From ias_pk at yahoo.com  Mon Nov  1 03:04:35 2010
From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah)
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2010 00:04:35 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] Our strategy, work plan and outreach
In-Reply-To: <4CCD917E.4090209@paque.net>
References: <AANLkTinnXi7Vw_X6Ggtb+w8qPe6RBdK50jMxrFCiPFqM@mail.gmail.com> <4CCD917E.4090209@paque.net>
Message-ID: <21035.1247.qm@web33004.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Dear IGC Members.
 
I highly appreciate Izumi’s suggestion and assessment of the areas where 
attention is required. 

It is good time to move for practical work for the Society to extend the action 
on the actual Mandate (of IGF Charter Para 72). 

 
We believe that IGC is global forum, representing the best participation of 
Civil Society and governmental and non-governmental stakeholders (on the whole) 
but we should admit that IGC itself is lacking practical work for the Civil 
Society or Internet Communities. 

 
IGC should work at the bottom level to facilitate the common citizen. I 
appreciate Ginger Paque, who immediately acknowledged her support to this cause. 
However, some friends mentioned constraint of the time and non-availability for 
taking further load of work. Everyone is very much tight up with his day to day 
life. But we should arrange a little bit slot for betterment of the Civil 
society.
 
I suggest that we should encourage capacity building, and rather than mentioning 
our limitations specifically, the messages should appear from those candidates 
who can participate more to strengthen the framework and action plan of the 
caucus.
 
 
Thanks and Regards
 
Imran Ahmed Shah
Founder & Executive Member
Pakistan Internet Governance Forum
Urdu Internet Society
[imran at uisoc.org]
[+92-300-4130617]

________________________________
From: Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com>
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org>
Sent: Sun, 31 October, 2010 20:55:42
Subject: Re: [governance] Our strategy, work plan and outreach

Hi everyone,
I would like to ask for concrete support for Izumi's initiative. Last year, 
these attempts did not get past a 'theoretical' stage. The IGC is now in a very 
healthy, solid condition, and I think we should take advantage of Izumi's and 
Jeremy's willingness to review and organize our strategies to make our work more 
effective.

Count me in!
Best, Ginger

On 10/31/2010 10:03 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote: 
Dear list,  After starting the role of co-coordinator, I have been thinking, and 
also discussing with Jeremy, about the "way forward" - or more specifically, 
working method, modus operandi, of our caucus.  Considering the many tasks ahead 
of us in relatively short time period, I think we need good division of labor 
and effective working team(s).  We don't want to become a workhorse ;-), rather 
we would like to "coordinate", meaning to facilitate moves and works of many 
members of the caucus. The more people involved in the actual work, the better.  
For that, we like to suggest that our group to come up with the followings.  a) 
Strategy - for coming months, in the context of IGF mandate extension 
debate/negotiations around UN  b) Work Plan - based on the strategy, we need to 
plan ahead on how to work - to push our agenda - this may include forming 
Working Groups, ad hoc teams, use some additional online tools etc.  c) Outreach 
Plan/actions One of the points we have discussed on the list was, if I may, the 
relative lack of outreach of our group, with larger Civil Society groups. 
Compared with WSIS days, we have less involvement from larger clouds of CS. How 
to address this and move forward.  We like to ask you to think about these 
points, come up with opinions, suggestions and plans, and eventually, or quickly 
move to actions based on [rough] consensus with bottom-up ways.  We also like 
some of you to become active members, taking leading roles for different items. 
Form working groups etc. To have wider division of labor of our work.  Of 
course, we are open to your suggestions and also welcome more volunteers!  best,  
izumi ____________________________________________________________ You received 
this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be 
removed from the list, send any message to:      
governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org  For all list information and functions, 
see:      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance  Translate this email: 
http://translate.google.com/translate_t  


-- 


Ginger (Virginia) Paque
IGCBP Online Coordinator
DiploFoundation
www.diplomacy.edu/ig 
The latest from Diplo...
http://igbook.diplomacy.edu is the online companion to An Introduction to 
Internet Governance, Diplo's publication on IG. Download the book, read the 
blogs and post your comments. 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101101/df11cab0/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From anriette at apc.org  Mon Nov  1 04:05:11 2010
From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen)
Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2010 10:05:11 +0200
Subject: [governance] Our strategy, work plan and outreach
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinnXi7Vw_X6Ggtb+w8qPe6RBdK50jMxrFCiPFqM@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTinnXi7Vw_X6Ggtb+w8qPe6RBdK50jMxrFCiPFqM@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4CCE74B7.4010905@apc.org>

Dear Izumi and all

Like the others who have posted, Ginger, Tracy, Christopher, Hempal and 
Imran I think this is a good idea.

I suggest we keep the use of working teams as light as possible.. being 
too ambitious could lead to disappointment.  The idea of a strategy is 
VERY good and it would be really helpful if it enables us to work on 
issues and policy forums beyond just the IGF such as for example ACTA 
and the ITU. Even if we cannot actively work in all these forums, it 
would be useful for us to understand what their implications are for 
internet governance that is inclusive of civil society participation and 
priorities.

This also relates to last week's discussion on the 2003 CS charter. It 
does feel as if the last few years have been really 'busy' but in quite 
a fragmented way. A workplan could help us to identify a few broad goals 
that we can have consensus on, and then we can check back in a year's 
time on what progress / or lack of it there has been.

I am sorry I cannot volunteer to help in a big way as I am barely coping 
with work at the moment, but I will do my best to participate and will 
certainly comment on documents.

Regards

Anriette


On 31/10/10 16:33, Izumi AIZU wrote:
> Dear list,
>
> After starting the role of co-coordinator, I have been thinking, and
> also discussing
> with Jeremy, about the "way forward" - or more specifically, working
> method, modus operandi, of our caucus.
>
> Considering the many tasks ahead of us in relatively short time period, I think
> we need good division of labor and effective working team(s).
>
> We don't want to become a workhorse ;-), rather we would like to
> "coordinate", meaning to
> facilitate moves and works of many members of the caucus. The more people
> involved in the actual work, the better.
>
> For that, we like to suggest that our group to come up with the followings.
>
> a) Strategy - for coming months, in the context of IGF mandate
> extension debate/negotiations around UN
>
> b) Work Plan - based on the strategy, we need to plan ahead on how to
> work - to push our agenda - this may include forming Working Groups,
> ad hoc teams, use some additional online tools etc.
>
> c) Outreach Plan/actions
> One of the points we have discussed on the list was, if I may, the
> relative lack of outreach of our group, with larger Civil Society
> groups. Compared with WSIS days, we have less involvement from larger
> clouds of CS. How to address this and move forward.
>
> We like to ask you to think about these points, come up with opinions,
> suggestions and plans, and eventually, or quickly move to actions based on
> [rough] consensus with bottom-up ways.
>
> We also like some of you to become active members, taking leading roles
> for different items. Form working groups etc. To have wider division
> of labor of our work.
>
> Of course, we are open to your suggestions and also welcome more volunteers!
>
> best,
>
> izumi
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>       governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>       governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 anriette at apc.org
executive director
association for progressive communications
www.apc.org

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

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

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


From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de  Mon Nov  1 05:00:21 2010
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=)
Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2010 10:00:21 +0100
Subject: AW: [governance] Our strategy, work plan and outreach
References: <AANLkTinnXi7Vw_X6Ggtb+w8qPe6RBdK50jMxrFCiPFqM@mail.gmail.com>
 <4CCE74B7.4010905@apc.org>
Message-ID:  <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07371@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

Hi
 
I fully support the elaboration of a strategy paper "Internet Governance 2015: Priorities for Civil Society" (based on previous CS documents to avoid the reinvention of the wheel). It should have - inter alia - a brief historical chapter, an overvierw about main issues and institutions of todays policy environment  where the key issues are negotiated/discussed, a chapter with a list of challenges of tomorrow and a final statement with CS IG priorities, principles and objectives for the CS IG Agenda 2015. 
In an Annex we could have a timeline until 2015 which would list the main forthcoming events and also an ornagigram which gives on imagination about the various interconnected negotiations and discussions places and spaces. 
 
Furthermore it would make sense to produce a brochure with CS IG statements and position papers from 2020 to 2010 which would show the outside world our continous engagement in the issue. Such a publication would also help the next generation of CS IG leaders to understand where they are coming from and what still has to be done and is the let over from the agendas of the first decade of the 21st century. The publication could also include facts and figures about IGC itself (Charter, proceudures, names of actual and previous chairs etc.)     
 
Experience tell us further, that CS activities are always stimulated by global or regional events.
 
Here is my very preliminary list of relevant events for CS-IG in 2011
 
2011:
February: IGF/UNCSTD Consultations in Geneva
March: ICANN Meeting in San Francisco
May: WSIS Forum and IGF/UNCSTD Consultations in Geneva
June: ICANN meeting in Asia
September: IGF in Nairobi
ICANN meeting in Africa
November: UNGA in New York
over the year: Regional IGFs in Africa, Asia, Europa and Latin America
 
And here are some processes/institutions, which should be under observation:
UN: Enhanced Cooperation and IGF Improvement
ITU: Implementation of PP 10 / Preparation of the ITU World Conference on International Telecommunication 2012
OECD: Implementaiton of ther Seoul Declaration fronm 2008 / Internet Economy / CISSAC
European Commission: Implementation of the Digital Agenda 2020, including "Internet of Things" Task Froce
Council of Europa: Proposal for a "Framework of Commitments for Cross Border Internet Governance" 
ACTA/WTO/WIPIO: Plans to finanlize the Draft of the ACTA Agreement, WIPOS Development Agenda and the Broadcasting Treaty
1st Committee UNGA: Ideas for a UN Treaty on Cybersecurity
World Economic Forum (Davos) and Worl Social Forum (Porto Allegre)
National legislation in key countries, in particular US, EU, Australia, Japan, BRIC etc. 
 
Regards
 
Wolfgang
 
________________________________

Von: Anriette Esterhuysen [mailto:anriette at apc.org]
Gesendet: Mo 01.11.2010 09:05
An: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Betreff: Re: [governance] Our strategy, work plan and outreach



Dear Izumi and all

Like the others who have posted, Ginger, Tracy, Christopher, Hempal and
Imran I think this is a good idea.

I suggest we keep the use of working teams as light as possible.. being
too ambitious could lead to disappointment.  The idea of a strategy is
VERY good and it would be really helpful if it enables us to work on
issues and policy forums beyond just the IGF such as for example ACTA
and the ITU. Even if we cannot actively work in all these forums, it
would be useful for us to understand what their implications are for
internet governance that is inclusive of civil society participation and
priorities.

This also relates to last week's discussion on the 2003 CS charter. It
does feel as if the last few years have been really 'busy' but in quite
a fragmented way. A workplan could help us to identify a few broad goals
that we can have consensus on, and then we can check back in a year's
time on what progress / or lack of it there has been.

I am sorry I cannot volunteer to help in a big way as I am barely coping
with work at the moment, but I will do my best to participate and will
certainly comment on documents.

Regards

Anriette


On 31/10/10 16:33, Izumi AIZU wrote:
> Dear list,
>
> After starting the role of co-coordinator, I have been thinking, and
> also discussing
> with Jeremy, about the "way forward" - or more specifically, working
> method, modus operandi, of our caucus.
>
> Considering the many tasks ahead of us in relatively short time period, I think
> we need good division of labor and effective working team(s).
>
> We don't want to become a workhorse ;-), rather we would like to
> "coordinate", meaning to
> facilitate moves and works of many members of the caucus. The more people
> involved in the actual work, the better.
>
> For that, we like to suggest that our group to come up with the followings.
>
> a) Strategy - for coming months, in the context of IGF mandate
> extension debate/negotiations around UN
>
> b) Work Plan - based on the strategy, we need to plan ahead on how to
> work - to push our agenda - this may include forming Working Groups,
> ad hoc teams, use some additional online tools etc.
>
> c) Outreach Plan/actions
> One of the points we have discussed on the list was, if I may, the
> relative lack of outreach of our group, with larger Civil Society
> groups. Compared with WSIS days, we have less involvement from larger
> clouds of CS. How to address this and move forward.
>
> We like to ask you to think about these points, come up with opinions,
> suggestions and plans, and eventually, or quickly move to actions based on
> [rough] consensus with bottom-up ways.
>
> We also like some of you to become active members, taking leading roles
> for different items. Form working groups etc. To have wider division
> of labor of our work.
>
> Of course, we are open to your suggestions and also welcome more volunteers!
>
> best,
>
> izumi
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>       governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>       governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 anriette at apc.org
executive director
association for progressive communications
www.apc.org

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

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

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


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

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  Mon Nov  1 05:23:16 2010
From: goldstein.roxana at gmail.com (Roxana Goldstein)
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2010 06:23:16 -0300
Subject: [governance] Our strategy, work plan and outreach
In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07371@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <AANLkTinnXi7Vw_X6Ggtb+w8qPe6RBdK50jMxrFCiPFqM@mail.gmail.com>
	<4CCE74B7.4010905@apc.org>
	<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07371@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <AANLkTin86V1bVTfm5O6991PevxTL4bCrmJiJ8jD_7n05@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all,

First, thanks Wolfgang for this starting information. I was really needing
some kind of map like this.

Now going to the point, thanks Izumi for your ideas, and I want to express
my disposition to contribute with this proposal, specially in the
enlargement of spanish-speaking (portuguese also) LAC representation within
this caucus.

If there are more LAC spanish/portuguese speaking members in this list, I
suggest as first step to create a sub-group and start thinking on how to
enlarge and improve our representation, participation and incidence in
IGC/IGF.

Thanks and best,
Roxana



2010/11/1 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" <
wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

> Hi
>
> I fully support the elaboration of a strategy paper "Internet Governance
> 2015: Priorities for Civil Society" (based on previous CS documents to avoid
> the reinvention of the wheel). It should have - inter alia - a brief
> historical chapter, an overvierw about main issues and institutions of
> todays policy environment  where the key issues are negotiated/discussed, a
> chapter with a list of challenges of tomorrow and a final statement with CS
> IG priorities, principles and objectives for the CS IG Agenda 2015.
> In an Annex we could have a timeline until 2015 which would list the main
> forthcoming events and also an ornagigram which gives on imagination about
> the various interconnected negotiations and discussions places and spaces.
>
> Furthermore it would make sense to produce a brochure with CS IG statements
> and position papers from 2020 to 2010 which would show the outside world our
> continous engagement in the issue. Such a publication would also help the
> next generation of CS IG leaders to understand where they are coming from
> and what still has to be done and is the let over from the agendas of the
> first decade of the 21st century. The publication could also include facts
> and figures about IGC itself (Charter, proceudures, names of actual and
> previous chairs etc.)
>
> Experience tell us further, that CS activities are always stimulated by
> global or regional events.
>
> Here is my very preliminary list of relevant events for CS-IG in 2011
>
> 2011:
> February: IGF/UNCSTD Consultations in Geneva
> March: ICANN Meeting in San Francisco
> May: WSIS Forum and IGF/UNCSTD Consultations in Geneva
> June: ICANN meeting in Asia
> September: IGF in Nairobi
> ICANN meeting in Africa
> November: UNGA in New York
> over the year: Regional IGFs in Africa, Asia, Europa and Latin America
>
> And here are some processes/institutions, which should be under
> observation:
> UN: Enhanced Cooperation and IGF Improvement
> ITU: Implementation of PP 10 / Preparation of the ITU World Conference on
> International Telecommunication 2012
> OECD: Implementaiton of ther Seoul Declaration fronm 2008 / Internet
> Economy / CISSAC
> European Commission: Implementation of the Digital Agenda 2020, including
> "Internet of Things" Task Froce
> Council of Europa: Proposal for a "Framework of Commitments for Cross
> Border Internet Governance"
> ACTA/WTO/WIPIO: Plans to finanlize the Draft of the ACTA Agreement, WIPOS
> Development Agenda and the Broadcasting Treaty
> 1st Committee UNGA: Ideas for a UN Treaty on Cybersecurity
> World Economic Forum (Davos) and Worl Social Forum (Porto Allegre)
> National legislation in key countries, in particular US, EU, Australia,
> Japan, BRIC etc.
>
> Regards
>
> Wolfgang
>
> ________________________________
>
> Von: Anriette Esterhuysen [mailto:anriette at apc.org]
> Gesendet: Mo 01.11.2010 09:05
> An: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Betreff: Re: [governance] Our strategy, work plan and outreach
>
>
>
> Dear Izumi and all
>
> Like the others who have posted, Ginger, Tracy, Christopher, Hempal and
> Imran I think this is a good idea.
>
> I suggest we keep the use of working teams as light as possible.. being
> too ambitious could lead to disappointment.  The idea of a strategy is
> VERY good and it would be really helpful if it enables us to work on
> issues and policy forums beyond just the IGF such as for example ACTA
> and the ITU. Even if we cannot actively work in all these forums, it
> would be useful for us to understand what their implications are for
> internet governance that is inclusive of civil society participation and
> priorities.
>
> This also relates to last week's discussion on the 2003 CS charter. It
> does feel as if the last few years have been really 'busy' but in quite
> a fragmented way. A workplan could help us to identify a few broad goals
> that we can have consensus on, and then we can check back in a year's
> time on what progress / or lack of it there has been.
>
> I am sorry I cannot volunteer to help in a big way as I am barely coping
> with work at the moment, but I will do my best to participate and will
> certainly comment on documents.
>
> Regards
>
> Anriette
>
>
> On 31/10/10 16:33, Izumi AIZU wrote:
> > Dear list,
> >
> > After starting the role of co-coordinator, I have been thinking, and
> > also discussing
> > with Jeremy, about the "way forward" - or more specifically, working
> > method, modus operandi, of our caucus.
> >
> > Considering the many tasks ahead of us in relatively short time period, I
> think
> > we need good division of labor and effective working team(s).
> >
> > We don't want to become a workhorse ;-), rather we would like to
> > "coordinate", meaning to
> > facilitate moves and works of many members of the caucus. The more people
> > involved in the actual work, the better.
> >
> > For that, we like to suggest that our group to come up with the
> followings.
> >
> > a) Strategy - for coming months, in the context of IGF mandate
> > extension debate/negotiations around UN
> >
> > b) Work Plan - based on the strategy, we need to plan ahead on how to
> > work - to push our agenda - this may include forming Working Groups,
> > ad hoc teams, use some additional online tools etc.
> >
> > c) Outreach Plan/actions
> > One of the points we have discussed on the list was, if I may, the
> > relative lack of outreach of our group, with larger Civil Society
> > groups. Compared with WSIS days, we have less involvement from larger
> > clouds of CS. How to address this and move forward.
> >
> > We like to ask you to think about these points, come up with opinions,
> > suggestions and plans, and eventually, or quickly move to actions based
> on
> > [rough] consensus with bottom-up ways.
> >
> > We also like some of you to become active members, taking leading roles
> > for different items. Form working groups etc. To have wider division
> > of labor of our work.
> >
> > Of course, we are open to your suggestions and also welcome more
> volunteers!
> >
> > best,
> >
> > izumi
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >       governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> >       governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 anriette at apc.org
> executive director
> association for progressive communications
> www.apc.org
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101101/04efc425/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From jlfullsack at orange.fr  Mon Nov  1 08:43:58 2010
From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK)
Date: Mon,  1 Nov 2010 13:43:58 +0100 (CET)
Subject: AW: AW: [governance] New CSTD consultation on WSIS follow-up
Message-ID: <2141980.164084.1288615438003.JavaMail.www@wwinf1g10>

Wow, Wolfgang ! You've just shot a bullet in your foot (sorry : it is a bad translation of a very good and self-illustrating french locution).
In effect, CS Declaration is not a reference for the WSIS supervisors, coodinators, facilitators, etc ... Only "official" documents are referred to in their exchanges. 
As does the CSTD invitation to submit ; see hereafter

friendly regards
Jean-Louis Fullsack
CSDPTT  



 
<5a. In what WSIS implementation and follow-up activities at an international or regional level has your organisation been involved?  (Follow-up processes which were agreed at WSIS are described in the chapter of the Tunis Agenda for the Information Society which is headed “Implementation and Follow-up” (paragraphs 83-122).>


> Message du 29/10/10 15:52
> De : ""Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"" 
> A : governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Jean-Louis FULLSACK" 
> Copie à : 
> Objet : AW: AW: [governance] New CSTD consultation on WSIS follow-up
> 
> 
> Je34an Louis
> 
> I agree, however the CS Delcaration is listed among the official documents on the WSIS Website.
> http://www.itu.int/wsis/geneva/index.html
> 
> With other words, it is not a forgotten document and we should do something that it is remembered in the years ahead. Why not to work towards a new CS Declaration 2015. I expüect that with the WSIS Forum 2011 we will see something - led by governments - towards 2015. With so many new issues it would be a good opportunity to re-organize CS along the WSIS Plenary experience in 2011 and to draft an plan how to move towards 2015 from a CS perspective (as part of a multistakeholder approach) 
> 
> wolfgang
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> 
> Von: Jean-Louis FULLSACK [mailto:jlfullsack at orange.fr]
> Gesendet: Fr 29.10.2010 15:22
> An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Kleinwächter, Wolfgang
> Betreff: re: AW: [governance] New CSTD consultation on WSIS follow-up
> 
> 
> I fully agree Wolgangs views and proposal. Progress made in WSIS goals' achievements is also to be measured with regard to our own ones. 
> 
> I'd just recall what I still consider as a major failure in the so laudated multistaholderism. When we finalized our Declaration and launched it, we all emphasized and demanded that our Declaration was to be considered as an official WSIS document, in the same capacity as the intergovernmental Declaration and the Plan of Action. I was one of those of us who interceded with Adama Samasekou to obtain this consideration. In vain. That was a major disappointment for the most of CS organizations at the end of the Geneva Summit.
> 
> That's why I'm still rather "agnostic" towards the multistakeholder cult, especially when it comes to be a model for future global governance.
> 
> Best
> Jean-Louis Fullsack
> CSDPTT 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > Message du 29/10/10 12:02
> > De : ""Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"" 
> > A : governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Anriette Esterhuysen" , governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > Copie à : 
> > Objet : AW: [governance] New CSTD consultation on WSIS follow-up
> > 
> > 
> > I fully support Anriettes message.
> > 
> > Here is another point: One of the big achievements in WSIS I in Geneva (December 2003) was the "Civil Society Declaration" handed out to the President of the Summit at the last Plenary meeting on 12 December 2003 
> > http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/geneva/civil-society-declaration.pdf
> > 
> > It would make sense if a small working group of the CS network could go through the document and compare it with the progress and failures since 2003. To have our own document noticed by the governments was a big point in 2003. We should not forget our own achievements and measure ourselves against the criteria we did set up in 2003 when we move forward to 2015. 
> > 
> > Wolfgang 
> > 
> > ________________________________
> > 
> > Von: Anriette Esterhuysen [mailto:anriette at apc.org]
> > Gesendet: Do 28.10.2010 12:18
> > An: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > Betreff: Re: [governance] New CSTD consultation on WSIS follow-up
> > 
> > 
> > Dear all
> > 
> > I strongly encourage people who are involved in any kind of WSIS implementation to respond sharing information about their work. The information gathered through this process will make it into the reports on WSIS follow up which are tabled at the CSTD meeting, which then reports on progress to ECOSOC. This time around they are doing a WSIS + 5 review.
> > 
> > UNCTAD/CSTD actually tries hard to get civil society input into these reports, but they can only put into the reports what they get. The diversity of work being done on ICT and "people-centred development" and "inclusive information society" objectives is not adequatly reflected. There is often a lot about what governments and intergovernmental agencies are doing, and some flagship private sector and public private efforts, but very little about the range of civil society and local, smaller, business initiatives.
> > 
> > This time around they are also asking what we think has not been done.. and what should be prioritised going forward. It might therefore be good to also do a collective IGC response, Jeremy... in addition to responses from individuals or organisations on this list.
> > 
> > Cheers
> > 
> > Anriette
> > 
> > 
> > On 28/10/10 04:47, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: 
> > 
> > The CSTD (Commission on Science and Technology for Development) has just released a consultation questionnaire on WSIS (World Summit on the Information Society) outcomes, excluding the IGF (Internet Governance Forum) which will be the subject of a separate consultation. It is available in online form here: http://www.unctad.info/en/CSTD_WSIS5. 
> > 
> > Whilst we could write a collective response, the questionnaire is directed to individuals, so it would be good to have as many individual IGC members respond to this questionnaire as possible. The deadline is 14 December 2010. If there is a feeling that we should also respond collectively, please respond to this thread to that effect.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > -- 
> > 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.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > -- 
> > ------------------------------------------------------
> > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org
> > executive director
> > association for progressive communications
> > www.apc.org 
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> > governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> > 
> > For all list information and functions, see:
> > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> > 
> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101101/c80ec3d3/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com  Mon Nov  1 14:20:19 2010
From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro)
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 06:20:19 +1200
Subject: [governance] Our strategy, work plan and outreach
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTin86V1bVTfm5O6991PevxTL4bCrmJiJ8jD_7n05@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTinnXi7Vw_X6Ggtb+w8qPe6RBdK50jMxrFCiPFqM@mail.gmail.com>
	<4CCE74B7.4010905@apc.org>
	<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07371@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
	<AANLkTin86V1bVTfm5O6991PevxTL4bCrmJiJ8jD_7n05@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTimoOt-UR1YYppJYgdod82+4DECu_xXwaPNuG0kG@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Izumi and Jeremy,

This is excellent, I may not have much capacity, but I am willing to assist
where I can virtually.

