would stand for >>> Bulgaria? After all, in many cases IDN ccTLD's are not exact >>> translitterations of the ASCII ccTLD, since in many languages/scripts such >>> abbreviations don't make sense. Please note, too, that Russia could not have >>> a Cyrillic translitteration of .ru, because it would have been identical >>> with ASCII .py (Paraguay) >>> Best Yrjö Länsipuro >>> >>> >>>> From: krum.jonev at dir.bg >>>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>> Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 20:09:24 +0200 >>>> Subject: [governance] ICANN declined Bulgarian IDN fast-track request >>>> >>>> Hello, >>>> >>>> I am new to this list, but I would like to bring to your attention an >>>> issue that recently appeared in Bulgaria. >>>> >>>> The Ministry of Transport, IT and Communications announced that ICANN has >>>> declined the Bulgarian application in the new IDN ccTLD fast-track process, >>>> as the proposed string .бг looked too much like the existing ccTLD of Brazil >>>> (.br). >>>> >>>> However, the people in Bulgaria that are in favor of introducing an IDN >>>> ccTLD are practically mad of this decision. A few user groups sent protest >>>> letters to the Ministry, advising them to appeal the ICANN`s decision. >>>> Others just sit and doesn't know what to do. >>>> >>>> Therefore, I am looking for your opinion on those questions - do you >>>> think that the string .бг "presents an unacceptably high risk of user >>>> confusion" with .br (as said in ICANN reply); and does Bulgaria have any >>>> chance if decides to appeal, as this is the desire of the majority of the >>>> Internet community? There were even two proposals of imposing a requirement >>>> for the IDN ccTLD registry, to allow only registration of domain names that >>>> contain an unique Cyrillic letter - in this way, all similarities would be >>>> avoided. >>>> >>>> Thank you in advance for you time. >>>> >>>> Kind regards, >>>> Krum Jonev >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 powerful SPAM protection. >>> https://signup.live.com/signup.aspx?id=60969 >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 -- Carlos A. Afonso CGI.br (www.cgi.br) Nupef (www.nupef.org.br) ==================================== new/nuevo/novo e-mail: ca at cafonso.ca ==================================== ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Sun May 30 12:07:30 2010 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Sun, 30 May 2010 13:07:30 -0300 Subject: [governance] ICANN declined Bulgarian IDN fast-track In-Reply-To: <96587A11-760F-4D95-A061-2EB1A0D105E1@acm.org> References: <$6tuV$kKhnAMFAvP@perry.co.uk> <96587A11-760F-4D95-A061-2EB1A0D105E1@acm.org> Message-ID: <4C028D42.4050405@cafonso.ca> And cats are real quick... :) --c.a. Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > Yes, while the technical and policy rules forbid mixing scripts except in some special cases within a single label (demarcated by the dots) mixing scripts at different levels is ok as long as these are also not mixed labels (caveats for special exceptions) - though there are some who would try to limit that, i do not see how they could be successful as that cat is well out of the bag already > > > a. > > On 30 May 2010, at 10:38, Roland Perry wrote: > >> In message , at 10:11:03 on Sun, 30 May 2010, Avri Doria writes >> >>> while I am not siding with those who say it would be confusingly similar, >>> I also do not see any reason to assume that there would only be Cyrillic >>> at the second level. >> Could it be a "third" script. For example a Chinese Bank with a branch in Bulgaria? I've been meaning to find someone to ask about that. >> >> And in Egypt they have a set of standardised second level domains: .org.eg .gov.eg .com.eg and so on. >> >> Is the org/gov/com always, or optionally, in script in an Egyptian IDN? >> -- >> Roland Perry >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- Carlos A. Afonso CGI.br (www.cgi.br) Nupef (www.nupef.org.br) ==================================== new/nuevo/novo e-mail: ca at cafonso.ca ==================================== ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Sun May 30 12:28:28 2010 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Sun, 30 May 2010 18:28:28 +0200 Subject: [governance] ICANN declined Bulgarian IDN fast-track In-Reply-To: <96587A11-760F-4D95-A061-2EB1A0D105E1@acm.org> References: <$6tuV$kKhnAMFAvP@perry.co.uk> <96587A11-760F-4D95-A061-2EB1A0D105E1@acm.org> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20100530172340.05bb44c8@jefsey.com> At 