Warm Regards,
Sala
On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 9:23 PM, Roxana Goldstein <goldstein.roxana at gmail.com
> wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> First, thanks Wolfgang for this starting information. I was really needing
> some kind of map like this.
>
> Now going to the point, thanks Izumi for your ideas, and I want to express
> my disposition to contribute with this proposal, specially in the
> enlargement of spanish-speaking (portuguese also) LAC representation within
> this caucus.
>
> If there are more LAC spanish/portuguese speaking members in this list, I
> suggest as first step to create a sub-group and start thinking on how to
> enlarge and improve our representation, participation and incidence in
> IGC/IGF.
>
> Thanks and best,
> Roxana
>
>
>
> 2010/11/1 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" <
> wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
>
> Hi
>>
>> I fully support the elaboration of a strategy paper "Internet Governance
>> 2015: Priorities for Civil Society" (based on previous CS documents to avoid
>> the reinvention of the wheel). It should have - inter alia - a brief
>> historical chapter, an overvierw about main issues and institutions of
>> todays policy environment  where the key issues are negotiated/discussed, a
>> chapter with a list of challenges of tomorrow and a final statement with CS
>> IG priorities, principles and objectives for the CS IG Agenda 2015.
>> In an Annex we could have a timeline until 2015 which would list the main
>> forthcoming events and also an ornagigram which gives on imagination about
>> the various interconnected negotiations and discussions places and spaces.
>>
>> Furthermore it would make sense to produce a brochure with CS IG
>> statements and position papers from 2020 to 2010 which would show the
>> outside world our continous engagement in the issue. Such a publication
>> would also help the next generation of CS IG leaders to understand where
>> they are coming from and what still has to be done and is the let over from
>> the agendas of the first decade of the 21st century. The publication could
>> also include facts and figures about IGC itself (Charter, proceudures, names
>> of actual and previous chairs etc.)
>>
>> Experience tell us further, that CS activities are always stimulated by
>> global or regional events.
>>
>> Here is my very preliminary list of relevant events for CS-IG in 2011
>>
>> 2011:
>> February: IGF/UNCSTD Consultations in Geneva
>> March: ICANN Meeting in San Francisco
>> May: WSIS Forum and IGF/UNCSTD Consultations in Geneva
>> June: ICANN meeting in Asia
>> September: IGF in Nairobi
>> ICANN meeting in Africa
>> November: UNGA in New York
>> over the year: Regional IGFs in Africa, Asia, Europa and Latin America
>>
>> And here are some processes/institutions, which should be under
>> observation:
>> UN: Enhanced Cooperation and IGF Improvement
>> ITU: Implementation of PP 10 / Preparation of the ITU World Conference on
>> International Telecommunication 2012
>> OECD: Implementaiton of ther Seoul Declaration fronm 2008 / Internet
>> Economy / CISSAC
>> European Commission: Implementation of the Digital Agenda 2020, including
>> "Internet of Things" Task Froce
>> Council of Europa: Proposal for a "Framework of Commitments for Cross
>> Border Internet Governance"
>> ACTA/WTO/WIPIO: Plans to finanlize the Draft of the ACTA Agreement, WIPOS
>> Development Agenda and the Broadcasting Treaty
>> 1st Committee UNGA: Ideas for a UN Treaty on Cybersecurity
>> World Economic Forum (Davos) and Worl Social Forum (Porto Allegre)
>> National legislation in key countries, in particular US, EU, Australia,
>> Japan, BRIC etc.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Wolfgang
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>> Von: Anriette Esterhuysen [mailto:anriette at apc.org]
>> Gesendet: Mo 01.11.2010 09:05
>> An: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> Betreff: Re: [governance] Our strategy, work plan and outreach
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear Izumi and all
>>
>> Like the others who have posted, Ginger, Tracy, Christopher, Hempal and
>> Imran I think this is a good idea.
>>
>> I suggest we keep the use of working teams as light as possible.. being
>> too ambitious could lead to disappointment.  The idea of a strategy is
>> VERY good and it would be really helpful if it enables us to work on
>> issues and policy forums beyond just the IGF such as for example ACTA
>> and the ITU. Even if we cannot actively work in all these forums, it
>> would be useful for us to understand what their implications are for
>> internet governance that is inclusive of civil society participation and
>> priorities.
>>
>> This also relates to last week's discussion on the 2003 CS charter. It
>> does feel as if the last few years have been really 'busy' but in quite
>> a fragmented way. A workplan could help us to identify a few broad goals
>> that we can have consensus on, and then we can check back in a year's
>> time on what progress / or lack of it there has been.
>>
>> I am sorry I cannot volunteer to help in a big way as I am barely coping
>> with work at the moment, but I will do my best to participate and will
>> certainly comment on documents.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Anriette
>>
>>
>> On 31/10/10 16:33, Izumi AIZU wrote:
>> > Dear list,
>> >
>> > After starting the role of co-coordinator, I have been thinking, and
>> > also discussing
>> > with Jeremy, about the "way forward" - or more specifically, working
>> > method, modus operandi, of our caucus.
>> >
>> > Considering the many tasks ahead of us in relatively short time period,
>> I think
>> > we need good division of labor and effective working team(s).
>> >
>> > We don't want to become a workhorse ;-), rather we would like to
>> > "coordinate", meaning to
>> > facilitate moves and works of many members of the caucus. The more
>> people
>> > involved in the actual work, the better.
>> >
>> > For that, we like to suggest that our group to come up with the
>> followings.
>> >
>> > a) Strategy - for coming months, in the context of IGF mandate
>> > extension debate/negotiations around UN
>> >
>> > b) Work Plan - based on the strategy, we need to plan ahead on how to
>> > work - to push our agenda - this may include forming Working Groups,
>> > ad hoc teams, use some additional online tools etc.
>> >
>> > c) Outreach Plan/actions
>> > One of the points we have discussed on the list was, if I may, the
>> > relative lack of outreach of our group, with larger Civil Society
>> > groups. Compared with WSIS days, we have less involvement from larger
>> > clouds of CS. How to address this and move forward.
>> >
>> > We like to ask you to think about these points, come up with opinions,
>> > suggestions and plans, and eventually, or quickly move to actions based
>> on
>> > [rough] consensus with bottom-up ways.
>> >
>> > We also like some of you to become active members, taking leading roles
>> > for different items. Form working groups etc. To have wider division
>> > of labor of our work.
>> >
>> > Of course, we are open to your suggestions and also welcome more
>> volunteers!
>> >
>> > best,
>> >
>> > izumi
>> > ____________________________________________________________
>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> >       governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> > To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>> >       governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 anriette at apc.org
>> executive director
>> association for progressive communications
>> www.apc.org
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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
>



-- 
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."
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101102/c9331336/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From shailam at yahoo.com  Mon Nov  1 16:40:05 2010
From: shailam at yahoo.com (shaila mistry)
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2010 13:40:05 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] Our strategy, work plan and outreach
In-Reply-To: <4CCD917E.4090209@paque.net>
References: <AANLkTinnXi7Vw_X6Ggtb+w8qPe6RBdK50jMxrFCiPFqM@mail.gmail.com> <4CCD917E.4090209@paque.net>
Message-ID: <791103.54415.qm@web55201.mail.re4.yahoo.com>

Dear Izumi 
I like the three pronged approach for working together in the coming year.
I would like to be more active in the group and offer you my full support.
Please let me know how I can be more involved.
regards
Shaila Rao Mistry


 Life is too short ....challenge the rules
Forgive quickly ... love truly ...and tenderly
Laugh constantly.....and never stop dreaming! 

On 10/31/2010 10:03 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote: 
Dear list,
>
>After starting the role of co-coordinator, I have been thinking, and
>also discussing
>with Jeremy, about the "way forward" - or more specifically, working
>method, modusoperandi, of our caucus.
>
>Considering the many tasks ahead of us in relatively short time period, I think
>we need good division of labor and effective working team(s).
>
>We don't want to become a workhorse ;-), rather we would like to
>"coordinate", meaning to
>facilitate moves and works of many members of the caucus. The more people
>involved in the actual work, the better.
>
>For that, we like to suggest that our group to come up with the followings.
>
>a) Strategy - for coming months, in the context of IGF mandate
>extension debate/negotiations around UN
>
>b) Work Plan - based on the strategy, we need to plan ahead on how to
>work - to push our agenda - this may include forming Working Groups,
>ad hoc teams, use some additional online tools etc.
>
>c) Outreach Plan/actions
>One of the points we have discussed on the list was, if I may, the
>relative lack of outreach of our group, with larger Civil Society
>groups. Compared with WSIS days, we have less involvement from larger
>clouds of CS. How to address this and move forward.
>
>We like to ask you to think about these points, come up with opinions,
>suggestions and plans, and eventually, or quickly move to actions based on
>[rough] consensus with bottom-up ways.
>
>We also like some of you to become active members, taking leading roles
>for different items. Form working groups etc. To have wider division
>of labor of our work.
>
>Of course, we are open to your suggestions and also welcome more volunteers!
>
>best,
>
>izumi
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:      
>governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org  For all list information and functions, 
>see:      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance  Translate this email: 
>http://translate.google.com/translate_t  
>

-- 
  

Ginger               (Virginia) Paque
IGCBPOnline Coordinator
DiploFoundation
www.diplomacy.edu/ig  
The               latest from Diplo...
http://igbook.diplomacy.edu/is the online companion to An               
Introduction to Internet Governance, Diplo's             publication on 
IG. Download the book, read the blogs and             post             your 
comments.  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101101/c6d764bc/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From pbekono at gmail.com  Mon Nov  1 20:31:30 2010
From: pbekono at gmail.com (Pascal Bekono)
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 01:31:30 +0100
Subject: [governance] Our strategy, work plan and outreach
In-Reply-To: <791103.54415.qm@web55201.mail.re4.yahoo.com>
References: <AANLkTinnXi7Vw_X6Ggtb+w8qPe6RBdK50jMxrFCiPFqM@mail.gmail.com>
	<4CCD917E.4090209@paque.net>
	<791103.54415.qm@web55201.mail.re4.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTinskYBxr4HpkfHSqoWujwQtGwKGncXPg5Sa07_O@mail.gmail.com>

Hello,

I agree with this new approach, it will really enhance members'
participation. I am available to join a group.

Greetings,

~Pascal



2010/11/1, shaila mistry <shailam at yahoo.com>:
> Dear Izumi
> I like the three pronged approach for working together in the coming year.
> I would like to be more active in the group and offer you my full support.
> Please let me know how I can be more involved.
> regards
> Shaila Rao Mistry
>
>
>  Life is too short ....challenge the rules
> Forgive quickly ... love truly ...and tenderly
> Laugh constantly.....and never stop dreaming!
>
> On 10/31/2010 10:03 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote:
> Dear list,
>>
>>After starting the role of co-coordinator, I have been thinking, and
>>also discussing
>>with Jeremy, about the "way forward" - or more specifically, working
>>method, modusoperandi, of our caucus.
>>
>>Considering the many tasks ahead of us in relatively short time period, I
>> think
>>we need good division of labor and effective working team(s).
>>
>>We don't want to become a workhorse ;-), rather we would like to
>>"coordinate", meaning to
>>facilitate moves and works of many members of the caucus. The more people
>>involved in the actual work, the better.
>>
>>For that, we like to suggest that our group to come up with the followings.
>>
>>a) Strategy - for coming months, in the context of IGF mandate
>>extension debate/negotiations around UN
>>
>>b) Work Plan - based on the strategy, we need to plan ahead on how to
>>work - to push our agenda - this may include forming Working Groups,
>>ad hoc teams, use some additional online tools etc.
>>
>>c) Outreach Plan/actions
>>One of the points we have discussed on the list was, if I may, the
>>relative lack of outreach of our group, with larger Civil Society
>>groups. Compared with WSIS days, we have less involvement from larger
>>clouds of CS. How to address this and move forward.
>>
>>We like to ask you to think about these points, come up with opinions,
>>suggestions and plans, and eventually, or quickly move to actions based on
>>[rough] consensus with bottom-up ways.
>>
>>We also like some of you to become active members, taking leading roles
>>for different items. Form working groups etc. To have wider division
>>of labor of our work.
>>
>>Of course, we are open to your suggestions and also welcome more
>> volunteers!
>>
>>best,
>>
>>izumi
>>____________________________________________________________
>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>
>>governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org  For all list information and
>> functions,
>>see:      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance  Translate this
>> email:
>>http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>
> --
>
>
> Ginger               (Virginia) Paque
> IGCBPOnline Coordinator
> DiploFoundation
> www.diplomacy.edu/ig
> The               latest from Diplo...
> http://igbook.diplomacy.edu/is the online companion to An
> Introduction to Internet Governance, Diplo's             publication on
> IG. Download the book, read the blogs and             post             your
> comments.
>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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


From aizu at anr.org  Mon Nov  1 20:45:06 2010
From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 09:45:06 +0900
Subject: [governance] Our strategy, work plan and outreach
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinskYBxr4HpkfHSqoWujwQtGwKGncXPg5Sa07_O@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTinnXi7Vw_X6Ggtb+w8qPe6RBdK50jMxrFCiPFqM@mail.gmail.com>
 <4CCD917E.4090209@paque.net> <791103.54415.qm@web55201.mail.re4.yahoo.com> <AANLkTinskYBxr4HpkfHSqoWujwQtGwKGncXPg5Sa07_O@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTimvmRgi35sKohwr4ky7q_hP1M6V-vBp_cVr5i9=@mail.gmail.com>

Dear list,

Thank you for many supports so far on our proposal.
Of course I welcome any critical views, as well.

I also thank several people who expressed their willingness
to volunteer. More volunteers and also new names are
always encouraging.

We haveto  eventually, or quickly, move to produce actual
work, and therefore I like to call for people identify
which of three areas, a) Strategy, b) Work plan, or c) Outreach
you are interested in to work on, and then need sort of
facilitators in each group, and if so needed set-up a separate
mailing list and/or other online tool and carry on the work.

I have not discussed with Jeremy as to the details of these,
but I am sure we can help set-up mailing list or other tool,
or ask further volunteers to address these.

Jeremy and I will of course be involved with all three areas,
but we really like others than the coordinators to take
the lead on each areas and we remain to coordinate the
overall work of our caucus.

best,

izumi




2010/11/2 Pascal Bekono <pbekono at gmail.com>:
> Hello,
>
> I agree with this new approach, it will really enhance members'
> participation. I am available to join a group.
>
> Greetings,
>
> ~Pascal
>
>
>
> 2010/11/1, shaila mistry <shailam at yahoo.com>:
>> Dear Izumi
>> I like the three pronged approach for working together in the coming year.
>> I would like to be more active in the group and offer you my full support.
>> Please let me know how I can be more involved.
>> regards
>> Shaila Rao Mistry
>>
>>
>>  Life is too short ....challenge the rules
>> Forgive quickly ... love truly ...and tenderly
>> Laugh constantly.....and never stop dreaming!
>>
>> On 10/31/2010 10:03 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote:
>> Dear list,
>>>
>>>After starting the role of co-coordinator, I have been thinking, and
>>>also discussing
>>>with Jeremy, about the "way forward" - or more specifically, working
>>>method, modusoperandi, of our caucus.
>>>
>>>Considering the many tasks ahead of us in relatively short time period, I
>>> think
>>>we need good division of labor and effective working team(s).
>>>
>>>We don't want to become a workhorse ;-), rather we would like to
>>>"coordinate", meaning to
>>>facilitate moves and works of many members of the caucus. The more people
>>>involved in the actual work, the better.
>>>
>>>For that, we like to suggest that our group to come up with the followings.
>>>
>>>a) Strategy - for coming months, in the context of IGF mandate
>>>extension debate/negotiations around UN
>>>
>>>b) Work Plan - based on the strategy, we need to plan ahead on how to
>>>work - to push our agenda - this may include forming Working Groups,
>>>ad hoc teams, use some additional online tools etc.
>>>
>>>c) Outreach Plan/actions
>>>One of the points we have discussed on the list was, if I may, the
>>>relative lack of outreach of our group, with larger Civil Society
>>>groups. Compared with WSIS days, we have less involvement from larger
>>>clouds of CS. How to address this and move forward.
>>>
>>>We like to ask you to think about these points, come up with opinions,
>>>suggestions and plans, and eventually, or quickly move to actions based on
>>>[rough] consensus with bottom-up ways.
>>>
>>>We also like some of you to become active members, taking leading roles
>>>for different items. Form working groups etc. To have wider division
>>>of labor of our work.
>>>
>>>Of course, we are open to your suggestions and also welcome more
>>> volunteers!
>>>
>>>best,
>>>
>>>izumi
>>>____________________________________________________________
>>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>>
>>>governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org  For all list information and
>>> functions,
>>>see:      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance  Translate this
>>> email:
>>>http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>
>>
>> --
>>
>>
>> Ginger               (Virginia) Paque
>> IGCBPOnline Coordinator
>> DiploFoundation
>> www.diplomacy.edu/ig
>> The               latest from Diplo...
>> http://igbook.diplomacy.edu/is the online companion to An
>> Introduction to Internet Governance, Diplo's             publication on
>> IG. Download the book, read the blogs and             post             your
>> comments.
>>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>



-- 
                        >> Izumi Aizu <<

          Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo

           Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,
                                  Japan
                                 * * * * *
           << Writing the Future of the History >>
                                www.anr.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 rafik.dammak at gmail.com  Mon Nov  1 21:00:25 2010
From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 10:00:25 +0900
Subject: [governance] Our strategy, work plan and outreach
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimvmRgi35sKohwr4ky7q_hP1M6V-vBp_cVr5i9=@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTinnXi7Vw_X6Ggtb+w8qPe6RBdK50jMxrFCiPFqM@mail.gmail.com>
 <4CCD917E.4090209@paque.net> <791103.54415.qm@web55201.mail.re4.yahoo.com>
 <AANLkTinskYBxr4HpkfHSqoWujwQtGwKGncXPg5Sa07_O@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTimvmRgi35sKohwr4ky7q_hP1M6V-vBp_cVr5i9=@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=e=Ut77_Xz9rFsEHfz7isGLPHFBZQEfkNYYJ+t@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Izumi,

thank you for your proposal which will undoubtedly foster the work within
IGC and allow more people to be involved. I would like to join for the 3
"areas"
I guess that we need working group for each area and defining simple working
group model without digging into operational details. we need also to define
how the outcome of each working group will be approved by IGC members.
For tools, I think having public mailing list for each area make sense and
collaborative tools selection are up to WG members even it will be better to
have common and standard tool that can be archived. I advise using PiratePad
for collaborative editing and I think Jeremy can install instance in
igf-online server.

Rafik




2010/11/2 Izumi AIZU <aizu at anr.org>

> Dear list,
>
> Thank you for many supports so far on our proposal.
> Of course I welcome any critical views, as well.
>
> I also thank several people who expressed their willingness
> to volunteer. More volunteers and also new names are
> always encouraging.
>
> We haveto  eventually, or quickly, move to produce actual
> work, and therefore I like to call for people identify
> which of three areas, a) Strategy, b) Work plan, or c) Outreach
> you are interested in to work on, and then need sort of
> facilitators in each group, and if so needed set-up a separate
> mailing list and/or other online tool and carry on the work.
>
> I have not discussed with Jeremy as to the details of these,
> but I am sure we can help set-up mailing list or other tool,
> or ask further volunteers to address these.
>
> Jeremy and I will of course be involved with all three areas,
> but we really like others than the coordinators to take
> the lead on each areas and we remain to coordinate the
> overall work of our caucus.
>
> best,
>
> izumi
>
>
>
>
> 2010/11/2 Pascal Bekono <pbekono at gmail.com>:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I agree with this new approach, it will really enhance members'
> > participation. I am available to join a group.
> >
> > Greetings,
> >
> > ~Pascal
> >
> >
> >
> > 2010/11/1, shaila mistry <shailam at yahoo.com>:
> >> Dear Izumi
> >> I like the three pronged approach for working together in the coming
> year.
> >> I would like to be more active in the group and offer you my full
> support.
> >> Please let me know how I can be more involved.
> >> regards
> >> Shaila Rao Mistry
> >>
> >>
> >>  Life is too short ....challenge the rules
> >> Forgive quickly ... love truly ...and tenderly
> >> Laugh constantly.....and never stop dreaming!
> >>
> >> On 10/31/2010 10:03 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote:
> >> Dear list,
> >>>
> >>>After starting the role of co-coordinator, I have been thinking, and
> >>>also discussing
> >>>with Jeremy, about the "way forward" - or more specifically, working
> >>>method, modusoperandi, of our caucus.
> >>>
> >>>Considering the many tasks ahead of us in relatively short time period,
> I
> >>> think
> >>>we need good division of labor and effective working team(s).
> >>>
> >>>We don't want to become a workhorse ;-), rather we would like to
> >>>"coordinate", meaning to
> >>>facilitate moves and works of many members of the caucus. The more
> people
> >>>involved in the actual work, the better.
> >>>
> >>>For that, we like to suggest that our group to come up with the
> followings.
> >>>
> >>>a) Strategy - for coming months, in the context of IGF mandate
> >>>extension debate/negotiations around UN
> >>>
> >>>b) Work Plan - based on the strategy, we need to plan ahead on how to
> >>>work - to push our agenda - this may include forming Working Groups,
> >>>ad hoc teams, use some additional online tools etc.
> >>>
> >>>c) Outreach Plan/actions
> >>>One of the points we have discussed on the list was, if I may, the
> >>>relative lack of outreach of our group, with larger Civil Society
> >>>groups. Compared with WSIS days, we have less involvement from larger
> >>>clouds of CS. How to address this and move forward.
> >>>
> >>>We like to ask you to think about these points, come up with opinions,
> >>>suggestions and plans, and eventually, or quickly move to actions based
> on
> >>>[rough] consensus with bottom-up ways.
> >>>
> >>>We also like some of you to become active members, taking leading roles
> >>>for different items. Form working groups etc. To have wider division
> >>>of labor of our work.
> >>>
> >>>Of course, we are open to your suggestions and also welcome more
> >>> volunteers!
> >>>
> >>>best,
> >>>
> >>>izumi
> >>>____________________________________________________________
> >>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >>>governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message
> to:
> >>>
> >>>governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org  For all list information and
> >>> functions,
> >>>see:      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance  Translate this
> >>> email:
> >>>http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> >>>
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >>
> >> Ginger               (Virginia) Paque
> >> IGCBPOnline Coordinator
> >> DiploFoundation
> >> www.diplomacy.edu/ig
> >> The               latest from Diplo...
> >> http://igbook.diplomacy.edu/is the online companion to An
> >> Introduction to Internet Governance, Diplo's             publication on
> >> IG. Download the book, read the blogs and             post
> your
> >> comments.
> >>
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> >
> > For all list information and functions, see:
> >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> >
> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
>                         >> Izumi Aizu <<
>
>           Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo
>
>            Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,
>                                   Japan
>                                  * * * * *
>            << Writing the Future of the History >>
>                                 www.anr.org
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101102/047b7bfc/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From charityg at diplomacy.edu  Mon Nov  1 22:50:27 2010
From: charityg at diplomacy.edu (Charity Gamboa)
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2010 21:50:27 -0500
Subject: [governance] Our strategy, work plan and outreach
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimvmRgi35sKohwr4ky7q_hP1M6V-vBp_cVr5i9=@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTinnXi7Vw_X6Ggtb+w8qPe6RBdK50jMxrFCiPFqM@mail.gmail.com>
	<4CCD917E.4090209@paque.net>
	<791103.54415.qm@web55201.mail.re4.yahoo.com>
	<AANLkTinskYBxr4HpkfHSqoWujwQtGwKGncXPg5Sa07_O@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTimvmRgi35sKohwr4ky7q_hP1M6V-vBp_cVr5i9=@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTikjg2TRQO67wLEAjDFOEm075Y8c7s1sVf3T-6Sx@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Izumi and all,

I do agree with the working groups. I think I see myself actively working
more on  specific tasks where I feel I have the expertise.  Inspite of my
workload and traveling, I want to actively involve myself in IGC. I'm not
sure if some of you feel the same way that I do but I see working groups as
a way for some to fit themselves.

Anyhow,  I would probably identify myself working more on the area of
OUTREACH. Thanks!

Regards,

Charity Gamboa-Embley
Faculty
Student Alternatives Program, Inc-South Plains Academy
Lubbock, Texas 79414

On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 7:45 PM, Izumi AIZU <aizu at anr.org> wrote:

> Dear list,
>
> Thank you for many supports so far on our proposal.
> Of course I welcome any critical views, as well.
>
> I also thank several people who expressed their willingness
> to volunteer. More volunteers and also new names are
> always encouraging.
>
> We haveto  eventually, or quickly, move to produce actual
> work, and therefore I like to call for people identify
> which of three areas, a) Strategy, b) Work plan, or c) Outreach
> you are interested in to work on, and then need sort of
> facilitators in each group, and if so needed set-up a separate
> mailing list and/or other online tool and carry on the work.
>
> I have not discussed with Jeremy as to the details of these,
> but I am sure we can help set-up mailing list or other tool,
> or ask further volunteers to address these.
>
> Jeremy and I will of course be involved with all three areas,
> but we really like others than the coordinators to take
> the lead on each areas and we remain to coordinate the
> overall work of our caucus.
>
> best,
>
> izumi
>
>
>
>
> 2010/11/2 Pascal Bekono <pbekono at gmail.com>:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I agree with this new approach, it will really enhance members'
> > participation. I am available to join a group.
> >
> > Greetings,
> >
> > ~Pascal
> >
> >
> >
> > 2010/11/1, shaila mistry <shailam at yahoo.com>:
> >> Dear Izumi
> >> I like the three pronged approach for working together in the coming
> year.
> >> I would like to be more active in the group and offer you my full
> support.
> >> Please let me know how I can be more involved.
> >> regards
> >> Shaila Rao Mistry
> >>
> >>
> >>  Life is too short ....challenge the rules
> >> Forgive quickly ... love truly ...and tenderly
> >> Laugh constantly.....and never stop dreaming!
> >>
> >> On 10/31/2010 10:03 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote:
> >> Dear list,
> >>>
> >>>After starting the role of co-coordinator, I have been thinking, and
> >>>also discussing
> >>>with Jeremy, about the "way forward" - or more specifically, working
> >>>method, modusoperandi, of our caucus.
> >>>
> >>>Considering the many tasks ahead of us in relatively short time period,
> I
> >>> think
> >>>we need good division of labor and effective working team(s).
> >>>
> >>>We don't want to become a workhorse ;-), rather we would like to
> >>>"coordinate", meaning to
> >>>facilitate moves and works of many members of the caucus. The more
> people
> >>>involved in the actual work, the better.
> >>>
> >>>For that, we like to suggest that our group to come up with the
> followings.
> >>>
> >>>a) Strategy - for coming months, in the context of IGF mandate
> >>>extension debate/negotiations around UN
> >>>
> >>>b) Work Plan - based on the strategy, we need to plan ahead on how to
> >>>work - to push our agenda - this may include forming Working Groups,
> >>>ad hoc teams, use some additional online tools etc.
> >>>
> >>>c) Outreach Plan/actions
> >>>One of the points we have discussed on the list was, if I may, the
> >>>relative lack of outreach of our group, with larger Civil Society
> >>>groups. Compared with WSIS days, we have less involvement from larger
> >>>clouds of CS. How to address this and move forward.
> >>>
> >>>We like to ask you to think about these points, come up with opinions,
> >>>suggestions and plans, and eventually, or quickly move to actions based
> on
> >>>[rough] consensus with bottom-up ways.
> >>>
> >>>We also like some of you to become active members, taking leading roles
> >>>for different items. Form working groups etc. To have wider division
> >>>of labor of our work.
> >>>
> >>>Of course, we are open to your suggestions and also welcome more
> >>> volunteers!
> >>>
> >>>best,
> >>>
> >>>izumi
> >>>____________________________________________________________
> >>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >>>governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message
> to:
> >>>
> >>>governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org  For all list information and
> >>> functions,
> >>>see:      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance  Translate this
> >>> email:
> >>>http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> >>>
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >>
> >> Ginger               (Virginia) Paque
> >> IGCBPOnline Coordinator
> >> DiploFoundation
> >> www.diplomacy.edu/ig
> >> The               latest from Diplo...
> >> http://igbook.diplomacy.edu/is the online companion to An
> >> Introduction to Internet Governance, Diplo's             publication on
> >> IG. Download the book, read the blogs and             post
> your
> >> comments.
> >>
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> >
> > For all list information and functions, see:
> >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> >
> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
>                         >> Izumi Aizu <<
>
>           Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo
>
>            Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,
>                                   Japan
>                                  * * * * *
>            << Writing the Future of the History >>
>                                 www.anr.org
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101101/5124b589/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From rafik.dammak at gmail.com  Mon Nov  1 23:21:39 2010
From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 12:21:39 +0900
Subject: [governance] Our strategy, work plan and outreach
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimvmRgi35sKohwr4ky7q_hP1M6V-vBp_cVr5i9=@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTinnXi7Vw_X6Ggtb+w8qPe6RBdK50jMxrFCiPFqM@mail.gmail.com>
 <4CCD917E.4090209@paque.net> <791103.54415.qm@web55201.mail.re4.yahoo.com>
 <AANLkTinskYBxr4HpkfHSqoWujwQtGwKGncXPg5Sa07_O@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTimvmRgi35sKohwr4ky7q_hP1M6V-vBp_cVr5i9=@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTikfrSHy3L=wrzO0D50DF8rASHQPTHu3B1N1xUyw@mail.gmail.com>

Hello ,

I would like to volunteer for taking the lead of strategy group and helping
to coordinate with the others groups. it will be great to know who want to
volunteer for that group.

Rafik


2010/11/2 Izumi AIZU <aizu at anr.org>

> Dear list,
>
> Thank you for many supports so far on our proposal.
> Of course I welcome any critical views, as well.
>
> I also thank several people who expressed their willingness
> to volunteer. More volunteers and also new names are
> always encouraging.
>
> We haveto  eventually, or quickly, move to produce actual
> work, and therefore I like to call for people identify
> which of three areas, a) Strategy, b) Work plan, or c) Outreach
> you are interested in to work on, and then need sort of
> facilitators in each group, and if so needed set-up a separate
> mailing list and/or other online tool and carry on the work.
>
> I have not discussed with Jeremy as to the details of these,
> but I am sure we can help set-up mailing list or other tool,
> or ask further volunteers to address these.
>
> Jeremy and I will of course be involved with all three areas,
> but we really like others than the coordinators to take
> the lead on each areas and we remain to coordinate the
> overall work of our caucus.
>
> best,
>
> izumi
>
>
>
>
> 2010/11/2 Pascal Bekono <pbekono at gmail.com>:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I agree with this new approach, it will really enhance members'
> > participation. I am available to join a group.
> >
> > Greetings,
> >
> > ~Pascal
> >
> >
> >
> > 2010/11/1, shaila mistry <shailam at yahoo.com>:
> >> Dear Izumi
> >> I like the three pronged approach for working together in the coming
> year.
> >> I would like to be more active in the group and offer you my full
> support.
> >> Please let me know how I can be more involved.
> >> regards
> >> Shaila Rao Mistry
> >>
> >>
> >>  Life is too short ....challenge the rules
> >> Forgive quickly ... love truly ...and tenderly
> >> Laugh constantly.....and never stop dreaming!
> >>
> >> On 10/31/2010 10:03 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote:
> >> Dear list,
> >>>
> >>>After starting the role of co-coordinator, I have been thinking, and
> >>>also discussing
> >>>with Jeremy, about the "way forward" - or more specifically, working
> >>>method, modusoperandi, of our caucus.
> >>>
> >>>Considering the many tasks ahead of us in relatively short time period,
> I
> >>> think
> >>>we need good division of labor and effective working team(s).
> >>>
> >>>We don't want to become a workhorse ;-), rather we would like to
> >>>"coordinate", meaning to
> >>>facilitate moves and works of many members of the caucus. The more
> people
> >>>involved in the actual work, the better.
> >>>
> >>>For that, we like to suggest that our group to come up with the
> followings.
> >>>
> >>>a) Strategy - for coming months, in the context of IGF mandate
> >>>extension debate/negotiations around UN
> >>>
> >>>b) Work Plan - based on the strategy, we need to plan ahead on how to
> >>>work - to push our agenda - this may include forming Working Groups,
> >>>ad hoc teams, use some additional online tools etc.
> >>>
> >>>c) Outreach Plan/actions
> >>>One of the points we have discussed on the list was, if I may, the
> >>>relative lack of outreach of our group, with larger Civil Society
> >>>groups. Compared with WSIS days, we have less involvement from larger
> >>>clouds of CS. How to address this and move forward.
> >>>
> >>>We like to ask you to think about these points, come up with opinions,
> >>>suggestions and plans, and eventually, or quickly move to actions based
> on
> >>>[rough] consensus with bottom-up ways.
> >>>
> >>>We also like some of you to become active members, taking leading roles
> >>>for different items. Form working groups etc. To have wider division
> >>>of labor of our work.
> >>>
> >>>Of course, we are open to your suggestions and also welcome more
> >>> volunteers!
> >>>
> >>>best,
> >>>
> >>>izumi
> >>>____________________________________________________________
> >>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >>>governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message
> to:
> >>>
> >>>governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org  For all list information and
> >>> functions,
> >>>see:      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance  Translate this
> >>> email:
> >>>http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> >>>
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >>
> >> Ginger               (Virginia) Paque
> >> IGCBPOnline Coordinator
> >> DiploFoundation
> >> www.diplomacy.edu/ig
> >> The               latest from Diplo...
> >> http://igbook.diplomacy.edu/is the online companion to An
> >> Introduction to Internet Governance, Diplo's             publication on
> >> IG. Download the book, read the blogs and             post
> your
> >> comments.
> >>
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> >
> > For all list information and functions, see:
> >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> >
> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
>                         >> Izumi Aizu <<
>
>           Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo
>
>            Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,
>                                   Japan
>                                  * * * * *
>            << Writing the Future of the History >>
>                                 www.anr.org
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101102/e8233d2e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From aizu at anr.org  Mon Nov  1 23:57:19 2010
From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 12:57:19 +0900
Subject: [governance] Our strategy, work plan and outreach
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikfrSHy3L=wrzO0D50DF8rASHQPTHu3B1N1xUyw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTinnXi7Vw_X6Ggtb+w8qPe6RBdK50jMxrFCiPFqM@mail.gmail.com>
 <4CCD917E.4090209@paque.net> <791103.54415.qm@web55201.mail.re4.yahoo.com>
 <AANLkTinskYBxr4HpkfHSqoWujwQtGwKGncXPg5Sa07_O@mail.gmail.com>
 <AANLkTimvmRgi35sKohwr4ky7q_hP1M6V-vBp_cVr5i9=@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTikfrSHy3L=wrzO0D50DF8rASHQPTHu3B1N1xUyw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTimby0ze1byeL3QkyEO3SOyBY1XjJpJ+R8E4qq+i@mail.gmail.com>

Rafik, thank you so much for your volunteering for the strategy group
discussion lead. Especially as we all know
he was also the candidate for the co-coordinator position,
and we were concerned about the geographic balance,
so your role will be especially important and helpful for us.

I would encourage some more people to join Rafik and bring the work forward.

izumi

2010/11/2 Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>:
> Hello ,
> I would like to volunteer for taking the lead of strategy group and helping
> to coordinate with the others groups. it will be great to know who want to
> volunteer for that group.
> Rafik
>
> 2010/11/2 Izumi AIZU <aizu at anr.org>
>>
>> Dear list,
>>
>> Thank you for many supports so far on our proposal.
>> Of course I welcome any critical views, as well.
>>
>> I also thank several people who expressed their willingness
>> to volunteer. More volunteers and also new names are
>> always encouraging.
>>
>> We haveto  eventually, or quickly, move to produce actual
>> work, and therefore I like to call for people identify
>> which of three areas, a) Strategy, b) Work plan, or c) Outreach
>> you are interested in to work on, and then need sort of
>> facilitators in each group, and if so needed set-up a separate
>> mailing list and/or other online tool and carry on the work.
>>
>> I have not discussed with Jeremy as to the details of these,
>> but I am sure we can help set-up mailing list or other tool,
>> or ask further volunteers to address these.
>>
>> Jeremy and I will of course be involved with all three areas,
>> but we really like others than the coordinators to take
>> the lead on each areas and we remain to coordinate the
>> overall work of our caucus.
>>
>> best,
>>
>> izumi
>>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From shailam at yahoo.com  Tue Nov  2 00:10:44 2010
From: shailam at yahoo.com (shaila mistry)
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2010 21:10:44 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] Our strategy, work plan and outreach
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimby0ze1byeL3QkyEO3SOyBY1XjJpJ+R8E4qq+i@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTinnXi7Vw_X6Ggtb+w8qPe6RBdK50jMxrFCiPFqM@mail.gmail.com> <4CCD917E.4090209@paque.net> <791103.54415.qm@web55201.mail.re4.yahoo.com> <AANLkTinskYBxr4HpkfHSqoWujwQtGwKGncXPg5Sa07_O@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTimvmRgi35sKohwr4ky7q_hP1M6V-vBp_cVr5i9=@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTikfrSHy3L=wrzO0D50DF8rASHQPTHu3B1N1xUyw@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTimby0ze1byeL3QkyEO3SOyBY1XjJpJ+R8E4qq+i@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <128592.84169.qm@web55208.mail.re4.yahoo.com>

HI Izumi
I would like to work on the strategy team and also help on the work plan. My 
passion is policy and charting a path through a maze of obstacles.
I am sure I will be sorry I made this last statement :):)
shaila 

 Life is too short ....challenge the rules
Forgive quickly ... love truly ...and tenderly
Laugh constantly.....and never stop dreaming! 




________________________________
From: Izumi AIZU <aizu at anr.org> To: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> Cc: 
governance at lists.cpsr.org
Sent: Mon, November 1, 2010 8:57:19 PM Subject: Re: [governance] Our strategy, 
work plan and outreach

Rafik, thank you so much for your volunteering for the strategy group
discussion lead. Especially as we all knowhe was also the candidate for the 
co-coordinator position,
and we were concerned about the geographic balance,so your role will be 
especially important and helpful for us.
I would encourage some more people to join Rafik and bring the work forward.

izumi

2010/11/2 Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>:
> Hello ,
> I would like to volunteer for taking the lead of strategy group and helping
> to coordinate with the others groups. it will be great to know who want to
> volunteer for that group.
> Rafik
>
> 2010/11/2 Izumi AIZU <aizu at anr.org>
>>
>> Dear list,
>>
>> Thank you for many supports so far on our proposal.
>> Of course I welcome any critical views, as well.
>>
>> I also thank several people who expressed their willingness
>> to volunteer. More volunteers and also new names are
>> always encouraging.
>>
>> We haveto  eventually, or quickly, move to produce actual
>> work, and therefore I like to call for people identify
>> which of three areas, a) Strategy, b) Work plan, or c) Outreach
>> you are interested in to work on, and then need sort of
>> facilitators in each group, and if so needed set-up a separate
>> mailing list and/or other online tool and carry on the work.
>>
>> I have not discussed with Jeremy as to the details of these,
>> but I am sure we can help set-up mailing list or other tool,
>> or ask further volunteers to address these.
>>
>> Jeremy and I will of course be involved with all three areas,
>> but we really like others than the coordinators to take
>> the lead on each areas and we remain to coordinate the
>> overall work of our caucus.
>>
>> best,
>>
>> izumi
>>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
    governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101101/ed178727/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From ias_pk at yahoo.com  Tue Nov  2 03:05:49 2010
From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah)
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 00:05:49 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] Our strategy, work plan and outreach
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimby0ze1byeL3QkyEO3SOyBY1XjJpJ+R8E4qq+i@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTinnXi7Vw_X6Ggtb+w8qPe6RBdK50jMxrFCiPFqM@mail.gmail.com> <4CCD917E.4090209@paque.net> <791103.54415.qm@web55201.mail.re4.yahoo.com> <AANLkTinskYBxr4HpkfHSqoWujwQtGwKGncXPg5Sa07_O@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTimvmRgi35sKohwr4ky7q_hP1M6V-vBp_cVr5i9=@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTikfrSHy3L=wrzO0D50DF8rASHQPTHu3B1N1xUyw@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTimby0ze1byeL3QkyEO3SOyBY1XjJpJ+R8E4qq+i@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <676750.46793.qm@web33005.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

1.   Thanks Rafik. 

2.    Dear Izumi, as formation of three groups with light workload are being 
discussed (finally), I hope that this will help to organize IGC in a productive 
manner. I would like to choose the IGC Strategy Group.
Regards
Imran
Rafik, thank you so much for your volunteering for the strategy group
discussion lead. Especially as we all know
he was also the candidate for the co-coordinator position,
and we were concerned about the geographic balance,
so your role will be especially important and helpful for us.

I would encourage some more people to join Rafik and bring the work forward.

izumi

2010/11/2 Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>:
> Hello ,
> I would like to volunteer for taking the lead of strategy group and helping
> to coordinate with the others groups. it will be great to know who want to
> volunteer for that group.
> Rafik
>
> 2010/11/2 Izumi AIZU <aizu at anr.org>
>>
>> Dear list,
>>
>> Thank you for many supports so far on our proposal.
>> Of course I welcome any critical views, as well.
>>
>> I also thank several people who expressed their willingness
>> to volunteer. More volunteers and also new names are
>> always encouraging.
>>
>> We haveto  eventually, or quickly, move to produce actual
>> work, and therefore I like to call for people identify
>> which of three areas, a) Strategy, b) Work plan, or c) Outreach
>> you are interested in to work on, and then need sort of
>> facilitators in each group, and if so needed set-up a separate
>> mailing list and/or other online tool and carry on the work.
>>
>> I have not discussed with Jeremy as to the details of these,
>> but I am sure we can help set-up mailing list or other tool,
>> or ask further volunteers to address these.
>>
>> Jeremy and I will of course be involved with all three areas,
>> but we really like others than the coordinators to take
>> the lead on each areas and we remain to coordinate the
>> overall work of our caucus.
>>
>> best,
>>
>> izumi
>>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
    governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
________________________________
From: Izumi AIZU <aizu at anr.org>
To: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Sent: Tue, 2 November, 2010 8:57:19
Subject: Re: [governance] Our strategy, work plan and outreach
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101102/7deecaa0/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From ias_pk at yahoo.com  Tue Nov  2 03:19:25 2010
From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah)
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 00:19:25 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] Our strategy, work plan and outreach
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimby0ze1byeL3QkyEO3SOyBY1XjJpJ+R8E4qq+i@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTinnXi7Vw_X6Ggtb+w8qPe6RBdK50jMxrFCiPFqM@mail.gmail.com> <4CCD917E.4090209@paque.net> <791103.54415.qm@web55201.mail.re4.yahoo.com> <AANLkTinskYBxr4HpkfHSqoWujwQtGwKGncXPg5Sa07_O@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTimvmRgi35sKohwr4ky7q_hP1M6V-vBp_cVr5i9=@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTikfrSHy3L=wrzO0D50DF8rASHQPTHu3B1N1xUyw@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTimby0ze1byeL3QkyEO3SOyBY1XjJpJ+R8E4qq+i@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <837241.43773.qm@web33002.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Dear IGC Members, 
With reference to Outreach Plan, may we ask the members who are related with the 
academia or researchers networks to suggest that how we can encourage and 
involve academia / researchers of their network to join IGC for common dialogue 
and to make the Internet boundaries more robust and reliable through their R&D 
and Proposals.
Reagrds

Imran Ahmed Shah

________________________________
From: Izumi AIZU <aizu at anr.org>
To: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Sent: Tue, 2 November, 2010 8:57:19
Subject: Re: [governance] Our strategy, work plan and outreach

Rafik, thank you so much for your volunteering for the strategy group
discussion lead. Especially as we all know
he was also the candidate for the co-coordinator position,
and we were concerned about the geographic balance,
so your role will be especially important and helpful for us.

I would encourage some more people to join Rafik and bring the work forward.

izumi

2010/11/2 Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>:
> Hello ,
> I would like to volunteer for taking the lead of strategy group and helping
> to coordinate with the others groups. it will be great to know who want to
> volunteer for that group.
> Rafik
>
> 2010/11/2 Izumi AIZU <aizu at anr.org>
>>
>> Dear list,
>>
>> Thank you for many supports so far on our proposal.
>> Of course I welcome any critical views, as well.
>>
>> I also thank several people who expressed their willingness
>> to volunteer. More volunteers and also new names are
>> always encouraging.
>>
>> We haveto  eventually, or quickly, move to produce actual
>> work, and therefore I like to call for people identify
>> which of three areas, a) Strategy, b) Work plan, or c) Outreach
>> you are interested in to work on, and then need sort of
>> facilitators in each group, and if so needed set-up a separate
>> mailing list and/or other online tool and carry on the work.
>>
>> I have not discussed with Jeremy as to the details of these,
>> but I am sure we can help set-up mailing list or other tool,
>> or ask further volunteers to address these.
>>
>> Jeremy and I will of course be involved with all three areas,
>> but we really like others than the coordinators to take
>> the lead on each areas and we remain to coordinate the
>> overall work of our caucus.
>>
>> best,
>>
>> izumi
>>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
    governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101102/303a5c4a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at  Tue Nov  2 03:24:07 2010
From: wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at (Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at))
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 08:24:07 +0100
Subject: [governance] Our strategy, work plan and outreach
In-Reply-To: <837241.43773.qm@web33002.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <C8F57B27.F555%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>

I welcome this initiative. Certainly, there is GIGANET, but there are also other research activities ongoing, which could benefit from learning from each other. Relevant proposals coming from this list could be shared on our academic networks.

Wolfgang Benedek
University of Graz, Austria


Am 02.11.10 08:19 schrieb "Imran Ahmed Shah" unter <ias_pk at yahoo.com>:

Dear IGC Members,
With reference to Outreach Plan, may we ask the members who are related with the academia or researchers networks to suggest that how we can encourage and involve academia / researchers of their network to join IGC for common dialogue and to make the Internet boundaries more robust and reliable through their R&D and Proposals.
Reagrds

Imran Ahmed Shah
________________________________
From: Izumi AIZU <aizu at anr.org>
To: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Sent: Tue, 2 November, 2010 8:57:19
Subject: Re: [governance] Our strategy, work plan and outreach

Rafik, thank you so much for your volunteering for the strategy group
discussion lead. Especially as we all know
he was also the candidate for the co-coordinator position,
and we were concerned about the geographic balance,
so your role will be especially important and helpful for us.