16:59 30/05/2010, Avri Doria wrote: >Hi, >Yes, while the technical and policy rules forbid mixing scripts >except in some special cases within a single label (demarcated by >the dots) mixing scripts at different levels is ok as long as these >are also not mixed labels (caveats for special exceptions) - though >there are some who would try to limit that, i do not see how they >could be successful as that cat is well out of the bag already Dear Avri, could you please quote the reference of such technical and policy rules? To my knowledge at this architectural stage there is _no_ technical rule that may legitimate _any_ policy rule. There are services operated under local applications of the IDNA2003 technology. That technology has been identified as inadequate (RFC 4690) and a new architecture (IDNA2008) has been approved by the IESG that met the consensual support of ICANN, Unicode, IUCG, etc. as being appropriate and final. This architecture is based upon the agreement that it is "usable"; however the consensual documentation a minima of this usability did not pass the AD filter for good reasons, including reasons documented by the IAB. As I documented it in my last post: this work is ahead. It takes time and to get that time and necessary indications I use, as documented a long ago, an appeal procedure to protect all of us from the too nimble ICANN. Forbiding mixing scripts [what is technically a script in IDNA2008?] is (1) technically impossible (2) politically only dependent from the current level zone manager decision. Why is that? Because the internet architecture is documented by RFC 1958, RFC 3439 and now IDNA2008 in applying to the IDN diversity Internet multiplication concepts that were not used up-to-now. This dramatically extends the Internet Users capabilities. This is in an off-the-shelves manner because this does not call for the change of a single bit, and because - in the DNS case - the change is transparent to usage. That change is the capacity for an ML-DNS (multi-layer DNS) to service applications. This is just a free capacity. However, that capacity is open to everyone, and everyone will have to use it at some stage, in order to build and enforce technical and policy rules at presentation, class, externet, TLD etc. levels. The first impact of this capacity is to remove the need of a single ICANN for users. However, it does not remove the interest of a leaner IANA, and the importance of IANA related Support Organizations. For years we try to avoid the mess this may lead to, if not coordinated. Initiative should have come from ICANN, at least to protect themselves (they started doing it with ICP-3, but stopped). Then from Govs (as IAB called for in RFC 1958). Then from industry (but they tried to use it to control the network through the IANA - RFC 4646). So, we tried do three things: - to prevent the industry's control on linguistic architecture. The control is delayed (RFC 4646 consensus). - to make sure the IDNA2008 backbone of the IDN general support will be adequate. This is achieved. - prepare but _not_ document the way for the Internet Users to use it and to experiment it before however our means are extremely limited. However, our calendar follows the IETF/IESG/IAB calendar because we needed the IESG and now the IAB positions on the issue, in order to make sure every other possibility has been checked. Then to release, test, document, organize and deploy. Rod Beckstrom's bullish political introduction of FAST TRACK conflicts with that calendar. It will necessarily lead to conflicts among and between Users and ICANN, probably initially ruled by industry (that depends on the date ML-DNS is operationnaly supported). Now, please understand that out Internet Users' priorities are not these of industry nor ICANN. We want things to work well, in a coordinated resolution order (because cheaper). Therefore we have our different set of piorities from ICANN, business, govs and industry. Also, please understand that once we get them developped, tested and used they will probably be here to stay. so we have time with us. Now, I consider that everyone has been reasonably informed in the community. I will focus on IAB and on software development. Cheers. jfc ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Sun May 30 13:50:37 2010 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 30 May 2010 13:50:37 -0400 Subject: [governance] ICANN declined Bulgarian IDN fast-track In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20100530172340.05bb44c8@jefsey.com> References: <$6tuV$kKhnAMFAvP@perry.co.uk> <96587A11-760F-4D95-A061-2EB1A0D105E1@acm.org> <7.0.1.0.2.20100530172340.05bb44c8@jefsey.com> Message-ID: <14E786AF-D5E7-41A1-8D1F-A76DDAEC1A6A@acm.org> On 30 May 2010, at 12:28, JFC Morfin wrote: > could you please quote the reference of such technical and policy rules? for this i am relying on the ICANN: http://www.icann.org/en/topics/idn/fast-track/idn-cctld-implementation-plan-16nov09-en.pdf http://www.icann.org/topics/idn/idn-guidelines-26apr07.pdf http://www.icann.org/en/topics/idn/fast-track/idna-protocol-en.htm and on the gTLD side: http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/draft-rfp-clean-04oct09-en.pdf and on the IETF side the plethora of RFCs and soon to be RFCs > > To my knowledge at this architectural stage there is _no_ technical rule that may legitimate _any_ policy rule. A longer issue. Technical does not legitimate policy. The relation is much more complicated than that. There is an interplay and a give and take between the definitions of what is possible (technical) and what is allowed (policy). This is one of my favorite academic discussions, but this is neither the place nor the time. > As I documented it in my last post: this work is ahead. It takes time and to get that time and necessary indications I use, as documented a long ago, an appeal procedure to protect all of us from the too nimble ICANN. And in this I am not brave enough to venture in the middle of your discussions with the IETF/IESG/IAB on these issues. I watch them with great fascination, but would not dare tread in the middle of them. I am challenged sufficiently dealing with the issue from a descriptive basis - what has been laid out by ICANN & IETF and dealing with exegesis within those confines. > Rod Beckstrom's bullish political introduction of FAST TRACK conflicts with that calendar. It will necessarily lead to conflicts among and between Users and ICANN, probably initially ruled by industry (that depends on the date ML-DNS is operationnaly supported). While there are lots of negative things I am willing to pin on Rod, this absolute priority for getting IDN ccTLDs out now if not 2 years ago, predated him and I expect there was little he could have done to stem that inexorable rush to the root. 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 daniel at digsys.bg Sun May 30 14:05:39 2010 From: daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev) Date: Sun, 30 May 2010 21:05:39 +0300 Subject: [governance] ICANN declined Bulgarian IDN fast-track request In-Reply-To: <201005292029.o4TKTCBx027704@well.com> References: <201005292029.o4TKTCBx027704@well.com> Message-ID: <4C02A8F3.8060903@digsys.bg> On 29.5.2010 г. 23:29, Louis Pouzin wrote: > The dispute about using .бг (.6r for ascians) as a native bulgarian ccTLD is both amusing and cheap. Amusing because similarities, ambiguities and > look-alikes are a straight consequence of mixing scripts in a single > context. Cheap because those who made that choice seem unable to admit the > result, and furthermore hold legitimate users as troublemakers. > The local Internet community in Bulgaria has made strong statement(s) on what they expect the string to represent Bulgarian in a future IDN ccTLD should be. The BG Registry has made an pool to ask anyone who has ever communicated with the Registry (that is, presumably those who are interested in Bulgaria-related domain names) what they prefer. 96% have responded they believe .БГ represents the best choice. I believe, most of those people will accept any other string, as long as it's representation of 'Bulgaria' can be demonstrated. So far, nobody has discovered such string. The situation with Russia was given as an example. However, this only looks the same case. In fact, it is not even similar. Russia was told several years ago, that it's .py choice will not happen, because these letters are identical with that of an existing ccTLD. In the case of Bulgaria, ICANN has officially asked both the ccTLD registry and the Bulgarian Government about their opinion. Both answered they consider .БГ to be the appropriate choice. ICANN has also officially accepted an letter from the Bulgarian Government of it's desire to participate in the fast-track process with .