I would encourage some more people to join Rafik and bring the work forward.

izumi

2010/11/2 Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>:
> Hello ,
> I would like to volunteer for taking the lead of strategy group and helping
> to coordinate with the others groups. it will be great to know who want to
> volunteer for that group.
> Rafik
>
> 2010/11/2 Izumi AIZU <aizu at anr.org>
>>
>> Dear list,
>>
>> Thank you for many supports so far on our proposal.
>> Of course I welcome any critical views, as well.
>>
>> I also thank several people who expressed their willingness
>> to volunteer. More volunteers and also new names are
>> always encouraging.
>>
>> We haveto  eventually, or quickly, move to produce actual
>> work, and therefore I like to call for people identify
>> which of three areas, a) Strategy, b) Work plan, or c) Outreach
>> you are interested in to work on, and then need sort of
>> facilitators in each group, and if so needed set-up a separate
>> mailing list and/or other online tool and carry on the work.
>>
>> I have not discussed with Jeremy as to the details of these,
>> but I am sure we can help set-up mailing list or other tool,
>> or ask further volunteers to address these.
>>
>> Jeremy and I will of course be involved with all three areas,
>> but we really like others than the coordinators to take
>> the lead on each areas and we remain to coordinate the
>> overall work of our caucus.
>>
>> best,
>>
>> izumi
>>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
    governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101102/ce3de1da/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From ias_pk at yahoo.com  Tue Nov  2 03:28:33 2010
From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah)
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 00:28:33 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] Our strategy, work plan and outreach
In-Reply-To: <676750.46793.qm@web33005.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <AANLkTinnXi7Vw_X6Ggtb+w8qPe6RBdK50jMxrFCiPFqM@mail.gmail.com> <4CCD917E.4090209@paque.net> <791103.54415.qm@web55201.mail.re4.yahoo.com> <AANLkTinskYBxr4HpkfHSqoWujwQtGwKGncXPg5Sa07_O@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTimvmRgi35sKohwr4ky7q_hP1M6V-vBp_cVr5i9=@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTikfrSHy3L=wrzO0D50DF8rASHQPTHu3B1N1xUyw@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTimby0ze1byeL3QkyEO3SOyBY1XjJpJ+R8E4qq+i@mail.gmail.com> <676750.46793.qm@web33005.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <382586.74357.qm@web33004.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Dear Izumi & all Friends,
IGC NomCom has recently defined a group of 10 Independent Experts for CSTD. 
With the same context, I would also like to draw the kind attention of NomCom 
Chair, that when the CSTD approves / choose them for the selected task and 
consultation, (it is suggested to) enroll this group at the IGC website and a 
communication interface may please be provided to them (e.g. separate mailing 
list). Other observers may join that list as well. It is also suggested that 
final outcomes of their review reports may please be published on the IGC 
official website. (Provided that their reports are not confidential and 
classified for CSTD)
Thanks
Imran Ahmed Shah

________________________________
From: Imran Ahmed Shah <ias_pk at yahoo.com>
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Izumi AIZU <aizu at anr.org>; Rafik Dammak 
<rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Sent: Tue, 2 November, 2010 12:05:49
Subject: Re: [governance] Our strategy, work plan and outreach

1.   Thanks Rafik. 

2.    Dear Izumi, as formation of three groups with light workload are being 
discussed (finally), I hope that this will help to organize IGC in a productive 
manner. I would like to choose the IGC Strategy Group.
Regards
Imran
Rafik, thank you so much for your volunteering for the strategy group
discussion lead. Especially as we all know
he was also the candidate for the co-coordinator position,
and we were concerned about the geographic balance,
so your role will be especially important and helpful for us.

I would encourage some more people to join Rafik and bring the work forward.

izumi

2010/11/2 Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>:
> Hello ,
> I would like to volunteer for taking the lead of strategy group and helping
> to coordinate with the others groups. it will be great to know who want to
> volunteer for that group.
> Rafik
>
> 2010/11/2 Izumi AIZU <aizu at anr.org>
>>
>> Dear list,
>>
>> Thank you for many supports so far on our proposal.
>> Of course I welcome any critical views, as well.
>>
>> I also thank several people who expressed their willingness
>> to volunteer. More volunteers and also new names are
>> always encouraging.
>>
>> We haveto  eventually, or quickly, move to produce actual
>> work, and therefore I like to call for people identify
>> which of three areas, a) Strategy, b) Work plan, or c) Outreach
>> you are interested in to work on, and then need sort of
>> facilitators in each group, and if so needed set-up a separate
>> mailing list and/or other online tool and carry on the work.
>>
>> I have not discussed with Jeremy as to the details of these,
>> but I am sure we can help set-up mailing list or other tool,
>> or ask further volunteers to address these.
>>
>> Jeremy and I will of course be involved with all three areas,
>> but we really like others than the coordinators to take
>> the lead on each areas and we remain to coordinate the
>> overall work of our caucus.
>>
>> best,
>>
>> izumi
>>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
    governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t 
________________________________
From: Izumi AIZU <aizu at anr.org>
To: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Sent: Tue, 2 November, 2010 8:57:19
Subject: Re: [governance] Our strategy, work plan and outreach
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101102/7ed7a669/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From roland at internetpolicyagency.com  Tue Nov  2 03:32:05 2010
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 07:32:05 +0000
Subject: [governance] Our strategy, work plan and outreach
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinnXi7Vw_X6Ggtb+w8qPe6RBdK50jMxrFCiPFqM@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTinnXi7Vw_X6Ggtb+w8qPe6RBdK50jMxrFCiPFqM@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <R8UPbIK157zMFAz9@internetpolicyagency.com>

In message 
<AANLkTinnXi7Vw_X6Ggtb+w8qPe6RBdK50jMxrFCiPFqM at mail.gmail.com>, at 
23:33:28 on Sun, 31 Oct 2010, Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org> writes

>we like to suggest that our group to come up with the followings.
>
>a) Strategy - for coming months, in the context of IGF mandate
>extension debate/negotiations around UN

Agreed. First of all it's necessary to decide on the objectives, and the 
target audience.

>b) Work Plan - based on the strategy, we need to plan ahead on how to
>work - to push our agenda - this may include forming Working Groups,
>ad hoc teams, use some additional online tools etc.

I see that people are already volunteering to form and join some 
workgroups, suggesting tools and so on. For the best possibility of 
co-ordination I suggest that we await the initial output of the Strategy 
group, so we know what sorts of other groups and teams would be most 
useful.

>c) Outreach Plan/actions
>One of the points we have discussed on the list was, if I may, the
>relative lack of outreach of our group, with larger Civil Society
>groups.

Going back to my earlier point about target audience, there are 
possibilities for additional outreach to other stakeholder groups (such 
as governments and private sector), and not just to additional Civil 
Society Groups.

But I'm particularly interested in the aspect of widening the number of 
Civil Society bodies who participate here, and would volunteer to do 
some recruiting work in that area.
-- 
Roland Perry
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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


From roland at internetpolicyagency.com  Tue Nov  2 04:09:15 2010
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 08:09:15 +0000
Subject: [governance] Our strategy, work plan and outreach
In-Reply-To: <382586.74357.qm@web33004.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <AANLkTinnXi7Vw_X6Ggtb+w8qPe6RBdK50jMxrFCiPFqM@mail.gmail.com>
 <4CCD917E.4090209@paque.net> <791103.54415.qm@web55201.mail.re4.yahoo.com>
 <AANLkTinskYBxr4HpkfHSqoWujwQtGwKGncXPg5Sa07_O@mail.gmail.com>
 <AANLkTimvmRgi35sKohwr4ky7q_hP1M6V-vBp_cVr5i9=@mail.gmail.com>
 <AANLkTikfrSHy3L=wrzO0D50DF8rASHQPTHu3B1N1xUyw@mail.gmail.com>
 <AANLkTimby0ze1byeL3QkyEO3SOyBY1XjJpJ+R8E4qq+i@mail.gmail.com>
 <676750.46793.qm@web33005.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
 <382586.74357.qm@web33004.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <DazriVNrc8zMFAii@internetpolicyagency.com>

In message <382586.74357.qm at web33004.mail.mud.yahoo.com>, at 00:28:33 on 
Tue, 2 Nov 2010, Imran Ahmed Shah <ias_pk at yahoo.com> writes
>, I would also like to draw the kind attention of NomCom Chair, that 
>when the CSTD approves / choose them for the selected task and 
>consultation, (it is suggested to) enroll this group at the IGC website 
>and a communication interface may please be provided to them (e.g. 
>separate mailing list). Other observers may join that list as well. It 
>is also suggested that final outcomes of their review reports may 
>please be published on the IGC official website. (Provided that their 
>reports are not confidential and classified for CSTD)

The final output of the WG on IGF will be public, and used as an input 
to the CSTD's 14th Session next May.

Observers are also likely to be interested in the draft outcomes of the 
First and Second WG meetings in December and February, and whether or 
not the outcome/digest of the open consultation in November is available 
for circulation.
-- 
Roland Perry
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From b.schombe at gmail.com  Tue Nov  2 05:33:54 2010
From: b.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin SCHOMBE)
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 10:33:54 +0100
Subject: [governance] Our strategy, work plan and outreach
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinnXi7Vw_X6Ggtb+w8qPe6RBdK50jMxrFCiPFqM@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTinnXi7Vw_X6Ggtb+w8qPe6RBdK50jMxrFCiPFqM@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTinwP8jDKjscrya=_gdnaezYKw2ib4zxCbrfG=a9@mail.gmail.com>

Hello everyone,
Izumi and Ginger just to pin some of our shortcomings from the first phase
of World Summit on the Information Society. There have been many mechanisms
and strategies, but what that was like concrete results? Many platforms
entities of civil society have disappeared.
Nevertheless, there were also many initiatives in the implementation of the
Geneva Plan of Action. But these initiatives are not so noticeable. For this
reason I propose that inventory is done to enable us to appreciate the ins
and outs of the actions undertaken, the strengths and weaknesses of the
actors to explore better prospects in 2015. It is work that must begin now.
It should also assess the mode of collaboration between civil society and
United Nations agencies, between civil society and  the public sector
(especially for developing countries), between civil society and the private
sector.
We need land in 2015 with strong arguments and well documented.

SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN
*COORDONNATEUR DU CENTRE AFRICAIN D'ECHANGE CULTUREL (CAFEC)
 ACADEMIE DES TIC
*COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC
*MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE
*NCUC/GNSO MEMBER (ICANN)

Téléphone mobile: +243998983491/+243811980914
email:                   b.schombe at gmail.com
blog:                     http://akimambo.unblog.fr



2010/10/31 Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org>

> Dear list,
>
> After starting the role of co-coordinator, I have been thinking, and
> also discussing
> with Jeremy, about the "way forward" - or more specifically, working
> method, modus operandi, of our caucus.
>
> Considering the many tasks ahead of us in relatively short time period, I
> think
> we need good division of labor and effective working team(s).
>
> We don't want to become a workhorse ;-), rather we would like to
> "coordinate", meaning to
> facilitate moves and works of many members of the caucus. The more people
> involved in the actual work, the better.
>
> For that, we like to suggest that our group to come up with the followings.
>
> a) Strategy - for coming months, in the context of IGF mandate
> extension debate/negotiations around UN
>
> b) Work Plan - based on the strategy, we need to plan ahead on how to
> work - to push our agenda - this may include forming Working Groups,
> ad hoc teams, use some additional online tools etc.
>
> c) Outreach Plan/actions
> One of the points we have discussed on the list was, if I may, the
> relative lack of outreach of our group, with larger Civil Society
> groups. Compared with WSIS days, we have less involvement from larger
> clouds of CS. How to address this and move forward.
>
> We like to ask you to think about these points, come up with opinions,
> suggestions and plans, and eventually, or quickly move to actions based on
> [rough] consensus with bottom-up ways.
>
> We also like some of you to become active members, taking leading roles
> for different items. Form working groups etc. To have wider division
> of labor of our work.
>
> Of course, we are open to your suggestions and also welcome more
> volunteers!
>
> best,
>
> izumi
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101102/be4d8011/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From dogwallah at gmail.com  Tue Nov  2 06:43:39 2010
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 13:43:39 +0300
Subject: [governance] Our strategy, work plan and outreach
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinnXi7Vw_X6Ggtb+w8qPe6RBdK50jMxrFCiPFqM@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTinnXi7Vw_X6Ggtb+w8qPe6RBdK50jMxrFCiPFqM@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTikEtpkbMUTTZW6wTb0Ssijt7+cF_MHgFRG16L6t@mail.gmail.com>

Izumi-san,

On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 5:33 PM, Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org> wrote:

>
> For that, we like to suggest that our group to come up with the followings.
>
> a) Strategy - for coming months, in the context of IGF mandate
> extension debate/negotiations around UN


This is the CS Internet Governance Caucus.  I don't understand why we
don't DO Internet Governance, instead we focus on talking about IG in
the IGF and UN entities.  I suggest our strategy should be how to
organise folk to engage more with W3C, IETF, the RIRs and ICANN and
the ITU.

I would be happy to work on the strategy team and work plan if we were
actually going to 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
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de  Tue Nov  2 07:05:14 2010
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=)
Date: Tue, 02 Nov 2010 12:05:14 +0100
Subject: AW: [governance] Our strategy, work plan and outreach
References: <AANLkTinnXi7Vw_X6Ggtb+w8qPe6RBdK50jMxrFCiPFqM@mail.gmail.com>
 <AANLkTikEtpkbMUTTZW6wTb0Ssijt7+cF_MHgFRG16L6t@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID:  <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07389@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

McTim is partly right. We should broader our approach. The ITU Resolution from Guadalajara gives a very good perspective and opens also the door for a new understanding of "enhanced cooperation". And indeed, while UN, IGF, ITU and ICANN are already under the radar of the IGC, we should also try to develop ideas for W3C, IETF and RIRs. 
 
Wolfgang

________________________________

Von: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com]
Gesendet: Di 02.11.2010 11:43
An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Izumi AIZU
Betreff: Re: [governance] Our strategy, work plan and outreach



Izumi-san,

On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 5:33 PM, Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org> wrote:

>
> For that, we like to suggest that our group to come up with the followings.
>
> a) Strategy - for coming months, in the context of IGF mandate
> extension debate/negotiations around UN


This is the CS Internet Governance Caucus.  I don't understand why we
don't DO Internet Governance, instead we focus on talking about IG in
the IGF and UN entities.  I suggest our strategy should be how to
organise folk to engage more with W3C, IETF, the RIRs and ICANN and
the ITU.

I would be happy to work on the strategy team and work plan if we were
actually going to 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
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 isolatedn at gmail.com  Tue Nov  2 07:41:47 2010
From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M)
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 17:11:47 +0530
Subject: [governance] Our strategy, work plan and outreach
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinnXi7Vw_X6Ggtb+w8qPe6RBdK50jMxrFCiPFqM@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTinnXi7Vw_X6Ggtb+w8qPe6RBdK50jMxrFCiPFqM@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTinRirz1Yq1tdr3x36XBig0fMwkiTmO9CyZ8FGdf@mail.gmail.com>

Hello,

IG Caucus lists 91 members as on 10th October.  Who are they? Where do they
come from? What organizations are represented? How many with multiple
members? What information do we have that individual members they truly
Civil Society people free of conflict of interest? In what ways can IGC
expand its base to represent the entire Civil Society?

This should be the first step in the way forward.

Thank you.


Sivasubramanian M
http://turiya.co.in

http://www.isocmadras.com
facebook: http://is.gd/x8Sh
LinkedIn: http://is.gd/x8U6
Twitter: http://is.gd/x8Vz




On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 8:03 PM, Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org> wrote:

> Dear list,
>
> After starting the role of co-coordinator, I have been thinking, and
> also discussing
> with Jeremy, about the "way forward" - or more specifically, working
> method, modus operandi, of our caucus.
>
> Considering the many tasks ahead of us in relatively short time period, I
> think
> we need good division of labor and effective working team(s).
>
> We don't want to become a workhorse ;-), rather we would like to
> "coordinate", meaning to
> facilitate moves and works of many members of the caucus. The more people
> involved in the actual work, the better.
>
> For that, we like to suggest that our group to come up with the followings.
>
> a) Strategy - for coming months, in the context of IGF mandate
> extension debate/negotiations around UN
>
> b) Work Plan - based on the strategy, we need to plan ahead on how to
> work - to push our agenda - this may include forming Working Groups,
> ad hoc teams, use some additional online tools etc.
>
> c) Outreach Plan/actions
> One of the points we have discussed on the list was, if I may, the
> relative lack of outreach of our group, with larger Civil Society
> groups. Compared with WSIS days, we have less involvement from larger
> clouds of CS. How to address this and move forward.
>
> We like to ask you to think about these points, come up with opinions,
> suggestions and plans, and eventually, or quickly move to actions based on
> [rough] consensus with bottom-up ways.
>
> We also like some of you to become active members, taking leading roles
> for different items. Form working groups etc. To have wider division
> of labor of our work.
>
> Of course, we are open to your suggestions and also welcome more
> volunteers!
>
> best,
>
> izumi
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101102/9df45dda/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From ias_pk at yahoo.com  Tue Nov  2 08:19:46 2010
From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah)
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 05:19:46 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] Our strategy, work plan and outreach
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinRirz1Yq1tdr3x36XBig0fMwkiTmO9CyZ8FGdf@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTinnXi7Vw_X6Ggtb+w8qPe6RBdK50jMxrFCiPFqM@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTinRirz1Yq1tdr3x36XBig0fMwkiTmO9CyZ8FGdf@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <322255.47714.qm@web33004.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Dear Izumi, 
I am also agree with the mentioned points of Siva Subramanian and first step for 
the Strategy Group, becasue , wehave seen the example of need, while preparation 
of Technical Experts for the CSTD required list. Hoever, only when majority 
accept.
 
If we have to sort out this kind of the information about the members of the 
IGC, the first membership form will have to be introduced, and will have to fill 
up immediately after the applying for subscription to mailing list. If it is 
agreed by the condenses that IGC have to segregate the members affiliations and 
representations, current members will also be invited to fill up the related 
form. However, only if the users agree on this and this kind of requirement have 
to be specified on the IGC website.
 
Why I am asking about the acceptance of the majority, because this may become a 
touchy point for a fresh comers or those who has just started their professional 
career among a list of great experience holders.
 
Imran 
________________________________
From: Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn at gmail.com>
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org>
Sent: Tue, 2 November, 2010 16:41:47
Subject: Re: [governance] Our strategy, work plan and outreach

Hello,

IG Caucus lists 91 members as on 10th October.  Who are they? Where do they come 
from? What organizations are represented? How many with multiple members? What 
information do we have that individual members they truly Civil Society people 
free of conflict of interest? In what ways can IGC expand its base to represent 
the entire Civil Society? 

This should be the first step in the way forward.

Thank you.

Sivasubramanian M
http://turiya.co.in

http://www.isocmadras.com
facebook: http://is.gd/x8Sh
LinkedIn: http://is.gd/x8U6
Twitter: http://is.gd/x8Vz





On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 8:03 PM, Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org> wrote:

Dear list,
>
>After starting the role of co-coordinator, I have been thinking, and
>also discussing
>with Jeremy, about the "way forward" - or more specifically, working
>method, modus operandi, of our caucus.
>
>Considering the many tasks ahead of us in relatively short time period, I think
>we need good division of labor and effective working team(s).
>
>We don't want to become a workhorse ;-), rather we would like to
>"coordinate", meaning to
>facilitate moves and works of many members of the caucus. The more people
>involved in the actual work, the better.
>
>For that, we like to suggest that our group to come up with the followings.
>
>a) Strategy - for coming months, in the context of IGF mandate
>extension debate/negotiations around UN
>
>b) Work Plan - based on the strategy, we need to plan ahead on how to
>work - to push our agenda - this may include forming Working Groups,
>ad hoc teams, use some additional online tools etc.
>
>c) Outreach Plan/actions
>One of the points we have discussed on the list was, if I may, the
>relative lack of outreach of our group, with larger Civil Society
>groups. Compared with WSIS days, we have less involvement from larger
>clouds of CS. How to address this and move forward.
>
>We like to ask you to think about these points, come up with opinions,
>suggestions and plans, and eventually, or quickly move to actions based on
>[rough] consensus with bottom-up ways.
>
>We also like some of you to become active members, taking leading roles
>for different items. Form working groups etc. To have wider division
>of labor of our work.
>
>Of course, we are open to your suggestions and also welcome more volunteers!
>
>best,
>
>izumi
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
>For all list information and functions, see:
>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101102/470442ae/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From isolatedn at gmail.com  Tue Nov  2 08:33:22 2010
From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M)
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 18:03:22 +0530
Subject: [governance] Our strategy, work plan and outreach
In-Reply-To: <322255.47714.qm@web33004.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <AANLkTinnXi7Vw_X6Ggtb+w8qPe6RBdK50jMxrFCiPFqM@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTinRirz1Yq1tdr3x36XBig0fMwkiTmO9CyZ8FGdf@mail.gmail.com>
	<322255.47714.qm@web33004.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTinJqiAKOSDJHRKCuXDDkjDOggySxYR-7SG4iEDF@mail.gmail.com>

We had exactly the problem of not knowing enough about our members at Isoc
India Chennai.  I designed a form as seen at page
http://isocmadras.blogspot.com/p/members.html designed using a google form
design software, which collects results in a Google spreadsheet.

This has been of ample help. IGC could take up a similar exercise for its
existing members and more importantly, move ahead to expand its membership
base *severalfold *to be in a position to represent the Civil Society
better.

Sivasubramanian M




On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 5:49 PM, Imran Ahmed Shah <ias_pk at yahoo.com> wrote:

>  Dear Izumi,
>
> I am also agree with the mentioned points of Siva Subramanian and first
> step for the Strategy Group, becasue , we have seen the example of need,
> while preparation of Technical Experts for the CSTD required list. Hoever,
> only when majority accept.
>
>
>
> If we have to sort out this kind of the information about the members of
> the IGC, the first membership form will have to be introduced, and will have
> to fill up immediately after the applying for subscription to mailing list.
> If it is agreed by the condenses that IGC have to segregate the members
> affiliations and representations, current members will also be invited to
> fill up the related form. However, only if the users agree on this and this
> kind of requirement have to be specified on the IGC website.
>
>
>
> Why I am asking about the acceptance of the majority, because this may
> become a touchy point for a fresh comers or those who has just started their
> professional career among a list of great experience holders.
>
>
>
> Imran
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn at gmail.com>
> *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org; Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org>
> *Sent:* Tue, 2 November, 2010 16:41:47
> *Subject:* Re: [governance] Our strategy, work plan and outreach
>
>
> Hello,
>
> IG Caucus lists 91 members as on 10th October.  Who are they? Where do they
> come from? What organizations are represented? How many with multiple
> members? What information do we have that individual members they truly
> Civil Society people free of conflict of interest? In what ways can IGC
> expand its base to represent the entire Civil Society?
>
> This should be the first step in the way forward.
>
> Thank you.
>
>
> Sivasubramanian M
> http://turiya.co.in
>
> http://www.isocmadras.com
> facebook: http://is.gd/x8Sh
> LinkedIn: http://is.gd/x8U6
> Twitter: http://is.gd/x8Vz
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 8:03 PM, Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org> wrote:
>
>> Dear list,
>>
>> After starting the role of co-coordinator, I have been thinking, and
>> also discussing
>> with Jeremy, about the "way forward" - or more specifically, working
>> method, modus operandi, of our caucus.
>>
>> Considering the many tasks ahead of us in relatively short time period, I
>> think
>> we need good division of labor and effective working team(s).
>>
>> We don't want to become a workhorse ;-), rather we would like to
>> "coordinate", meaning to
>> facilitate moves and works of many members of the caucus. The more people
>> involved in the actual work, the better.
>>
>> For that, we like to suggest that our group to come up with the
>> followings.
>>
>> a) Strategy - for coming months, in the context of IGF mandate
>> extension debate/negotiations around UN
>>
>> b) Work Plan - based on the strategy, we need to plan ahead on how to
>> work - to push our agenda - this may include forming Working Groups,
>> ad hoc teams, use some additional online tools etc.
>>
>> c) Outreach Plan/actions
>> One of the points we have discussed on the list was, if I may, the
>> relative lack of outreach of our group, with larger Civil Society
>> groups. Compared with WSIS days, we have less involvement from larger
>> clouds of CS. How to address this and move forward.
>>
>> We like to ask you to think about these points, come up with opinions,
>> suggestions and plans, and eventually, or quickly move to actions based on
>> [rough] consensus with bottom-up ways.
>>
>> We also like some of you to become active members, taking leading roles
>> for different items. Form working groups etc. To have wider division
>> of labor of our work.
>>
>> Of course, we are open to your suggestions and also welcome more
>> volunteers!
>>
>> best,
>>
>> izumi
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101102/d6964306/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From jeremy at ciroap.org  Tue Nov  2 09:31:31 2010
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 20:31:31 +0700
Subject: [governance] Very neutral statement on enhanced cooperation
Message-ID: <70E573F5-00B4-4837-89B7-C05B9DA7E479@ciroap.org>

We haven't, by any means, had enough discussion on the table yet to be close to settling a statement on enhanced cooperation for the upcoming UNDEP consultation on that topic, due this month.  But since we made such noise about non-governmental stakeholders being excluded from that consultation, it would be a shame if in the end we had nothing to contribute.

So, to stimulate a bit more discussion, I've drafted a very neutral, uncontentious and short statement on enhanced cooperation that, based on your feedback, can hopefully be beefed up into something worth submitting on behalf of the IGC.  Here it is:

"The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (CS-IGC) is pleased to present its views on the process towards enhanced cooperation on international public policy issues relating to the Internet.  We do not have any detailed prescription of the form which this process should take, but rather we take this opportunity to make three simple points. 

First is that enhanced cooperation must encompass all Internet-related public policy issues, second that the existing arrangements of relevant organisations (including the Internet Governance Forum) do not adequately implement this ideal of enhanced cooperation, and finally that whatever new arrangements may be put in place, civil society will play an integral part in them.

These points will be explained in turn:

1. Although much of the discussion of enhanced cooperation at WSIS turned around the narrow issue of internationalising the oversight of Internet naming and numbering functions, the Tunis Agenda expresses this principle far more broadly to encompass all existing Internet governance arrangements (see particularly paras 58-60 and 69).

2. The IGF in its present form is a very important part of that process, in that its multi-stakeholder process can help to shape the decisions that are taken on Internet related public policy issues in other fora.  However the full realisation of enhanced cooperation will require a multi-stakeholder process to extend to those other fora also.

There are various options for enhancing multi-stakeholder cooperation within and amongst all relevant organisations, ranging from a new umbrella governance institution, to a more lightweight multi-stakeholder observatory process perhaps hosted under the auspices of the IGF (pursuant to its mandate in paragraph 72(i)).

3. Paragraph 71 of the Tunis Agenda makes very clear that civil society is an integral participant in the development of any process towards enhanced cooperation.  Therefore the IGC, in our capacity as members of civil society, looks forward to contributing constructively in transparent, accountable and democratic multi-stakeholder consultations towards this end."

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

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

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101102/b0e202ee/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101102/b0e202ee/attachment.bin>

From dogwallah at gmail.com  Tue Nov  2 10:01:47 2010
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 17:01:47 +0300
Subject: [governance] Very neutral statement on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <70E573F5-00B4-4837-89B7-C05B9DA7E479@ciroap.org>
References: <70E573F5-00B4-4837-89B7-C05B9DA7E479@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=fBm1HP34r4Cs6m+R7VYgXC16n12mHbPRa4JM5@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 4:31 PM, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:
> We haven't, by any means, had enough discussion on the table yet to be close
> to settling a statement on enhanced cooperation for the upcoming UNDEP
> consultation on that topic, due this month.  But since we made such noise
> about non-governmental stakeholders being excluded from that consultation,
> it would be a shame if in the end we had nothing to contribute.
> So, to stimulate a bit more discussion, I've drafted a very neutral,
> uncontentious and short statement on enhanced cooperation that, based on
> your feedback, can hopefully be beefed up into something worth submitting on
> behalf of the IGC.  Here it is:
>
> "The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (CS-IGC) is pleased to present
> its views on the process towards enhanced cooperation on international
> public policy issues relating to the Internet.  We do not have any detailed
> prescription of the form which this process should take, but rather we take
> this opportunity to make three simple points.
> First is that enhanced cooperation must

I would rather say "should", not "must".

encompass all Internet-related
> public policy issues, second that the existing arrangements of relevant
> organisations (including the Internet Governance Forum) do not adequately
> implement this ideal of enhanced cooperation

They implement my ideal of EC.  What is your ideal?


, and finally that whatever new
> arrangements may be put in place, civil society will play an integral part
> in them.
> These points will be explained in turn:
> 1. Although much of the discussion of enhanced cooperation at WSIS turned
> around the narrow issue of internationalising the oversight of Internet
> naming and numbering functions, the Tunis Agenda expresses this principle
> far more broadly to encompass all existing Internet governance arrangements
> (see particularly paras 58-60 and 69).

I would rather say "far more broadly". and leave it at that.  My
reading of paras 58-60 and 69 is not as sweeping as yours.


> 2. The IGF in its present form is a very important part of that process, in
> that its multi-stakeholder process can help to shape the decisions that are
> taken on Internet related public policy issues in other fora.

Is this actually true?

However the
> full realisation of enhanced cooperation will require a multi-stakeholder
> process to extend to those other fora also.

Hmm, are not most of the other fora also MS?

> There are various options for enhancing multi-stakeholder cooperation within
> and amongst all relevant organisations, ranging from a new umbrella
> governance institution, to a more lightweight multi-stakeholder observatory
> process perhaps hosted under the auspices of the IGF (pursuant to its
> mandate in paragraph 72(i)).

Why give options?  Can't we just say:  "There are various options for
enhancing multi-stakeholder cooperation within and amongst all
relevant organisations."

If we are going to give options, I would suggest we include the
lightest weight one, which would be to let the existing orgs continue
their current cooperation.

> 3. Paragraph 71 of the Tunis Agenda makes very clear that civil society
> is an integral participant in the development of any process towards
> enhanced cooperation.  Therefore the IGC, in our capacity as members of
> civil society, looks forward to contributing constructively in transparent,
> accountable and democratic multi-stakeholder consultations towards this
> end."

that para is fine with 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 jeremy at ciroap.org  Tue Nov  2 10:45:01 2010
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 21:45:01 +0700
Subject: [governance] Our strategy, work plan and outreach
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimby0ze1byeL3QkyEO3SOyBY1XjJpJ+R8E4qq+i@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTinnXi7Vw_X6Ggtb+w8qPe6RBdK50jMxrFCiPFqM@mail.gmail.com> <4CCD917E.4090209@paque.net> <791103.54415.qm@web55201.mail.re4.yahoo.com> <AANLkTinskYBxr4HpkfHSqoWujwQtGwKGncXPg5Sa07_O@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTimvmRgi35sKohwr4ky7q_hP1M6V-vBp_cVr5i9=@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTikfrSHy3L=wrzO0D50DF8rASHQPTHu3B1N1xUyw@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTimby0ze1byeL3QkyEO3SOyBY1XjJpJ+R8E4qq+i@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <241F3D53-5A84-4E08-9494-C8E65DBD208A@ciroap.org>

On 02/11/2010, at 10:57 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote:

> We haveto  eventually, or quickly, move to produce actual
> work, and therefore I like to call for people identify
> which of three areas, a) Strategy, b) Work plan, or c) Outreach
> you are interested in to work on, and then need sort of
> facilitators in each group, and if so needed set-up a separate
> mailing list and/or other online tool and carry on the work.
> 
> I have not discussed with Jeremy as to the details of these,
> but I am sure we can help set-up mailing list or other tool,
> or ask further volunteers to address these.

I have just set up three mailing lists.  Unfortunately I don't currently have the facility to set them up under igcaucus.org, so they are set up under igf-online.net instead.  You can join by visiting the relevant Web page and clicking "Subscribe":

http://igf-online.net/wws/info/strategy
http://igf-online.net/wws/info/workplan
http://igf-online.net/wws/info/outreach

Sorry in advance for any tardy replies on my part.  I am currently in Laos and the Internet connection at my hotel is very bad.

-- 
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 --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101102/787c416d/attachment.bin>

From avri at psg.com  Tue Nov  2 10:51:55 2010
From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 10:51:55 -0400
Subject: [governance] Our strategy, work plan and outreach
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimvmRgi35sKohwr4ky7q_hP1M6V-vBp_cVr5i9=@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTinnXi7Vw_X6Ggtb+w8qPe6RBdK50jMxrFCiPFqM@mail.gmail.com> <4CCD917E.4090209@paque.net> <791103.54415.qm@web55201.mail.re4.yahoo.com> <AANLkTinskYBxr4HpkfHSqoWujwQtGwKGncXPg5Sa07_O@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTimvmRgi35sKohwr4ky7q_hP1M6V-vBp_cVr5i9=@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <87AC9D86-8AE2-497C-B24E-450CB7EC4867@psg.com>

Hi,

I also agree that it is a good idea.

I think separate email list are an ok idea as long as they all have open archives and they should allow sending even by IGC subscribers members who aren't subscribers, though those need to be moderated to prevent spam etc...  I can probably also help somewhat in setting up environments for work or email lists.

I would be interested in participating in a strategy group, but am _not_ volunteering for a facilitator role.

a.



On 1 Nov 2010, at 20:45, Izumi AIZU wrote:

> Dear list,
> 
> Thank you for many supports so far on our proposal.
> Of course I welcome any critical views, as well.
> 
> I also thank several people who expressed their willingness
> to volunteer. More volunteers and also new names are
> always encouraging.
> 
> We haveto  eventually, or quickly, move to produce actual
> work, and therefore I like to call for people identify
> which of three areas, a) Strategy, b) Work plan, or c) Outreach
> you are interested in to work on, and then need sort of
> facilitators in each group, and if so needed set-up a separate
> mailing list and/or other online tool and carry on the work.
> 
> I have not discussed with Jeremy as to the details of these,
> but I am sure we can help set-up mailing list or other tool,
> or ask further volunteers to address these.
> 
> Jeremy and I will of course be involved with all three areas,
> but we really like others than the coordinators to take
> the lead on each areas and we remain to coordinate the
> overall work of our caucus.
> 
> best,
> 
> izumi
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2010/11/2 Pascal Bekono <pbekono at gmail.com>:
>> Hello,
>> 
>> I agree with this new approach, it will really enhance members'
>> participation. I am available to join a group.
>> 
>> Greetings,
>> 
>> ~Pascal
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 2010/11/1, shaila mistry <shailam at yahoo.com>:
>>> Dear Izumi
>>> I like the three pronged approach for working together in the coming year.
>>> I would like to be more active in the group and offer you my full support.
>>> Please let me know how I can be more involved.
>>> regards
>>> Shaila Rao Mistry
>>> 
>>> 
>>>  Life is too short ....challenge the rules
>>> Forgive quickly ... love truly ...and tenderly
>>> Laugh constantly.....and never stop dreaming!
>>> 
>>> On 10/31/2010 10:03 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote:
>>> Dear list,
>>>> 
>>>> After starting the role of co-coordinator, I have been thinking, and
>>>> also discussing
>>>> with Jeremy, about the "way forward" - or more specifically, working
>>>> method, modusoperandi, of our caucus.
>>>> 
>>>> Considering the many tasks ahead of us in relatively short time period, I
>>>> think
>>>> we need good division of labor and effective working team(s).
>>>> 
>>>> We don't want to become a workhorse ;-), rather we would like to
>>>> "coordinate", meaning to
>>>> facilitate moves and works of many members of the caucus. The more people
>>>> involved in the actual work, the better.
>>>> 
>>>> For that, we like to suggest that our group to come up with the followings.
>>>> 
>>>> a) Strategy - for coming months, in the context of IGF mandate
>>>> extension debate/negotiations around UN
>>>> 
>>>> b) Work Plan - based on the strategy, we need to plan ahead on how to
>>>> work - to push our agenda - this may include forming Working Groups,
>>>> ad hoc teams, use some additional online tools etc.
>>>> 
>>>> c) Outreach Plan/actions
>>>> One of the points we have discussed on the list was, if I may, the
>>>> relative lack of outreach of our group, with larger Civil Society
>>>> groups. Compared with WSIS days, we have less involvement from larger
>>>> clouds of CS. How to address this and move forward.
>>>> 
>>>> We like to ask you to think about these points, come up with opinions,
>>>> suggestions and plans, and eventually, or quickly move to actions based on
>>>> [rough] consensus with bottom-up ways.
>>>> 
>>>> We also like some of you to become active members, taking leading roles
>>>> for different items. Form working groups etc. To have wider division
>>>> of labor of our work.
>>>> 
>>>> Of course, we are open to your suggestions and also welcome more
>>>> volunteers!
>>>> 
>>>> best,
>>>> 
>>>> izumi
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>>> 
>>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org  For all list information and
>>>> functions,
>>>> see:      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance  Translate this
>>>> email:
>>>> http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Ginger               (Virginia) Paque
>>> IGCBPOnline Coordinator
>>> DiploFoundation
>>> www.diplomacy.edu/ig
>>> The               latest from Diplo...
>>> http://igbook.diplomacy.edu/is the online companion to An
>>> Introduction to Internet Governance, Diplo's             publication on
>>> IG. Download the book, read the blogs and             post             your
>>> comments.
>>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>> 
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> 
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
>                         >> Izumi Aizu <<
> 
>           Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo
> 
>            Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,
>                                   Japan
>                                  * * * * *
>            << Writing the Future of the History >>
>                                 www.anr.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 mueller at syr.edu  Tue Nov  2 11:43:21 2010
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 11:43:21 -0400
Subject: [governance] RE: CSTD Representatives - report from NomCom
In-Reply-To: <C8F1C32D.12F3F%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
References: <C8F1C32D.12F3F%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC125B373@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>

Thanks to the Nomcom for their very quick work. This is a strong and diverse CS representative group and I am happy to be associated with it. 

> -----Original Message-----
> 
> Anriette Esterhuysen
> Parminder Singh
> Michael Gurstein
> Wolfgang Kleinwachter
> Izumi Aizu
> Katitza Rodriguez
> Marilia Maciel
> William J Drake
> Divina Frau-Meigs
> Milton Mueller
> 
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From isolatedn at gmail.com  Tue Nov  2 11:46:55 2010
From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M)
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 21:16:55 +0530
Subject: [governance] Our strategy, work plan and outreach
In-Reply-To: <241F3D53-5A84-4E08-9494-C8E65DBD208A@ciroap.org>
References: <AANLkTinnXi7Vw_X6Ggtb+w8qPe6RBdK50jMxrFCiPFqM@mail.gmail.com>
	<4CCD917E.4090209@paque.net>
	<791103.54415.qm@web55201.mail.re4.yahoo.com>
	<AANLkTinskYBxr4HpkfHSqoWujwQtGwKGncXPg5Sa07_O@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTimvmRgi35sKohwr4ky7q_hP1M6V-vBp_cVr5i9=@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTikfrSHy3L=wrzO0D50DF8rASHQPTHu3B1N1xUyw@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTimby0ze1byeL3QkyEO3SOyBY1XjJpJ+R8E4qq+i@mail.gmail.com>
	<241F3D53-5A84-4E08-9494-C8E65DBD208A@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <AANLkTinK-M3VGXqLKtMSKUvVODBTsUtYcNm9Bav2xhrn@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Jeremy

On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 8:15 PM, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:

> On 02/11/2010, at 10:57 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote:
>
> > We haveto  eventually, or quickly, move to produce actual
> > work, and therefore I like to call for people identify
> > which of three areas, a) Strategy, b) Work plan, or c) Outreach
> > you are interested in to work on, and then need sort of
> > facilitators in each group, and if so needed set-up a separate
> > mailing list and/or other online tool and carry on the work.
> >
> > I have not discussed with Jeremy as to the details of these,
> > but I am sure we can help set-up mailing list or other tool,
> > or ask further volunteers to address these.
>
> I have just set up three mailing lists.


Is this a good idea?  With so many members in the IGC list, the active
participants in discussions is hardly thirty or forty.  In three new
sub-lists, what would be the total number of subscribers and out of the
total, what would be size of active participants? One or more of these lists
could become quiet after while.

Is there any difficulty in managing the tasks with three new threads in the
Governance list itself?

Sivasubramanian M



> Unfortunately I don't currently have the facility to set them up under
> igcaucus.org, so they are set up under igf-online.net instead.  You can
> join by visiting the relevant Web page and clicking "Subscribe":
>
> http://igf-online.net/wws/info/strategy
> http://igf-online.net/wws/info/workplan
> http://igf-online.net/wws/info/outreach
>
> Sorry in advance for any tardy replies on my part.  I am currently in Laos
> and the Internet connection at my hotel is very bad.
>
> --
> Jeremy Malcolm
> Project Coordinator
> Consumers International
> Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East
> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur,
> Malaysia
> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
>
> CI is 50
> Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in
> 2010.
> Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer
> rights around the world.
> http://www.consumersinternational.org/50
>
> Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless
> necessary.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101102/70256bad/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at  Tue Nov  2 11:47:41 2010
From: wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at (Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at))
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 16:47:41 +0100
Subject: [governance] RE: CSTD Representatives - report from NomCom
In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC125B373@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <C8F5F12D.F5D8%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>

Looks great. Wish You good luck!

Wolfgang Benedek


Am 02.11.10 16:43 schrieb "Milton L Mueller" unter <mueller at syr.edu>:

> Thanks to the Nomcom for their very quick work. This is a strong and diverse
> CS representative group and I am happy to be associated with it.
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> 
>> Anriette Esterhuysen
>> Parminder Singh
>> Michael Gurstein
>> Wolfgang Kleinwachter
>> Izumi Aizu
>> Katitza Rodriguez
>> Marilia Maciel
>> William J Drake
>> Divina Frau-Meigs
>> Milton Mueller
>> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

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

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

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

From mueller at syr.edu  Tue Nov  2 12:02:54 2010
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 12:02:54 -0400
Subject: [governance] Our strategy, work plan and outreach
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTim-AT2ZxwHYa-+noinkHvHJxNm7B5ayFBt1oBSu@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTinnXi7Vw_X6Ggtb+w8qPe6RBdK50jMxrFCiPFqM@mail.gmail.com>
	<4CCD917E.4090209@paque.net>
	<AANLkTimE+pzvbz1c-5PMZDSSC-QB4DrRcM6qMicvx55f@mail.gmail.com>
 <AANLkTim-AT2ZxwHYa-+noinkHvHJxNm7B5ayFBt1oBSu@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC125B378@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>

Who is against "better and more effective collaboration?" ;-) Not me.
But...Just be aware that a more complex organizational division of labor will require more effort to be put into coordination, and methods must be devised to allow the whole group to review and approve the work of the subgroups.

--MM

From: Hempal Shrestha [mailto:hempalshrestha at gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, October 31, 2010 2:26 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google
Cc: Ginger Paque; Izumi AIZU
Subject: Re: [governance] Our strategy, work plan and outreach

+1, I am also in for more engaged and collaborative working groups on various assignments / tasks

Regards,

Hempal Shrestha
On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 12:06 AM, Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google <tracyhackshaw at gmail.com<mailto:tracyhackshaw at gmail.com>> wrote:
I agree with Ginger.

Let's take this beyond the theoretical and beyond analysis (i.e.
Endless Discussion) and into practical action.

I am willing to support.

Rgds,

Tracy

On 10/31/10, Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com<mailto:gpaque at gmail.com>> wrote:
> Hi everyone,
> I would like to ask for concrete support for Izumi's initiative. Last year,
> these attempts did not get past a 'theoretical' stage. The IGC is now in a
> very healthy, solid condition, and I think we should take advantage of
> Izumi's and Jeremy's willingness to review and organize our strategies to
> make our work more effective.
>
> Count me in!
> Best, Ginger
>
> On 10/31/2010 10:03 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote:
>>
>> Dear list,
>>
>> After starting the role of co-coordinator, I have been thinking, and
>> also discussing
>> with Jeremy, about the "way forward" - or more specifically, working
>> method, modus operandi, of our caucus.
>>
>> Considering the many tasks ahead of us in relatively short time period, I
>> think
>> we need good division of labor and effective working team(s).
>>
>> We don't want to become a workhorse ;-), rather we would like to
>> "coordinate", meaning to
>> facilitate moves and works of many members of the caucus. The more people
>> involved in the actual work, the better.
>>
>> For that, we like to suggest that our group to come up with the
>> followings.
>>
>> a) Strategy - for coming months, in the context of IGF mandate
>> extension debate/negotiations around UN
>>
>> b) Work Plan - based on the strategy, we need to plan ahead on how to
>> work - to push our agenda - this may include forming Working Groups,
>> ad hoc teams, use some additional online tools etc.
>>
>> c) Outreach Plan/actions
>> One of the points we have discussed on the list was, if I may, the
>> relative lack of outreach of our group, with larger Civil Society
>> groups. Compared with WSIS days, we have less involvement from larger
>> clouds of CS. How to address this and move forward.
>>
>> We like to ask you to think about these points, come up with opinions,
>> suggestions and plans, and eventually, or quickly move to actions based on
>> [rough] consensus with bottom-up ways.
>>
>> We also like some of you to become active members, taking leading roles
>> for different items. Form working groups etc. To have wider division
>> of labor of our work.
>>
>> Of course, we are open to your suggestions and also welcome more
>> volunteers!
>>
>> best,
>>
>> izumi
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org<mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org<mailto:governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org>
>>
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>
> --
>
>
> Ginger (Virginia) Paque
> IGCBP Online Coordinator
> DiploFoundation
> www.diplomacy.edu/ig<http://www.diplomacy.edu/ig>
>
> The latest from Diplo...
> http://igbook.diplomacy.edu is the online companion to An Introduction to
> Internet Governance, Diplo's publication on IG. Download the book, read the
> blogs and post your comments.
--
Sent from my mobile device
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
    governance at lists.cpsr.org<mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org<mailto:governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org>

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

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



--
Best Regards,

Hempal Shrestha
Kathmandu, Nepal
Mobile No : 977-98510-77031


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101102/85cedd31/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From b.schombe at gmail.com  Tue Nov  2 12:34:21 2010
From: b.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin SCHOMBE)
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 17:34:21 +0100
Subject: [governance] CSTD Representatives - report from NomCom
In-Reply-To: <C8F1C32D.12F3F%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
References: <C8F1C32D.12F3F%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=h7a1wN2Y7usoL_=OAAYQDUS8FO=9q0o7D7pN1@mail.gmail.com>

Congratulations to all, it's a very good selection.
But Africa is still lacking.



2010/10/30 Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>

> On behalf of the Nomcom, I can now announce that the following were chosen
> as  IGC civil society nominations to CSTD, and we would ask that the co ­
> ordinators deal with forwarding the names to CSTD in due course. Our report
> follows the names (which are in no particular order).
>
> Anriette Esterhuysen
> Parminder Singh
> Michael Gurstein
> Wolfgang Kleinwachter
> Izumi Aizu
> Katitza Rodriguez
> Marilia Maciel
> William J Drake
> Divina Frau-Meigs
> Milton Mueller
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101102/20d1a6e6/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From anriette at apc.org  Tue Nov  2 14:31:40 2010
From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen)
Date: Tue, 02 Nov 2010 20:31:40 +0200
Subject: [governance] RE: CSTD Representatives - report from NomCom
In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC125B373@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
References: <C8F1C32D.12F3F%ian.peter@ianpeter.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC125B373@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <4CD0590C.1010607@apc.org>

Agree with Milton. Thanks all.