БГ. ICANN did not care to advise that there might be troubles. Everything was 'ok' until after the Seoul ICANN meeting, when it became clear that there is agreement in Bulgaria to apply for an IDN ccTLD. Only after that, rumors started to appear, that there might be possibility ICANN may refuse to assign the Bulgarian choice, because of similarity with .br. You should be smelling 'politics' by now. At least I do -- but then, I watch this movie for many, many years. :) Daniel ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From bortzmeyer at internatif.org Sun May 30 14:12:46 2010 From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer) Date: Sun, 30 May 2010 20:12:46 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: ICANN declined Bulgarian IDN fast-track request In-Reply-To: <201005292029.o4TKTCBx027704@well.com> References: <201005292029.o4TKTCBx027704@well.com> Message-ID: <20100530181246.GA24783@sources.org> On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 01:29:12PM -0700, Louis Pouzin wrote a message of 69 lines which said: > Go and visit: http://www.idru.org Which states: > That means you will be able to access the Internet in your native language. And, when I want to see the press release: > Flash Player is required to view this content. And then you complain about ICANN, while sending all your readers to the much more dangerous Adobe... Interesting. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Sun May 30 15:36:16 2010 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Sun, 30 May 2010 16:36:16 -0300 Subject: [governance] Re: ICANN declined Bulgarian IDN fast-track request In-Reply-To: <20100530181246.GA24783@sources.org> References: <201005292029.o4TKTCBx027704@well.com> <20100530181246.GA24783@sources.org> Message-ID: <4C02BE30.3030806@cafonso.ca> As Nancy Pelosi used to say about Bush Jr: "... and dangerous!" :) Same applies to Flash: proprietary, about to become obsolete, and dangerous. --c.a. Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 01:29:12PM -0700, > Louis Pouzin wrote > a message of 69 lines which said: > >> Go and visit: http://www.idru.org > > Which states: > >> That means you will be able to access the Internet in your native language. > > And, when I want to see the press release: > >> Flash Player is required to view this content. > > And then you complain about ICANN, while sending all your readers to > the much more dangerous Adobe... Interesting. > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- Carlos A. Afonso CGI.br (www.cgi.br) Nupef (www.nupef.org.br) ==================================== new/nuevo/novo e-mail: ca at cafonso.ca ==================================== ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Sun May 30 18:17:58 2010 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (jefsey) Date: Mon, 31 May 2010 00:17:58 +0200 Subject: [governance] ICANN declined Bulgarian IDN fast-track In-Reply-To: <14E786AF-D5E7-41A1-8D1F-A76DDAEC1A6A@acm.org> References: <$6tuV$kKhnAMFAvP@perry.co.uk> <96587A11-760F-4D95-A061-2EB1A0D105E1@acm.org> <7.0.1.0.2.20100530172340.05bb44c8@jefsey.com> <14E786AF-D5E7-41A1-8D1F-A76DDAEC1A6A@acm.org> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20100530230827.05bb48a0@jefsey.com> At 19:50 30/05/2010, Avri Doria wrote: >On 30 May 2010, at 12:28, JFC Morfin wrote: > > > could you please quote the reference of such technical and policy rules? > >for this i am relying on the ICANN: > >http://www.icann.org/en/topics/idn/fast-track/idn-cctld-implementation-plan-16nov09-en.pdf >http://www.icann.org/topics/idn/idn-guidelines-26apr07.pdf >http://www.icann.org/en/topics/idn/fast-track/idna-protocol-en.htm > >and on the gTLD side: >http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/draft-rfp-clean-04oct09-en.pdf These are not Internet, they are ICANN. This means there are no technical but pure political blabla, not endorsed by any open structure nor user representation. >and on the IETF side the plethora of RFCs and soon to be RFCs These are the serious stuff I was looking for. There currently are only four documents that might become RFCs (IDNA2008) and possible deliveries of WG/NEWPREP, WORKON/IDNA2010 and WG/IDNABIS if it resumes its work with a new charter. Every other will be obsoleted by those. In anycase I may be wrong, but I do not see how an Internet RFC could discriminate on the script basis, except RFC 4647 (and this has nothing to do with IDNs). This is because I do not see where the script information would come from? > > To my knowledge at this architectural stage there is > _no_ technical rule that may legitimate _any_ policy rule. > >A longer issue. Technical does not legitimate policy. The relation >is much more complicated than that. There is an interplay and a give >and take between the definitions of what is possible (technical) and >what is allowed (policy). This is one of my favorite academic >discussions, but this is neither the place nor the time. hmmm... then I would be interested to know where you discuss it, because this certainly is a key issue in the coming negociation or conflict. Please not that I did not say it would justify, but that it might legitimate. This is because, as you know it if you want to allow something you must be in a position to forbide it. Something ICANN is not in a position to do, due to the interplay and give and take game between cons and pros to disobey/disregard ICANN for ccTLD and ULD/UTLDs (Users (top) level domains). Actually time is changing. Open roots were the side-ICANN/IANA exception. Rigid ICANN TLDs are going to be the exception. This means that the ICANN DNS zones are going to deliver more to stay in business. ICANN was supposed to foster competition. They tried to fool the community in creating registrars, etc. within their supposed market monopoly based on their IANA centralised control. For years, industry has tried to gain control on IANA. They now have all the DoS tools for that in using languages. But at the same time they see that a blunt action could lead to a large grassroot trend, moving away from the IANA concept. So, it is wait and see. > > As I documented it in my last post: this work is ahead. It takes > time and to get that time and necessary indications I use, as > documented a long ago, an appeal procedure to protect all of us > from the too nimble ICANN. > >And in this I am not brave enough to venture in the middle of your >discussions with the IETF/IESG/IAB on these issues. I watch them >with great fascination, but would not dare tread in the middle of th >I am challenged sufficiently dealing with the issue from a >descriptive basis - what has been laid out by ICANN & IETF and >dealing with exegesis within those confines. This is exactly what I do. But I do not care about what ICANN may have done for two good reasons. 1) this is obsoleted by IETF decisions and we need to know more from IETF (i.e. IAB) to understand up to which point IETF will follow and where Users have to take over. 2) ICANN propositions could be of interest (experience went into it) but in closed groups, confusing closeness and exclusive. No ICANN decision can have any legitimacy on third parties. > > Rod Beckstrom's bullish political introduction of FAST TRACK > conflicts with that calendar. It will necessarily lead to conflicts > among and between Users and ICANN, probably initially ruled by > industry (that depends on the date ML-DNS is operationnaly supported). > >While there are lots of negative things I am willing to pin on Rod, >this absolute priority for getting IDN ccTLDs out now if not 2 years >ago, predated him and I expect there was little he could have done >to stem that inexorable rush to the root. Let be candid: the 1983 root is no more. It has evolved both in its real own operations and in its quite different use. ICANN was right in ICP-3. We ran and reported (French) a two years community test-bed along ICP-3 recommendations. FAST TRACK was a good idea along these lines (actually ICP-3 suggested the IETF to run the test-bed and IETF was never able/interested: ICANN runs FAST TRACK itself). However, FAST TRACK does not respect ICP-3 requisites. I am afraid that Rod has not been explained enough to fully comprehend why his IDNA annoucements are good for ICANN and bad for the network. This is my concern: because he is obviously not told when/how to use his political advantage to best influence/negociate before it becomes a lack of credibility disadvantage. ICANN does exist. Many people and interests need it to survive. Rod makes many to believe there is a common interest in ICANN survival: at some stage he will not be credible anymore due to the architectural and usage evolution those many will perceive (no idea when this can be - depends on how people/press will perceive it). Before he reach that time he must have negociated the ICANN survival outside of the DNSSEC dream (dream because DNS (better) security without DNSSEC might be the by then "no-ICANN killing app"). As far as I am concerned I cannot do more than I do to warn people than I am dangerous and to try to help against the revolution I read in the Internet architecture from its inception. During years no one cared. I have no idea when they change their mind. But since eventually IESG has approved my reading on a fundamental point, this may accelerate the understanding. Best. jfc ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t