Anriette

On 02/11/10 17:43, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> Thanks to the Nomcom for their very quick work. This is a strong and diverse CS representative group and I am happy to be associated with it.
>
>    
>> -----Original Message-----
>>
>> Anriette Esterhuysen
>> Parminder Singh
>> Michael Gurstein
>> Wolfgang Kleinwachter
>> Izumi Aizu
>> Katitza Rodriguez
>> Marilia Maciel
>> William J Drake
>> Divina Frau-Meigs
>> Milton Mueller
>>
>>      
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>       governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>       governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 anriette at apc.org
executive director
association for progressive communications
www.apc.org

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

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

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


From shailam at yahoo.com  Tue Nov  2 15:01:23 2010
From: shailam at yahoo.com (shaila mistry)
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 12:01:23 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] Our strategy, work plan and outreach
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinK-M3VGXqLKtMSKUvVODBTsUtYcNm9Bav2xhrn@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTinnXi7Vw_X6Ggtb+w8qPe6RBdK50jMxrFCiPFqM@mail.gmail.com> <4CCD917E.4090209@paque.net> <791103.54415.qm@web55201.mail.re4.yahoo.com> <AANLkTinskYBxr4HpkfHSqoWujwQtGwKGncXPg5Sa07_O@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTimvmRgi35sKohwr4ky7q_hP1M6V-vBp_cVr5i9=@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTikfrSHy3L=wrzO0D50DF8rASHQPTHu3B1N1xUyw@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTimby0ze1byeL3QkyEO3SOyBY1XjJpJ+R8E4qq+i@mail.gmail.com> <241F3D53-5A84-4E08-9494-C8E65DBD208A@ciroap.org> <AANLkTinK-M3VGXqLKtMSKUvVODBTsUtYcNm9Bav2xhrn@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <36496.3544.qm@web55207.mail.re4.yahoo.com>

Hi Jeremy
If we are to follow the three teams/lists strategy we still needs to be open to 
one another to enable greater transparency and participation.Often viewing a 
discussion on one list may stimulate interest and pertinent comments from 
members of  another.
Shaila



From: Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn at gmail.com>To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 
Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org>

Cc: Izumi AIZU <aizu at anr.org>
Sent: Tue, November 2, 2010 8:46:55 AM
Subject: Re: [governance] Our strategy, work plan and outreach

Dear Jeremy


On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 8:15 PM, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:

On 02/11/2010, at 10:57 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote:
>
>> We haveto  eventually, or quickly, move to produce actual
>> work, and therefore I like to call for people identify
>> which of three areas, a) Strategy, b) Work plan, or c) Outreach
>> you are interested in to work on, and then need sort of
>> facilitators in each group, and if so needed set-up a separate
>> mailing list and/or other online tool and carry on the work.
>>
>> I have not discussed with Jeremy as to the details of these,
>> but I am sure we can help set-up mailing list or other tool,
>> or ask further volunteers to address these.
>
>I have just set up three mailing lists.  

Is this a good idea?  With so many members in the IGC list, the active 
participants in discussions is hardly thirty or forty.  In three new sub-lists, 
what would be the total number of subscribers and out of the total, what would 
be size of active participants? One or more of these lists could become quiet 
after while.

Is there any difficulty in managing the tasks with three new threads in the 
Governance list itself?

Sivasubramanian M

 
Unfortunately I don't currently have the facility to set them up under 
igcaucus.org, so they are set up under igf-online.net instead.  You can join by 
visiting the relevant Web page and clicking "Subscribe":
>
>http://igf-online.net/wws/info/strategy
>http://igf-online.net/wws/info/workplan
>http://igf-online.net/wws/info/outreach
>
>Sorry in advance for any tardy replies on my part.  I am currently in Laos and 
>the Internet connection at my hotel is very bad.
>
>--
>Jeremy Malcolm
>Project Coordinator
>Consumers International
>KualaLumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East
>Lot 5-1 WismaWIM, 7 JalanAbangHajiOpeng, TTDI, 60000 KualaLumpur, Malaysia
>Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
>
>CI is 50
>Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010.
>Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer rights 
>around the world.
>http://www.consumersinternational.org/50
>
>Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101102/53e350db/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From jeremy at ciroap.org  Tue Nov  2 19:57:06 2010
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2010 06:57:06 +0700
Subject: [governance] Our strategy, work plan and outreach
In-Reply-To: <36496.3544.qm@web55207.mail.re4.yahoo.com>
References: <AANLkTinnXi7Vw_X6Ggtb+w8qPe6RBdK50jMxrFCiPFqM@mail.gmail.com> <4CCD917E.4090209@paque.net> <791103.54415.qm@web55201.mail.re4.yahoo.com> <AANLkTinskYBxr4HpkfHSqoWujwQtGwKGncXPg5Sa07_O@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTimvmRgi35sKohwr4ky7q_hP1M6V-vBp_cVr5i9=@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTikfrSHy3L=wrzO0D50DF8rASHQPTHu3B1N1xUyw@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTimby0ze1byeL3QkyEO3SOyBY1XjJpJ+R8E4qq+i@mail.gmail.com> <241F3D53-5A84-4E08-9494-C8E65DBD208A@ciroap.org> <AANLkTinK-M3VGXqLKtMSKUvVODBTsUtYcNm9Bav2xhrn@mail.gmail.com> <36496.3544.qm@web55207.mail.re4.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <4C8D158F-D320-49B4-96AE-C13B50B00681@ciroap.org>

On 03/11/2010, at 2:01 AM, shaila mistry wrote:

> If we are to follow the three teams/lists strategy we still needs to be open to one another to enable greater transparency and participation.Often viewing a discussion on one list may stimulate interest and pertinent comments from members of  another.


Yes they are all publicly archived, at the links I sent before.  Also, if you want to be able to post to the list without receiving the messages, then join it and change your receiving settings to "No mail".

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

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

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101103/464aaa60/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101103/464aaa60/attachment.bin>

From jefsey at jefsey.com  Tue Nov  2 21:19:35 2010
From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin)
Date: Wed, 03 Nov 2010 02:19:35 +0100
Subject: [governance] Very neutral statement on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <70E573F5-00B4-4837-89B7-C05B9DA7E479@ciroap.org>
References: <70E573F5-00B4-4837-89B7-C05B9DA7E479@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20101103021355.05d70e60@jefsey.com>


Dear Jeremy,

Actually, your document is clear, comprehensive, and matter of fact, 
but I am afraid it is not neutral. The reason that is the case is 
that currently the focus is on "enhanced cooperation", while it 
should rather be on "public".

A.  To better understand my point, let us take the European 
definition of "enhanced cooperation" per the Lisbon Treaty: 
<http://europa.eu/scadplus/glossary/enhanced_cooperation_en.htm>http://europa.eu/scadplus/glossary/enhanced_cooperation_en.htm.

This definition (also mutually adopted by governments) definitely 
conflicts with the Tunis Agenda.

Merging them clarifies the issue:
- The European definition states that some countries can enhance 
their cooperation on a case by case basis
- The Tunis definition states that governments are to be on equal footing.

This can only be conciliated if one only selects those cases where 
all governments are on equal footing.

1) Tunis identified two such areas:
- your narrow issue of internationalizing the oversight of the 
Internet naming and numbering functions
- art. 71: to be responsive to innovation (i.e. supposedly identified 
emerging enhancements).

2) and it determined what an enhanced cooperation should bring to 
governments in these areas: a better understanding and definition of 
globally-applicable principles on public policy issues that are 
associated with the coordination and management of critical Internet 
resources (Art. 70).


B.  This shows that all of this was understandable in the Tunis 
initial context but that it is meaningless because it is incoherent 
with the desired innovation, i.e. the enhancement of the world 
digital ecosystem that supports what is to be a societal evolution.
- WSIS is about information society, and enhanced cooperation is 
about its public issues (dynamic into the future)
- What is defined hereinabove regards the Internet and governments 
(stability from the past).

The emergence of innovation that the IGF has more or less reported 
makes "enhanced cooperation over the world digital ecosystem network 
public issues" different from "governments' deeper views on the 
Internet". This is why "enhanced cooperation must encompass all 
Internet-related public policy issues" was fully acceptable in an 
ICANN/ISOC/IETF pre-WSIS GAC meeting, but then becomes biased towards 
a political and technological status quo in a today's civil-society statement.


C.  We, therefore, must start questioning every involved topic:

- what is the world digital ecosystem (WDE) that the WSIS has enlightened?
- what is the WDE network (WDEN)?
- what are the WDEN related "public issues"?
- from the identification of these "public issues", what are the 
regalian digital functions?
- how better can these regalian digital functions be cooperated?
- how can this be applied to particular cases, such as the Internet? 
The IETF mission is to influence those who design, use, and manage 
the Internet for it to work better. How will a better cooperated 
regalian digital function participate in the Internet enhancement? 
What is to be the role that is to be acknowledged to civil society in 
this process? (I note that in this particular Internet example, the 
non-Tunis identified and the prevalent Internet users' community 
entered the IETF process through a young but formalized and quite 
active IUCG [Internet Users Contributing Group], and maintains a 
civil society related section 
(http://iucg.org/wiki/Translating_Civil_Society_preocupations).


D.  The reason why I think this issue is a major one and must 
seriously be addressed is that what is at stake is the replacement of 
the "modern State" that we inherited from the book and that we now 
adapt to the digital network context. In particular, experience shows 
(GAC at ICANN) that enhanced cooperation has to be reached by 
specialized points of enhanced cooperation, or enhanced 
cooperations  (as organizations) on specialized topics, in turn 
structurally completing the thematic dynamic coalitions.

The only existing one that we can observe is precisely the 
ICANN/GAC/ISOC/IETF/IANA enhanced cooperation. The consideration of 
this enhanced cooperation structure, which is not prepared to face 
the emergence of innovation in the use of the Internet (naming, 
presentation layer, addressing, IPv6, etc.), shows that the digital 
community requires a better understanding of what the World Digital 
Ecosystem Network is and what its critical resources truly are. This 
also questions the IGF as an observatory of the emergence of digital 
evolution, and the lack of a technical evolution matching process by 
a missing World Digital Ecosystem Governance.

This has to be clearly reported to the UN General Secretary for the 
upcoming governmental UNDEP consultation on enhanced cooperation. 
IMHO, this also calls for a third WSIS meeting, in a few years time, 
when governments have, individually and in cooperation, assimilated 
and validated the points described hereinabove.

Regards.
jfc


At 14:31 02/11/2010, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>We haven't, by any means, had enough discussion on the table yet to 
>be close to settling a statement on enhanced cooperation for the 
>upcoming UNDEP consultation on that topic, due this month.  But 
>since we made such noise about non-governmental stakeholders being 
>excluded from that consultation, it would be a shame if in the end 
>we had nothing to contribute.
>
>So, to stimulate a bit more discussion, I've drafted a very neutral, 
>uncontentious and short statement on enhanced cooperation that, 
>based on your feedback, can hopefully be beefed up into something 
>worth submitting on behalf of the IGC.  Here it is:
>
>"The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (CS-IGC) is pleased to 
>present its views on the process towards enhanced cooperation on 
>international public policy issues relating to the Internet.  We do 
>not have any detailed prescription of the form which this process 
>should take, but rather we take this opportunity to make three simple points.
>
>First is that enhanced cooperation must encompass all 
>Internet-related public policy issues, second that the existing 
>arrangements of relevant organisations (including the Internet 
>Governance Forum) do not adequately implement this ideal of enhanced 
>cooperation, and finally that whatever new arrangements may be put 
>in place, civil society will play an integral part in them.
>
>These points will be explained in turn:
>
>1. Although much of the discussion of enhanced cooperation at WSIS 
>turned around the narrow issue of internationalising the oversight 
>of Internet naming and numbering functions, the Tunis Agenda 
>expresses this principle far more broadly to encompass all existing 
>Internet governance arrangements (see particularly paras 58-60 and 69).
>
>2. The IGF in its present form is a very important part of that 
>process, in that its multi-stakeholder process can help to shape the 
>decisions that are taken on Internet related public policy issues in 
>other fora.  However the full realisation of enhanced cooperation 
>will require a multi-stakeholder process to extend to those other fora also.
>
>There are various options for enhancing multi-stakeholder 
>cooperation within and amongst all relevant organisations, ranging 
>from a new umbrella governance institution, to a more lightweight 
>multi-stakeholder observatory process perhaps hosted under the 
>auspices of the IGF (pursuant to its mandate in paragraph 72(i)).
>
>3. Paragraph 71 of the Tunis Agenda makes very clear that civil 
>society is an integral participant in the development of any process 
>towards enhanced cooperation.  Therefore the IGC, in our capacity as 
>members of civil society, looks forward to contributing 
>constructively in transparent, accountable and democratic 
>multi-stakeholder consultations towards this end."
>
>--
>
>Jeremy Malcolm
>Project Coordinator
>Consumers International
>Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East
>Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala 
>Lumpur, Malaysia
>Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
>CI is 50
>Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer 
>movement in 2010.
>Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect 
>consumer rights around the world.
><http://www.consumersinternational.org/50>http://www.consumersinternational.org/50
>
>Read our 
><http://www.consumersinternational.org/Templates/Internal.asp?NodeID=100521&int1stParentNodeID=89765>email 
>confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101103/f3598ae8/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From mariliamaciel at gmail.com  Tue Nov  2 21:58:13 2010
From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 23:58:13 -0200
Subject: [governance] Our strategy, work plan and outreach
In-Reply-To: <4C8D158F-D320-49B4-96AE-C13B50B00681@ciroap.org>
References: <AANLkTinnXi7Vw_X6Ggtb+w8qPe6RBdK50jMxrFCiPFqM@mail.gmail.com>
	<4CCD917E.4090209@paque.net>
	<791103.54415.qm@web55201.mail.re4.yahoo.com>
	<AANLkTinskYBxr4HpkfHSqoWujwQtGwKGncXPg5Sa07_O@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTimvmRgi35sKohwr4ky7q_hP1M6V-vBp_cVr5i9=@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTikfrSHy3L=wrzO0D50DF8rASHQPTHu3B1N1xUyw@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTimby0ze1byeL3QkyEO3SOyBY1XjJpJ+R8E4qq+i@mail.gmail.com>
	<241F3D53-5A84-4E08-9494-C8E65DBD208A@ciroap.org>
	<AANLkTinK-M3VGXqLKtMSKUvVODBTsUtYcNm9Bav2xhrn@mail.gmail.com>
	<36496.3544.qm@web55207.mail.re4.yahoo.com>
	<4C8D158F-D320-49B4-96AE-C13B50B00681@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <AANLkTimYW3Rw_3b5oDK05-1xetV4=_skxYehEL3qJeq2@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all,


I am sorry I missed the beginning of the discussion. Presidential elections
in Brazil (great outcome, by the way!) and a short trip right after it have
kept me away for some days.


After going through the thread, I would like to make just a few quick
comments:


1) *Strategy*: I totally agree with the need for a broader scope, mentioned
by McTim. Although IGF is one of the main concerns, there are other
important issues that need to be taken into account in order to plan a solid
and coherent strategy.


Although I am very glad to see many younger people volunteering to be part
of the “strategy” group (and I would like to volunteer as well), this is a
topic in which the views of more experienced people is fundamental, so I
hope it is implied that many of the known “faces” on the list will be there
as well!


Regarding the *procedure of the discussions* I just have one concern.
Strategy is the heart of everything we will be doing, it is the base for the
working plan and the outreach (others will be encouraged to join us
depending on our positions). Because of the importance of the topic,
wouldn’t it be good to carry out this discussion here on the IGC list? This
would be positive for transparency and any interested person would have the
chance to jump in, lowering the barriers to enter the debate.  I have seen
complicated discussions taking place here on the list, and moderators have
successfully organized them in different threads. Separate lists could be
created to other areas of discussion. Just a though.


2) *Working plan:* I believe the group involved in the working plan does not
need to wait for a strategy to be agreed upon. An important task that could
start right now would be to work on the document proposed by Wolfgang
"Internet Governance 2015: Priorities for Civil Society" (historical
chapter, an overvierw about main issues and institutions, etc.). Strategy
will be added to this document as rough consensus is achieved.


3) *Outreach:* I agree that to start an effort of outreach, we need to have
a clearer idea of who we are and who is missing among us. Do we (or
moderators) have an idea? Should we organize a questionnaire, like the one
proposed by Sivasubramanian?


Just to reinforce, I volunteer to work with strategy and I will assist in
every way I can with outreach. We have developed a good network of contacts
because of remote participation.


Best wishes,

Marília


On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 9:57 PM, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:

> On 03/11/2010, at 2:01 AM, shaila mistry wrote:
>
> If we are to follow the three teams/lists strategy we still needs to be
> open to one another to enable greater transparency and participation.Often
> viewing a discussion on one list may stimulate interest and pertinent
> comments from members of  another.
>
>
> Yes they are all publicly archived, at the links I sent before.  Also, if
> you want to be able to post to the list without receiving the messages, then
> join it and change your receiving settings to "No mail".
>
> --
>
> *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.
>
>
>


-- 
Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
FGV Direito Rio

Center for Technology and Society
Getulio Vargas Foundation
Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101102/b2963171/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From jeremy at ciroap.org  Wed Nov  3 01:20:25 2010
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2010 12:20:25 +0700
Subject: [governance] Very neutral statement on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20101103021355.05d70e60@jefsey.com>
References: <70E573F5-00B4-4837-89B7-C05B9DA7E479@ciroap.org> <7.0.1.0.2.20101103021355.05d70e60@jefsey.com>
Message-ID: <5B31379A-A914-4BE1-945B-EEF2478BA1DC@ciroap.org>

On 03/11/2010, at 8:19 AM, JFC Morfin wrote:

> Actually, your document is clear, comprehensive, and matter of fact, but I am afraid it is not neutral. The reason that is the case is that currently the focus is on "enhanced cooperation", while it should rather be on "public". 
> 
> A.  To better understand my point, let us take the European definition of "enhanced cooperation" per the Lisbon Treaty: http://europa.eu/scadplus/glossary/enhanced_cooperation_en.htm.
> 
> This definition (also mutually adopted by governments) definitely conflicts with the Tunis Agenda. 

I don't think that the definitions can be reconciled; they are talking about two entirely different processes.  Whilst it is not entirely coincidental that they use the same term, there is not much that we can learn from the European Community experience.  Just like "open access" means completely different things depending on whether you are talking about content or infrastructure.

I read your interesting email several times, but I'm still not sure exactly what you think we should add to, or change in, the draft statement to cover the points you raise.  Maybe I'm just being dense, but I think if you could restate your proposals much more concisely (like, in a few lines at most) it would make it easier for others to digest them and respond.

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

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

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101103/2372763d/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101103/2372763d/attachment.bin>

From ias_pk at yahoo.com  Wed Nov  3 02:26:57 2010
From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah)
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 23:26:57 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] Our strategy, work plan and outreach
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimYW3Rw_3b5oDK05-1xetV4=_skxYehEL3qJeq2@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTinnXi7Vw_X6Ggtb+w8qPe6RBdK50jMxrFCiPFqM@mail.gmail.com> <4CCD917E.4090209@paque.net> <791103.54415.qm@web55201.mail.re4.yahoo.com> <AANLkTinskYBxr4HpkfHSqoWujwQtGwKGncXPg5Sa07_O@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTimvmRgi35sKohwr4ky7q_hP1M6V-vBp_cVr5i9=@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTikfrSHy3L=wrzO0D50DF8rASHQPTHu3B1N1xUyw@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTimby0ze1byeL3QkyEO3SOyBY1XjJpJ+R8E4qq+i@mail.gmail.com> <241F3D53-5A84-4E08-9494-C8E65DBD208A@ciroap.org> <AANLkTinK-M3VGXqLKtMSKUvVODBTsUtYcNm9Bav2xhrn@mail.gmail.com> <36496.3544.qm@web55207.mail.re4.yahoo.com> <4C8D158F-D320-49B4-96AE-C13B50B00681@ciroap.org> <AANLkTimYW3Rw_3b5oDK05-1xetV4=_skxYehEL3qJeq2@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <587310.28715.qm@web33005.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Internet Governance Caucus

Proposed Agenda
for 
Strategy Working Group

November 3, 2010
In order to start working on the strategy, I would propose the steps:
1.       First step should be the assessment of the current position of the IGC 
on the WISIS IGF mandate.
2.       Second Step may be the Evaluation of the IGC Members, in other words 
the assessment of the Strength of the Caucus. (i.e. no doubt very strong.)
3.       Third step may be the evaluation of the Global Trend and Future 
Development Requirement Analysis. This must include the evaluation of the 
current opportunities, Cyber-Security, Stability, Threats and Risks elements of 
the Internet Governance. (Ref. Para 72-a: Discuss public policy issues related 
to key elements of Internet governance in order to foster the sustainability, 
robustness, security, stability and development of the Internet). Following the 
desire of the Mr Wolfgang, we should try to avoid the reinvention of the wheel. 
We can make a list of hot and most Critical Issues.
4.       Define the strategic plan to achieve next level of the common goals, 
following the charter and (above listed steps) gap analysis, and to overcome on 
the areas of lacking attention. Action Plan may be devised for each quarter. As 
desired by Mr Izumi, shorter and recent targets may by fixed for Nov/Dec 2010, 
then for each quarter of 2011.
5.       Finally the monitoring and review mechanism on the Action Plans (given 
to the second group and third group).
 
Thanking you and Best Regards

Imran Ahmad Shah

Founder & Executive Member
Urdu Internet Society
Pakistan Internet Governance Forum

________________________________
From: Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org>
Cc: Izumi AIZU <aizu at anr.org>
Sent: Wed, 3 November, 2010 6:58:13
Subject: Re: [governance] Our strategy, work plan and outreach


Dear all,

I am sorry I missed the beginning of the discussion. Presidential elections in 
Brazil (great outcome, by the way!) and a short trip right after it have kept me 
away for some days. 



After going through the thread, I would like to make just a few quick comments:

1) Strategy: I totally agree with the need for a broader scope, mentioned by 
McTim. Although IGF is one of the main concerns, there are other important 
issues that need to be taken into account in order to plan a solid and coherent 
strategy.

Although I am very glad to see many younger people volunteering to be part of 
the “strategy” group (and I would like to volunteer as well), this is a topic in 
which the views of more experienced people is fundamental, so I hope it is 
implied that many of the known “faces” on the list will be there as well!

Regarding the procedure of the discussions I just have one concern. Strategy is 
the heart of everything we will be doing, it is the base for the working plan 
and the outreach (others will be encouraged to join us depending on our 
positions). Because of the importance of the topic, wouldn’t it be good to carry 
out this discussion here on the IGC list? This would be positive for 
transparency and any interested person would have the chance to jump in, 
lowering the barriers to enter the debate.  I have seen complicated discussions 
taking place here on the list, and moderators have successfully organized them 
in different threads. Separate lists could be created to other areas of 
discussion. Just a though.

2) Working plan: I believe the group involved in the working plan does not need 
to wait for a strategy to be agreed upon. An important task that could start 
right now would be to work on the document proposed by Wolfgang "Internet 
Governance 2015: Priorities for Civil Society" (historical chapter, an overvierw 
about main issues and institutions, etc.). Strategy will be added to this 
document as rough consensus is achieved.

3) Outreach: I agree that to start an effort of outreach, we need to have a 
clearer idea of who we are and who is missing among us. Do we (or moderators) 
have an idea? Should we organize a questionnaire, like the one proposed by 
Sivasubramanian?

Just to reinforce, I volunteer to work with strategy and I will assist in every 
way I can with outreach. We have developed a good network of contacts because of 
remote participation.

Best wishes,
Marília


On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 9:57 PM, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:

On 03/11/2010, at 2:01 AM, shaila mistry wrote:
>
>If we are to follow the three teams/lists strategy we still needs to be open to 
>one another to enable greater transparency and participation.Often viewing a 
>discussion on one list may stimulate interest and pertinent comments from 
>members of  another.
>>
>
>Yes they are all publicly archived, at the links I sent before.  Also, if you 
>want to be able to post to the list without receiving the messages, then join it 
>and change your receiving settings to "No mail".
>
>-- 
>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.
>


-- 
Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
FGV Direito Rio

Center for Technology and Society
Getulio Vargas Foundation
Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101102/84d5e0f8/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From rafik.dammak at gmail.com  Wed Nov  3 04:14:50 2010
From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2010 17:14:50 +0900
Subject: [governance] Our strategy, work plan and outreach
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimYW3Rw_3b5oDK05-1xetV4=_skxYehEL3qJeq2@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTinnXi7Vw_X6Ggtb+w8qPe6RBdK50jMxrFCiPFqM@mail.gmail.com>
 <4CCD917E.4090209@paque.net> <791103.54415.qm@web55201.mail.re4.yahoo.com>
 <AANLkTinskYBxr4HpkfHSqoWujwQtGwKGncXPg5Sa07_O@mail.gmail.com>
 <AANLkTimvmRgi35sKohwr4ky7q_hP1M6V-vBp_cVr5i9=@mail.gmail.com>
 <AANLkTikfrSHy3L=wrzO0D50DF8rASHQPTHu3B1N1xUyw@mail.gmail.com>
 <AANLkTimby0ze1byeL3QkyEO3SOyBY1XjJpJ+R8E4qq+i@mail.gmail.com>
 <241F3D53-5A84-4E08-9494-C8E65DBD208A@ciroap.org> <AANLkTinK-M3VGXqLKtMSKUvVODBTsUtYcNm9Bav2xhrn@mail.gmail.com>
 <36496.3544.qm@web55207.mail.re4.yahoo.com> <4C8D158F-D320-49B4-96AE-C13B50B00681@ciroap.org>
 <AANLkTimYW3Rw_3b5oDK05-1xetV4=_skxYehEL3qJeq2@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTikE76yOr5Omn-ZpOVuVwkq=js5PztLOFzx-fiY1@mail.gmail.com>

Hello,

I don't see why we should follow sequential flow strategy->working plan
->outreach vs parallel flow, I think that Izumi mentioned having
facilitators in each group who ,I guess, are tasked to
coordinate between the different groups permitting intercommunication
between them. and task like outreach is loosely coupled to strategy
(outreach should be permanent and not limited in time)

I agree with McTim about working in those different space that he mentioned,
e.g W3C and IAB organize jointly a workshop about privacy a topic which
interest many IGC members, how can we participate there? what about RIRs etc
. but we need to explore what we can do there in regard of our resources.

I think a separate list make more sense and work more easy and smooth. the
lists will be definitely public and open to everybody to join. for topic
like strategy many threads will be probably started and having a defined
list is more appropriate. the facilitators or leaders of each group should
report to the whole list regularly and the co-coordinators will be present
anyway.

Rafik

2010/11/3 Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>

> Dear all,
>
>
> I am sorry I missed the beginning of the discussion. Presidential elections
> in Brazil (great outcome, by the way!) and a short trip right after it have
> kept me away for some days.
>
>
> After going through the thread, I would like to make just a few quick
> comments:
>
>
> 1) *Strategy*: I totally agree with the need for a broader scope,
> mentioned by McTim. Although IGF is one of the main concerns, there are
> other important issues that need to be taken into account in order to plan a
> solid and coherent strategy.
>
>
> Although I am very glad to see many younger people volunteering to be part
> of the “strategy” group (and I would like to volunteer as well), this is a
> topic in which the views of more experienced people is fundamental, so I
> hope it is implied that many of the known “faces” on the list will be there
> as well!
>
>
> Regarding the *procedure of the discussions* I just have one concern.
> Strategy is the heart of everything we will be doing, it is the base for the
> working plan and the outreach (others will be encouraged to join us
> depending on our positions). Because of the importance of the topic,
> wouldn’t it be good to carry out this discussion here on the IGC list? This
> would be positive for transparency and any interested person would have the
> chance to jump in, lowering the barriers to enter the debate.  I have seen
> complicated discussions taking place here on the list, and moderators have
> successfully organized them in different threads. Separate lists could be
> created to other areas of discussion. Just a though.
>
>
> 2) *Working plan:* I believe the group involved in the working plan does
> not need to wait for a strategy to be agreed upon. An important task that
> could start right now would be to work on the document proposed by Wolfgang
> "Internet Governance 2015: Priorities for Civil Society" (historical
> chapter, an overvierw about main issues and institutions, etc.). Strategy
> will be added to this document as rough consensus is achieved.
>
>
> 3) *Outreach:* I agree that to start an effort of outreach, we need to
> have a clearer idea of who we are and who is missing among us. Do we (or
> moderators) have an idea? Should we organize a questionnaire, like the one
> proposed by Sivasubramanian?
>
>
> Just to reinforce, I volunteer to work with strategy and I will assist in
> every way I can with outreach. We have developed a good network of contacts
> because of remote participation.
>
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Marília
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 9:57 PM, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:
>
>> On 03/11/2010, at 2:01 AM, shaila mistry wrote:
>>
>> If we are to follow the three teams/lists strategy we still needs to be
>> open to one another to enable greater transparency and participation.Often
>> viewing a discussion on one list may stimulate interest and pertinent
>> comments from members of  another.
>>
>>
>> Yes they are all publicly archived, at the links I sent before.  Also, if
>> you want to be able to post to the list without receiving the messages, then
>> join it and change your receiving settings to "No mail".
>>
>> --
>>
>> *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.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
> FGV Direito Rio
>
> Center for Technology and Society
> Getulio Vargas Foundation
> Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101103/d50f8581/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From ias_pk at yahoo.com  Wed Nov  3 05:04:05 2010
From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah)
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2010 02:04:05 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] Our strategy, work plan and outreach
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikE76yOr5Omn-ZpOVuVwkq=js5PztLOFzx-fiY1@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTinnXi7Vw_X6Ggtb+w8qPe6RBdK50jMxrFCiPFqM@mail.gmail.com> <4CCD917E.4090209@paque.net> <791103.54415.qm@web55201.mail.re4.yahoo.com> <AANLkTinskYBxr4HpkfHSqoWujwQtGwKGncXPg5Sa07_O@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTimvmRgi35sKohwr4ky7q_hP1M6V-vBp_cVr5i9=@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTikfrSHy3L=wrzO0D50DF8rASHQPTHu3B1N1xUyw@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTimby0ze1byeL3QkyEO3SOyBY1XjJpJ+R8E4qq+i@mail.gmail.com> <241F3D53-5A84-4E08-9494-C8E65DBD208A@ciroap.org> <AANLkTinK-M3VGXqLKtMSKUvVODBTsUtYcNm9Bav2xhrn@mail.gmail.com> <36496.3544.qm@web55207.mail.re4.yahoo.com> <4C8D158F-D320-49B4-96AE-C13B50B00681@ciroap.org> <AANLkTimYW3Rw_3b5oDK05-1xetV4=_skxYehEL3qJeq2@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTikE76yOr5Omn-ZpOVuVwkq=js5PztLOFzx-fiY1@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <423191.63019.qm@web33006.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Dear Rafik, 

....According to the IAB Chair....., 
The IETF 79 technical plenary is planned for Monday November 8  (not on 
Thursday!) and we hope to welcome you between 16:30-19:30 in "Valey". They will 
start with the IAB and IRTF chair's report.

The technical heart of the plenary will focus on IPv6 Operations and 
Transitional issues. It is organized as a panel discussion followed by Q&A, and 
discussions on the topic. For more details, see below.


Thanks

Imran Ahmed Shah



________________________________
From: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>
Cc: Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org>; Izumi AIZU <aizu at anr.org>
Sent: Wed, 3 November, 2010 13:14:50
Subject: Re: [governance] Our strategy, work plan and outreach


Hello, 

I don't see why we should follow sequential flow strategy->working plan 
->outreach vs parallel flow, I think that Izumi mentioned having facilitators in 
each group who ,I guess, are tasked to coordinate between the different groups 
permitting intercommunication between them. and task like outreach 
is loosely coupled to strategy (outreach should be permanent and not limited in 
time)


I agree with McTim about working in those different space that he mentioned, e.g 
W3C and IAB organize jointly a workshop about privacy a topic which interest 
many IGC members, how can we participate there? what about RIRs etc . but we 
need to explore what we can do there in regard of our resources.

I think a separate list make more sense and work more easy and smooth. the lists 
will be definitely public and open to everybody to join. for topic like strategy 
many threads will be probably started and having a defined list is more 
appropriate. the facilitators or leaders of each group should report to the 
whole list regularly and the co-coordinators will be present anyway.

Rafik


2010/11/3 Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>

Dear all,
>
>
>I am sorry I missed the beginning of the discussion. Presidential elections in 
>Brazil (great outcome, by the way!) and a short trip right after it have kept me 
>away for some days. 
>
>
>
>
>After going through the thread, I would like to make just a few quick comments:
>
>
>1) Strategy: I totally agree with the need for a broader scope, mentioned by 
>McTim. Although IGF is one of the main concerns, there are other important 
>issues that need to be taken into account in order to plan a solid and coherent 
>strategy.
>
>
>Although I am very glad to see many younger people volunteering to be part of 
>the “strategy” group (and I would like to volunteer as well), this is a topic in 
>which the views of more experienced people is fundamental, so I hope it is 
>implied that many of the known “faces” on the list will be there as well!
>
>
>Regarding the procedure of the discussions I just have one concern. Strategy is 
>the heart of everything we will be doing, it is the base for the working plan 
>and the outreach (others will be encouraged to join us depending on our 
>positions). Because of the importance of the topic, wouldn’t it be good to carry 
>out this discussion here on the IGC list? This would be positive for 
>transparency and any interested person would have the chance to jump in, 
>lowering the barriers to enter the debate.  I have seen complicated discussions 
>taking place here on the list, and moderators have successfully organized them 
>in different threads. Separate lists could be created to other areas of 
>discussion. Just a though.
>
>
>2) Working plan: I believe the group involved in the working plan does not need 
>to wait for a strategy to be agreed upon. An important task that could start 
>right now would be to work on the document proposed by Wolfgang "Internet 
>Governance 2015: Priorities for Civil Society" (historical chapter, an overvierw 
>about main issues and institutions, etc.). Strategy will be added to this 
>document as rough consensus is achieved.
>
>
>3) Outreach: I agree that to start an effort of outreach, we need to have a 
>clearer idea of who we are and who is missing among us. Do we (or moderators) 
>have an idea? Should we organize a questionnaire, like the one proposed by 
>Sivasubramanian?
>
>
>Just to reinforce, I volunteer to work with strategy and I will assist in every 
>way I can with outreach. We have developed a good network of contacts because of 
>remote participation.
>
>
>Best wishes,
>Marília
>
>
>
>On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 9:57 PM, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:
>
>On 03/11/2010, at 2:01 AM, shaila mistry wrote:
>>
>>If we are to follow the three teams/lists strategy we still needs to be open to 
>>one another to enable greater transparency and participation.Often viewing a 
>>discussion on one list may stimulate interest and pertinent comments from 
>>members of  another.
>>>
>>
>>Yes they are all publicly archived, at the links I sent before.  Also, if you 
>>want to be able to post to the list without receiving the messages, then join it 
>>and change your receiving settings to "No mail".
>>
>>-- 
>>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.
>>
>
>
>-- 
>Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
>FGV Direito Rio
>
>Center for Technology and Society
>Getulio Vargas Foundation
>Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
>
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
>For all list information and functions, see:
>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101103/5a7296cd/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From rafik.dammak at gmail.com  Wed Nov  3 05:20:31 2010
From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2010 18:20:31 +0900
Subject: [governance] Our strategy, work plan and outreach
In-Reply-To: <423191.63019.qm@web33006.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <AANLkTinnXi7Vw_X6Ggtb+w8qPe6RBdK50jMxrFCiPFqM@mail.gmail.com>
 <4CCD917E.4090209@paque.net> <791103.54415.qm@web55201.mail.re4.yahoo.com>
 <AANLkTinskYBxr4HpkfHSqoWujwQtGwKGncXPg5Sa07_O@mail.gmail.com>
 <AANLkTimvmRgi35sKohwr4ky7q_hP1M6V-vBp_cVr5i9=@mail.gmail.com>
 <AANLkTikfrSHy3L=wrzO0D50DF8rASHQPTHu3B1N1xUyw@mail.gmail.com>
 <AANLkTimby0ze1byeL3QkyEO3SOyBY1XjJpJ+R8E4qq+i@mail.gmail.com>
 <241F3D53-5A84-4E08-9494-C8E65DBD208A@ciroap.org> <AANLkTinK-M3VGXqLKtMSKUvVODBTsUtYcNm9Bav2xhrn@mail.gmail.com>
 <36496.3544.qm@web55207.mail.re4.yahoo.com> <4C8D158F-D320-49B4-96AE-C13B50B00681@ciroap.org>
 <AANLkTimYW3Rw_3b5oDK05-1xetV4=_skxYehEL3qJeq2@mail.gmail.com>
 <AANLkTikE76yOr5Omn-ZpOVuVwkq=js5PztLOFzx-fiY1@mail.gmail.com> <423191.63019.qm@web33006.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTikgc=5J4TyJW3LJ+XnJ=dzC=+rUNsw-j2+CFKUY@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Imran,

it was just an example http://www.iab.org/about/workshops/privacy/ and it is
not related to IETF meeting which will be held in Beijing.

Rafik


2010/11/3 Imran Ahmed Shah <ias_pk at yahoo.com>

> Dear Rafik,
>
> ....According to the IAB Chair.....,
> The IETF 79 technical plenary is planned for Monday November 8  (not on
> Thursday!) and we hope to welcome you between 16:30-19:30 in "Valey". They
> will start with the IAB and IRTF chair's report.
>
> The technical heart of the plenary will focus on IPv6 Operations and
> Transitional issues. It is organized as a panel discussion followed by Q&A,
> and discussions on the topic. For more details, see below.
>
>
> Thanks
>
> Imran Ahmed Shah
>
>  ------------------------------
> *From:* Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
> *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org; Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>
> *Cc:* Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org>; Izumi AIZU <aizu at anr.org>
> *Sent:* Wed, 3 November, 2010 13:14:50
>
> *Subject:* Re: [governance] Our strategy, work plan and outreach
>
> Hello,
>
> I don't see why we should follow sequential flow strategy->working plan
> ->outreach vs parallel flow, I think that Izumi mentioned having
> facilitators in each group who ,I guess, are tasked to
> coordinate between the different groups permitting intercommunication
> between them. and task like outreach is loosely coupled to strategy
> (outreach should be permanent and not limited in time)
>
> I agree with McTim about working in those different space that he
> mentioned, e.g W3C and IAB organize jointly a workshop about privacy a topic
> which interest many IGC members, how can we participate there? what about
> RIRs etc . but we need to explore what we can do there in regard of our
> resources.
>
> I think a separate list make more sense and work more easy and smooth. the
> lists will be definitely public and open to everybody to join. for topic
> like strategy many threads will be probably started and having a defined
> list is more appropriate. the facilitators or leaders of each group should
> report to the whole list regularly and the co-coordinators will be present
> anyway.
>
> Rafik
>
> 2010/11/3 Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>
>
>> Dear all,
>>
>>
>> I am sorry I missed the beginning of the discussion. Presidential
>> elections in Brazil (great outcome, by the way!) and a short trip right
>> after it have kept me away for some days.
>>
>>
>> After going through the thread, I would like to make just a few quick
>> comments:
>>
>>
>> 1) *Strategy*: I totally agree with the need for a broader scope,
>> mentioned by McTim. Although IGF is one of the main concerns, there are
>> other important issues that need to be taken into account in order to plan a
>> solid and coherent strategy.
>>
>>
>> Although I am very glad to see many younger people volunteering to be part
>> of the “strategy” group (and I would like to volunteer as well), this is a
>> topic in which the views of more experienced people is fundamental, so I
>> hope it is implied that many of the known “faces” on the list will be there
>> as well!
>>
>>
>> Regarding the *procedure of the discussions* I just have one concern.
>> Strategy is the heart of everything we will be doing, it is the base for the
>> working plan and the outreach (others will be encouraged to join us
>> depending on our positions). Because of the importance of the topic,
>> wouldn’t it be good to carry out this discussion here on the IGC list? This
>> would be positive for transparency and any interested person would have the
>> chance to jump in, lowering the barriers to enter the debate.  I have
>> seen complicated discussions taking place here on the list, and moderators
>> have successfully organized them in different threads. Separate lists could
>> be created to other areas of discussion. Just a though.
>>
>>
>> 2) *Working plan:* I believe the group involved in the working plan does
>> not need to wait for a strategy to be agreed upon. An important task that
>> could start right now would be to work on the document proposed by Wolfgang
>> "Internet Governance 2015: Priorities for Civil Society" (historical
>> chapter, an overvierw about main issues and institutions, etc.). Strategy
>> will be added to this document as rough consensus is achieved.
>>
>>
>> 3) *Outreach:* I agree that to start an effort of outreach, we need to
>> have a clearer idea of who we are and who is missing among us. Do we (or
>> moderators) have an idea? Should we organize a questionnaire, like the one
>> proposed by Sivasubramanian?
>>
>>
>> Just to reinforce, I volunteer to work with strategy and I will assist in
>> every way I can with outreach. We have developed a good network of contacts
>> because of remote participation.
>>
>>
>> Best wishes,
>>
>> Marília
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 9:57 PM, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:
>>
>>>   On 03/11/2010, at 2:01 AM, shaila mistry wrote:
>>>
>>>  If we are to follow the three teams/lists strategy we still needs to be
>>> open to one another to enable greater transparency and participation.Often
>>> viewing a discussion on one list may stimulate interest and pertinent
>>> comments from members of  another.
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes they are all publicly archived, at the links I sent before.  Also, if
>>> you want to be able to post to the list without receiving the messages, then
>>> join it and change your receiving settings to "No mail".
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> *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.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
>> FGV Direito Rio
>>
>> Center for Technology and Society
>> Getulio Vargas Foundation
>> Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101103/82d65d31/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From Guru at ITforChange.net  Wed Nov  3 05:53:02 2010
From: Guru at ITforChange.net (=?UTF-8?B?R3VydSDgpJfgpYHgpLDgpYE=?=)
Date: Wed, 03 Nov 2010 15:23:02 +0530
Subject: [governance] Nominations for the IGC Appeals team
Message-ID: <4CD130FE.8080104@ITforChange.net>

Friends,

The Nomcom having completed the selection of nominees for the CSTD 
working group has now begun work on constituting the Internet Governance 
Caucus Appeals Team. As the chair for this task (the other members of 
NOMCOM are Ian Peter, Qusai Al-Shatti, Hempal Shrestha and Jacquiline 
Morris), I would like to share the the list of candidates (in no 
particular order) we have from the recent ballot and questionaire - 
(excluding those who are members of the nomcom and have withdrawn their 
nominations)

Imran Ahmed Shah
Dr. Olivier Crepin-Leblond
Ginger Paque
Divina Frau-Meigs
Fearghas McKay
Nnenna Nwakanma
Fouad Bajwa
Avri Doria
Kwasi Adu-Boahen Opare
Qusai Al-Shatti
Rudi Vansnick
Charity Gamboa-Embley
Ben Akoh

If you are on the list above and no longer wish to be considered, please 
advise within 48 hours so we can finalise the slate by writing to 
nomcom at igf-online.net

*The role of the Appeals team (see below) is very important, and we 
actively encourage more members to send in their nominations. If you 
would like to be added to this list for consideration, please also write 
to nomcom at igf-online.net within 48 hours.
*
The purpose of the Appeals Team as stated in our charter 
(http://www.igcaucus.org/charter) is as follows: "Any time 4 individual 
members of the IGC co-sign a statement on the main IGC mailing list they 
can appeal any decision of the coordinators. When a decision is 
appealed, the appeals team will review any discussions that occurred and 
will request comments from the IGC membership. Based on the information 
they collect and discussion, they will decide on the merit of the appeal."

The criteria for selection of Appeals Team members are as follows:
A) Qualified IGC member
Appeals team should be Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (CS IGC) 
members.
Anyone who have subscribed to the IGC Charter and subscribed to the IGC 
caucus mailing list for 2 months prior to the announcement of the 
appeals team Nomcom process is eligible to be a candidate.

B) Qualifications
Nomcom will primarily select persons based on their knowledge and 
experience of issues faced by the caucus and their neutrality.
The successful candidate should be a person with thoughtful and unbiased 
consideration and have a stated (and demonstrated) commitment to 
consultation and dialogue with the community.

C) Diversity and balance
Appeal Team collectively should have good diversity and balance. The 
attributes to be considered include, but not limited to Geographic and 
cultural diversity, - Gender, Age,  Skill set and knowledge, Disability

These will be treated as a goal, but not as the absolute requirement.

D) Others
To avoid capture, no more than one employee/representative of a 
particular organization should serve on the Appeal Team at any given time.

Nominations may be sent to this mailing list, or to myself as chair of 
the Nomcom.  Self-nominations are permitted (and encouraged), though a 
seconding member may help your application. Five members of the Appeals 
Team are required. 

And finally - as not all nomcom members know all the candidates, we 
invite all nominees to send some brief information about themselves and 
their suitability to represent IGC - again to nomcom at igf-online.net 
within 48 hours.

regards
Guru
-- 
Gurumurthy Kasinathan
IT for Change | www.ITforChange.Net | Tel:98454 37730
What is Public Software? see http://public-software-centre.org/node/31
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101103/d971be67/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From jefsey at jefsey.com  Wed Nov  3 05:22:16 2010
From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin)
Date: Wed, 03 Nov 2010 10:22:16 +0100
Subject: [governance] Very neutral statement on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <5B31379A-A914-4BE1-945B-EEF2478BA1DC@ciroap.org>
References: <70E573F5-00B4-4837-89B7-C05B9DA7E479@ciroap.org>
 <7.0.1.0.2.20101103021355.05d70e60@jefsey.com>
 <5B31379A-A914-4BE1-945B-EEF2478BA1DC@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20101103094622.0651ee20@jefsey.com>

At 06:20 03/11/2010, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>>This definition (also mutually adopted by governments) definitely 
>>conflicts with the Tunis Agenda.
>
>I don't think that the definitions can be reconciled; they are 
>talking about two entirely different processes.

Jeremy,

if you disagree with my premise (that they will eventually be 
reconciled by the interested parties), the shortest statement is that 
we are on planets apart. Hence, if this coalition wants to be more 
than a moon in the governments/users sky, something nobody objects, 
its need to get real first. We are in life, not in procedures. One 
will listen to us if we adequately contribute, not because we have 
the right to speak.

>Whilst it is not entirely coincidental that they use the same term, 
>there is not much that we can learn from the European Community 
>experience.  Just like "open access" means completely different 
>things depending on whether you are talking about content or infrastructure.
>
>I read your interesting email several times, but I'm still not sure 
>exactly what you think we should add to, or change in, the draft 
>statement to cover the points you raise.  Maybe I'm just being 
>dense, but I think if you could restate your proposals much more 
>concisely (like, in a few lines at most) it would make it easier for 
>others to digest them and respond.

As I hinted in talking of a moon in the governance sky, we need to 
change ourselves first if we do not understand what one expects from 
us. There is time to first define our area of responsibility, what 
civil society means, and the legitimacy, pertience and competence it 
gives us to address people's private, civil and public needs.

Sorry if I knocked at the wrong door. My need is for addressing the 
real life impact on public issues of the technology fondamental 
metachange we have obtained (RFC 5890-5895). The important  thing is 
not the metachange (it was implied in the technology) but the 
intergovernmental assessment of what real life should look like from 
their current perspective.

Cheers.
jfc


A reality check, the questions raised by 
http://www.circleid.com/posts/kidnapping_theft_and_rape_are_not_cyber_crimes/



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

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 Nov  3 07:22:58 2010
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2010 18:22:58 +0700
Subject: [governance] Very neutral statement on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20101103094622.0651ee20@jefsey.com>
References: <70E573F5-00B4-4837-89B7-C05B9DA7E479@ciroap.org> <7.0.1.0.2.20101103021355.05d70e60@jefsey.com> <5B31379A-A914-4BE1-945B-EEF2478BA1DC@ciroap.org> <7.0.1.0.2.20101103094622.0651ee20@jefsey.com>
Message-ID: <3FE17A9E-E507-44DA-8AE2-EC7EC56DD1D8@ciroap.org>

On 03/11/2010, at 4:22 PM, JFC Morfin wrote:

> As I hinted in talking of a moon in the governance sky, we need to change ourselves first if we do not understand what one expects from us. There is time to first define our area of responsibility, what civil society means, and the legitimacy, pertience and competence it gives us to address people's private, civil and public needs.
> 
> Sorry if I knocked at the wrong door. My need is for addressing the real life impact on public issues of the technology fondamental metachange we have obtained (RFC 5890-5895). The important  thing is not the metachange (it was implied in the technology) but the intergovernmental assessment of what real life should look like from their current perspective.

Certainly you are not alone in suggesting that the IGC needs to get more practical and to better engage with broader communities.  But it sounds like this is (valid, and important) input for the IGC working groups, rather than a suggestion for drafting of our statement to the upcoming enhanced cooperation consultation, correct?

-- 
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 --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101103/1f46442f/attachment.bin>

From raquelgatto at uol.com.br  Wed Nov  3 10:10:50 2010
From: raquelgatto at uol.com.br (Raquel Gatto)
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2010 12:10:50 -0200
Subject: [governance] Our strategy, work plan and outreach
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinK-M3VGXqLKtMSKUvVODBTsUtYcNm9Bav2xhrn@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTinnXi7Vw_X6Ggtb+w8qPe6RBdK50jMxrFCiPFqM@mail.gmail.com> <4CCD917E.4090209@paque.net> <791103.54415.qm@web55201.mail.re4.yahoo.com>
	<AANLkTinskYBxr4HpkfHSqoWujwQtGwKGncXPg5Sa07_O@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTimvmRgi35sKohwr4ky7q_hP1M6V-vBp_cVr5i9=@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTikfrSHy3L=wrzO0D50DF8rASHQPTHu3B1N1xUyw@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTimby0ze1byeL3QkyEO3SOyBY1XjJpJ+R8E4qq+i@mail.gmail.com> <241F3D53-5A84-4E08-9494-C8E65DBD208A@ciroap.org> <AANLkTinK-M3VGXqLKtMSKUvVODBTsUtYcNm9Bav2xhrn@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4cd16d6abd4dc_2e642c7ee7419b@weasel26.tmail>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101103/df045c25/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From lmcknigh at syr.edu  Wed Nov  3 10:17:52 2010
From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight)
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2010 10:17:52 -0400
Subject: [governance] Very neutral statement on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <3FE17A9E-E507-44DA-8AE2-EC7EC56DD1D8@ciroap.org>
References: <70E573F5-00B4-4837-89B7-C05B9DA7E479@ciroap.org>
 <7.0.1.0.2.20101103021355.05d70e60@jefsey.com>
 <5B31379A-A914-4BE1-945B-EEF2478BA1DC@ciroap.org>
 <7.0.1.0.2.20101103094622.0651ee20@jefsey.com>,<3FE17A9E-E507-44DA-8AE2-EC7EC56DD1D8@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006DA4@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>

Jeremy,

If I may wade in here, even if not pretending I know whether we are the moon or the sky: 

Right now we got a pretty small list with grandiose notions; with volunteer human capital its only resource.

There's related dedicated folks clustering around a variety of 'Internet governance' institutions or institutions which -also - do Internet governance, however else they define and busy themselves. Some are the same people here, stretched thinner and thinner...

Anyway, rather than moon and sky if it is just one world of ig, it's...easier.

In UN-GAID context in September I advocated a 'social grid' around and beyond ICT4D activities...remember a few emails on list re why not have IGF messages received by GAID and via GAID's eNabler  tools to development planners worldwide. That is just one possible path if a social grid is established which more tightly but still loosely because it is only virtually or voluntarily coupled one to another ig orgs.

The connection to enhanced cooperation: a social grid into and across ig orgs in which civil society ALWAYS has a seat at the table - and oh yeah nation-states have a say too - but that is enhanced cooperation.

In my opinion.  

So this may all be too much for the enhanced cooperation neutral statement, but point is that maybe it is time not to be too too neutral and actually work to define -enhanced cooperation- operationally. Starting by advocating the same, as part of the next 5 year agenda.

Lee 
________________________________________
From: Jeremy Malcolm [jeremy at ciroap.org]
Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2010 7:22 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; JFC Morfin
Subject: Re: [governance] Very neutral statement on enhanced cooperation

On 03/11/2010, at 4:22 PM, JFC Morfin wrote:

> As I hinted in talking of a moon in the governance sky, we need to change ourselves first if we do not understand what one expects from us. There is time to first define our area of responsibility, what civil society means, and the legitimacy, pertience and competence it gives us to address people's private, civil and public needs.
>
> Sorry if I knocked at the wrong door. My need is for addressing the real life impact on public issues of the technology fondamental metachange we have obtained (RFC 5890-5895). The important  thing is not the metachange (it was implied in the technology) but the intergovernmental assessment of what real life should look like from their current perspective.

Certainly you are not alone in suggesting that the IGC needs to get more practical and to better engage with broader communities.  But it sounds like this is (valid, and important) input for the IGC working groups, rather than a suggestion for drafting of our statement to the upcoming enhanced cooperation consultation, correct?

--
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 b.schombe at gmail.com  Wed Nov  3 10:39:38 2010
From: b.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin SCHOMBE)
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2010 15:39:38 +0100
Subject: [governance] Our strategy, work plan and outreach
In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07371@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <AANLkTinnXi7Vw_X6Ggtb+w8qPe6RBdK50jMxrFCiPFqM@mail.gmail.com>
 <4CCE74B7.4010905@apc.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07371@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <AANLkTim5fKDtU=uZL0Z-7e+F1fpyPCX0v4NUNjVgGBmY@mail.gmail.com>

 while agreeing in part with Raquel, I support the proposal regarding the
timing of Wolfgang below but that should be discussed and improved.

2010/11/1 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" <
wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

> Hi
>
> I fully support the elaboration of a strategy paper "Internet Governance
> 2015: Priorities for Civil Society" (based on previous CS documents to avoid
> the reinvention of the wheel). It should have - inter alia - a brief
> historical chapter, an overvierw about main issues and institutions of
> todays policy environment  where the key issues are negotiated/discussed, a
> chapter with a list of challenges of tomorrow and a final statement with CS
> IG priorities, principles and objectives for the CS IG Agenda 2015.
> In an Annex we could have a timeline until 2015 which would list the main
> forthcoming events and also an ornagigram which gives on imagination about
> the various interconnected negotiations and discussions places and spaces.
>
> Furthermore it would make sense to produce a brochure with CS IG statements
> and position papers from 2020 to 2010 which would show the outside world our
> continous engagement in the issue. Such a publication would also help the
> next generation of CS IG leaders to understand where they are coming from
> and what still has to be done and is the let over from the agendas of the
> first decade of the 21st century. The publication could also include facts
> and figures about IGC itself (Charter, proceudures, names of actual and
> previous chairs etc.)
>
> Experience tell us further, that CS activities are always stimulated by
> global or regional events.
>
> Here is my very preliminary list of relevant events for CS-IG in 2011
>
> 2011:
> February: IGF/UNCSTD Consultations in Geneva
> March: ICANN Meeting in San Francisco
> May: WSIS Forum and IGF/UNCSTD Consultations in Geneva
> June: ICANN meeting in Asia
> September: IGF in Nairobi
> ICANN meeting in Africa
> November: UNGA in New York
> over the year: Regional IGFs in Africa, Asia, Europa and Latin America
>
> And here are some processes/institutions, which should be under
> observation:
> UN: Enhanced Cooperation and IGF Improvement
> ITU: Implementation of PP 10 / Preparation of the ITU World Conference on
> International Telecommunication 2012
> OECD: Implementaiton of ther Seoul Declaration fronm 2008 / Internet
> Economy / CISSAC
> European Commission: Implementation of the Digital Agenda 2020, including
> "Internet of Things" Task Froce
> Council of Europa: Proposal for a "Framework of Commitments for Cross
> Border Internet Governance"
> ACTA/WTO/WIPIO: Plans to finanlize the Draft of the ACTA Agreement, WIPOS
> Development Agenda and the Broadcasting Treaty
> 1st Committee UNGA: Ideas for a UN Treaty on Cybersecurity
> World Economic Forum (Davos) and Worl Social Forum (Porto Allegre)
> National legislation in key countries, in particular US, EU, Australia,
> Japan, BRIC etc.
>
> Regards
>
> Wolfgang
>
> ________________________________
>
> Von: Anriette Esterhuysen [mailto:anriette at apc.org]
> Gesendet: Mo 01.11.2010 09:05
> An: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Betreff: Re: [governance] Our strategy, work plan and outreach
>
>
>
> Dear Izumi and all
>
> Like the others who have posted, Ginger, Tracy, Christopher, Hempal and
> Imran I think this is a good idea.
>
> I suggest we keep the use of working teams as light as possible.. being
> too ambitious could lead to disappointment.  The idea of a strategy is
> VERY good and it would be really helpful if it enables us to work on
> issues and policy forums beyond just the IGF such as for example ACTA
> and the ITU. Even if we cannot actively work in all these forums, it
> would be useful for us to understand what their implications are for
> internet governance that is inclusive of civil society participation and
> priorities.
>
> This also relates to last week's discussion on the 2003 CS charter. It
> does feel as if the last few years have been really 'busy' but in quite
> a fragmented way. A workplan could help us to identify a few broad goals
> that we can have consensus on, and then we can check back in a year's
> time on what progress / or lack of it there has been.
>
> I am sorry I cannot volunteer to help in a big way as I am barely coping
> with work at the moment, but I will do my best to participate and will
> certainly comment on documents.
>
> Regards
>
> Anriette
>
>
> On 31/10/10 16:33, Izumi AIZU wrote:
> > Dear list,
> >
> > After starting the role of co-coordinator, I have been thinking, and
> > also discussing
> > with Jeremy, about the "way forward" - or more specifically, working
> > method, modus operandi, of our caucus.
> >
> > Considering the many tasks ahead of us in relatively short time period, I
> think
> > we need good division of labor and effective working team(s).
> >
> > We don't want to become a workhorse ;-), rather we would like to
> > "coordinate", meaning to
> > facilitate moves and works of many members of the caucus. The more people
> > involved in the actual work, the better.
> >
> > For that, we like to suggest that our group to come up with the
> followings.
> >
> > a) Strategy - for coming months, in the context of IGF mandate
> > extension debate/negotiations around UN
> >
> > b) Work Plan - based on the strategy, we need to plan ahead on how to
> > work - to push our agenda - this may include forming Working Groups,
> > ad hoc teams, use some additional online tools etc.
> >
> > c) Outreach Plan/actions
> > One of the points we have discussed on the list was, if I may, the
> > relative lack of outreach of our group, with larger Civil Society
> > groups. Compared with WSIS days, we have less involvement from larger
> > clouds of CS. How to address this and move forward.
> >
> > We like to ask you to think about these points, come up with opinions,
> > suggestions and plans, and eventually, or quickly move to actions based
> on
> > [rough] consensus with bottom-up ways.
> >
> > We also like some of you to become active members, taking leading roles
> > for different items. Form working groups etc. To have wider division
> > of labor of our work.
> >
> > Of course, we are open to your suggestions and also welcome more
> volunteers!
> >
> > best,
> >
> > izumi
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >       governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> >       governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 anriette at apc.org
> executive director
> association for progressive communications
> www.apc.org
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101103/d7ef2a65/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From mariliamaciel at gmail.com  Wed Nov  3 10:43:14 2010
From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2010 12:43:14 -0200
Subject: [governance] RE: CSTD Representatives - report from NomCom
In-Reply-To: <4CD0590C.1010607@apc.org>
References: <C8F1C32D.12F3F%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
	<75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC125B373@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
	<4CD0590C.1010607@apc.org>
Message-ID: <AANLkTimf8jN33medy3YtiqgQB2nTW48JL-7DGBSJzUdu@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all,

Do you know when a final decision on the names that will be part of the WG
will be made, and when would the first meeting take place? I am trying to
organize my agenda of meetings until the end of the year, and would like to
save the dates, just in case.

Thanks in advance for the help.

Marília

On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 4:31 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org>wrote:

> Agree with Milton. Thanks all.
>
> Anriette
>
>
> On 02/11/10 17:43, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>
>> Thanks to the Nomcom for their very quick work. This is a strong and
>> diverse CS representative group and I am happy to be associated with it.
>>
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>
>>> Anriette Esterhuysen
>>> Parminder Singh
>>> Michael Gurstein
>>> Wolfgang Kleinwachter
>>> Izumi Aizu
>>> Katitza Rodriguez
>>> Marilia Maciel
>>> William J Drake
>>> Divina Frau-Meigs
>>> Milton Mueller
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 anriette at apc.org
> executive director
> association for progressive communications
> www.apc.org
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>



-- 
Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
FGV Direito Rio

Center for Technology and Society
Getulio Vargas Foundation
Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101103/e3f7734e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From katitza at eff.org  Wed Nov  3 10:52:24 2010
From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez)
Date: Wed, 03 Nov 2010 16:52:24 +0200
Subject: [governance] RE: CSTD Representatives - report from NomCom
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimf8jN33medy3YtiqgQB2nTW48JL-7DGBSJzUdu@mail.gmail.com>
References: <C8F1C32D.12F3F%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>	<75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC125B373@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>	<4CD0590C.1010607@apc.org> <AANLkTimf8jN33medy3YtiqgQB2nTW48JL-7DGBSJzUdu@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4CD17728.7030801@eff.org>

Marilia,

According to the document that Ian sent to us a few weeks ago, "Chair's 
Tentative road map of activities of the CSTD Working Group on IGF1" said:

A face-to-face open and inclusive consultation meeting will be organized 
by the Chair of the Working Group on IGF in Geneva on 24 November 2010, 
back --to- back with the IGF open consultations and MAG meeting, 
scheduled to be organized by the IGF Secretariat from 22 to 23 November 
2010. The outcome of the open consultations will be used as input to the 
first CSTD Working Group meeting, which will take place in conjunction 
with the CSTD inter-sessional panel meeting in December 2010.


c) Second meeting of the Working Group

The Chair of the CSTD WG on IGF will call for a second face-to-face 
meeting of the Working Group in the first half of February 2011. The 
purpose of the meeting is to examine the outcome of the open and 
inclusive on-line and face-to-face consultations and agree on the set of 
recommendations that will be included in the final report of the CSTD 
Working Group on IGF.



On 11/3/10 4:43 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> Do you know when a final decision on the names that will be part of 
> the WG will be made, and when would the first meeting take place? I am 
> trying to organize my agenda of meetings until the end of the year, 
> and would like to save the dates, just in case.
>
> Thanks in advance for the help.
>
> Marília
>
> On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 4:31 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org 
> <mailto:anriette at apc.org>> wrote:
>
>     Agree with Milton. Thanks all.
>
>     Anriette
>
>
>     On 02/11/10 17:43, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>
>         Thanks to the Nomcom for their very quick work. This is a
>         strong and diverse CS representative group and I am happy to
>         be associated with it.
>
>
>             -----Original Message-----
>
>             Anriette Esterhuysen
>             Parminder Singh
>             Michael Gurstein
>             Wolfgang Kleinwachter
>             Izumi Aizu
>             Katitza Rodriguez
>             Marilia Maciel
>             William J Drake
>             Divina Frau-Meigs
>             Milton Mueller
>
>
>         ____________________________________________________________
>         You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>         governance at lists.cpsr.org <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>         To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>         governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>         <mailto:governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org>
>
>         For all list information and functions, see:
>         http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>         Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>     -- 
>     ------------------------------------------------------
>     anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org <mailto:anriette at apc.org>
>     executive director
>     association for progressive communications
>     www.apc.org <http://www.apc.org>
>
>
>     ____________________________________________________________
>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>     To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>     <mailto:governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org>
>
>     For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>     Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
> FGV Direito Rio
>
> Center for Technology and Society
> Getulio Vargas Foundation
> Rio de Janeiro - Brazil


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

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101103/a0ef83dd/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From parminder at itforchange.net  Wed Nov  3 10:56:35 2010
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Wed, 03 Nov 2010 20:26:35 +0530
Subject: [governance] Very neutral statement on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006DA4@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
References: <70E573F5-00B4-4837-89B7-C05B9DA7E479@ciroap.org> <7.0.1.0.2.20101103021355.05d70e60@jefsey.com> <5B31379A-A914-4BE1-945B-EEF2478BA1DC@ciroap.org> <7.0.1.0.2.20101103094622.0651ee20@jefsey.com>,<3FE17A9E-E507-44DA-8AE2-EC7EC56DD1D8@ciroap.org> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006DA4@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <4CD17823.8010108@itforchange.net>

Hi All

I agree with Lee that we should try to be more substantive in our 
enhanced cooperation statement.

This is also related to Izumi's initiative towards renewing IGC energies 
through more purposeful and focused work, about which more in a separate 
email. We are in a political process and non-decision is itself a 
political choice. As the main global civil society organization it 
hardly behooves us to say, we really have no ideas about what kind of 
global IG regime we will like to have and move towards through the WSIS 
mandated enhanced cooperation process. In fact, since we are kind of 
being specifically asked, we should be able to come up with some 
relatively clear models of where to go and how. We need to at least try 
to pull together some common position on this most important issue. We 
cannot give up even without a discussion on the list.

On the other hand, if we are indeed so pessimistic that any common 
progressive civil society position on the most appropriate global IG 
model and institutions (or at least a small range of possibilities) is 
very unlikely to emerge, then perhaps we just may not have the political 
cohesion to succeed in the new initiative being proposed by the 
co-coordinators. I am not being dismissive about this initiative, I am 
very much for it and have myself proposed similar things earlier, I am 
just posing a challenge which looks rather real to me.

In short, what I mean is that if we are unable to have a  strategy for 
such an important and urgent issue like enhanced cooperation, when 'the 
moment' stares in our face, can we realistically hope to come up with 
other running strategies for our work.

Parminder




On Wednesday 03 November 2010 07:47 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote:
> Jeremy,
>
> If I may wade in here, even if not pretending I know whether we are the moon or the sky:
>
> Right now we got a pretty small list with grandiose notions; with volunteer human capital its only resource.
>
> There's related dedicated folks clustering around a variety of 'Internet governance' institutions or institutions which -also - do Internet governance, however else they define and busy themselves. Some are the same people here, stretched thinner and thinner...
>
> Anyway, rather than moon and sky if it is just one world of ig, it's...easier.
>
> In UN-GAID context in September I advocated a 'social grid' around and beyond ICT4D activities...remember a few emails on list re why not have IGF messages received by GAID and via GAID's eNabler  tools to development planners worldwide. That is just one possible path if a social grid is established which more tightly but still loosely because it is only virtually or voluntarily coupled one to another ig orgs.
>
> The connection to enhanced cooperation: a social grid into and across ig orgs in which civil society ALWAYS has a seat at the table - and oh yeah nation-states have a say too - but that is enhanced cooperation.
>
> In my opinion.
>
> So this may all be too much for the enhanced cooperation neutral statement, but point is that maybe it is time not to be too too neutral and actually work to define -enhanced cooperation- operationally. Starting by advocating the same, as part of the next 5 year agenda.
>
> Lee
> ________________________________________
> From: Jeremy Malcolm [jeremy at ciroap.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2010 7:22 AM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; JFC Morfin
> Subject: Re: [governance] Very neutral statement on enhanced cooperation
>
> On 03/11/2010, at 4:22 PM, JFC Morfin wrote:
>
>    
>> As I hinted in talking of a moon in the governance sky, we need to change ourselves first if we do not understand what one expects from us. There is time to first define our area of responsibility, what civil society means, and the legitimacy, pertience and competence it gives us to address people's private, civil and public needs.
>>
>> Sorry if I knocked at the wrong door. My need is for addressing the real life impact on public issues of the technology fondamental metachange we have obtained (RFC 5890-5895). The important  thing is not the metachange (it was implied in the technology) but the intergovernmental assessment of what real life should look like from their current perspective.
>>      
> Certainly you are not alone in suggesting that the IGC needs to get more practical and to better engage with broader communities.  But it sounds like this is (valid, and important) input for the IGC working groups, rather than a suggestion for drafting of our statement to the upcoming enhanced cooperation consultation, correct?
>
> --
> 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101103/9ed5522e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From mariliamaciel at gmail.com  Wed Nov  3 11:07:08 2010
From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2010 13:07:08 -0200
Subject: [governance] RE: CSTD Representatives - report from NomCom
In-Reply-To: <4CD17728.7030801@eff.org>
References: <C8F1C32D.12F3F%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
	<75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC125B373@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
	<4CD0590C.1010607@apc.org>
	<AANLkTimf8jN33medy3YtiqgQB2nTW48JL-7DGBSJzUdu@mail.gmail.com>
	<4CD17728.7030801@eff.org>
Message-ID: <AANLkTimNSFDzbcvcBYN4VHyqf1f4UYKgBe=-8XVH4asX@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks, Kati.
It would be important to have a decision of the final list of names. It is
only based on that info that I could try to find funding to go, and other
people can be in the same situation.
Best wishes,
Marília

On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 12:52 PM, Katitza Rodriguez <katitza at eff.org> wrote:

>  Marilia,
>
> According to the document that Ian sent to us a few weeks ago, "Chair’s
> Tentative road map of activities of the CSTD Working Group on IGF1" said:
>
> A face-to-face open and inclusive consultation meeting will be organized by
> the Chair of the Working Group on IGF in Geneva on 24 November 2010, back
> –to- back with the IGF open consultations and MAG meeting, scheduled to be
> organized by the IGF Secretariat from 22 to 23 November 2010. The outcome of
> the open consultations will be used as input to the first CSTD Working Group
> meeting, which will take place in conjunction with the CSTD inter-sessional
> panel meeting in December 2010.
>
>
> c) Second meeting of the Working Group
>
> The Chair of the CSTD WG on IGF will call for a second face-to-face meeting
> of the Working Group in the first half of February 2011. The purpose of the
> meeting is to examine the outcome of the open and inclusive on-line and
> face-to-face consultations and agree on the set of recommendations that will
> be included in the final report of the CSTD Working Group on IGF.
>
>
>
>
> On 11/3/10 4:43 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
> Do you know when a final decision on the names that will be part of the WG
> will be made, and when would the first meeting take place? I am trying to
> organize my agenda of meetings until the end of the year, and would like to
> save the dates, just in case.
>
> Thanks in advance for the help.
>
> Marília
>
> On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 4:31 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org>wrote:
>
>> Agree with Milton. Thanks all.
>>
>> Anriette
>>
>>
>> On 02/11/10 17:43, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks to the Nomcom for their very quick work. This is a strong and
>>> diverse CS representative group and I am happy to be associated with it.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>
>>>> Anriette Esterhuysen
>>>> Parminder Singh
>>>> Michael Gurstein
>>>> Wolfgang Kleinwachter
>>>> Izumi Aizu
>>>> Katitza Rodriguez
>>>> Marilia Maciel
>>>> William J Drake
>>>> Divina Frau-Meigs
>>>> Milton Mueller
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 anriette at apc.org
>> executive director
>> association for progressive communications
>> www.apc.org
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
> FGV Direito Rio
>
> Center for Technology and Society
> Getulio Vargas Foundation
> Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
>
>
>
> --
> Katitza Rodriguez
> International Rights Director
> Electronic Frontier Foundationkatitza at eff.orgkatitza@datos-personales.org (personal email)
>
> Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>



-- 
Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
FGV Direito Rio

Center for Technology and Society
Getulio Vargas Foundation
Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101103/84a7b707/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From katitza at eff.org  Wed Nov  3 11:21:07 2010
From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez)
Date: Wed, 03 Nov 2010 17:21:07 +0200
Subject: [governance] RE: CSTD Representatives - report from NomCom
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimf8jN33medy3YtiqgQB2nTW48JL-7DGBSJzUdu@mail.gmail.com>
References: <C8F1C32D.12F3F%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>	<75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC125B373@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>	<4CD0590C.1010607@apc.org> <AANLkTimf8jN33medy3YtiqgQB2nTW48JL-7DGBSJzUdu@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4CD17DE3.1050305@eff.org>

This is true, Marilia. I am only answering the second and third 
question. I am not aware about how this process works. May be Ian can 
shed light for us on this. I am also interested to learn the strategy 
that the technical community might be pursuing right now on this area.

Since we are keen to share our civil society open to everyone (not only 
CS members) since this list is quite open. I am wondering if we can also 
learn other stakeholders strategies on this? ;-)

Best, Katitza

On 11/3/10 4:43 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> Do you know when a final decision on the names that will be part of 
> the WG will be made, and when would the first meeting take place? I am 
> trying to organize my agenda of meetings until the end of the year, 
> and would like to save the dates, just in case.
>
> Thanks in advance for the help.
>
> Marília
>
> On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 4:31 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org 
> <mailto:anriette at apc.org>> wrote:
>
>     Agree with Milton. Thanks all.
>
>     Anriette
>
>
>     On 02/11/10 17:43, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>
>         Thanks to the Nomcom for their very quick work. This is a
>         strong and diverse CS representative group and I am happy to
>         be associated with it.
>
>
>             -----Original Message-----
>
>             Anriette Esterhuysen
>             Parminder Singh
>             Michael Gurstein
>             Wolfgang Kleinwachter
>             Izumi Aizu
>             Katitza Rodriguez
>             Marilia Maciel
>             William J Drake
>             Divina Frau-Meigs
>             Milton Mueller
>
>
>         ____________________________________________________________
>         You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>         governance at lists.cpsr.org <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>         To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>         governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>         <mailto:governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org>
>
>         For all list information and functions, see:
>         http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>         Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>     -- 
>     ------------------------------------------------------
>     anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org <mailto:anriette at apc.org>
>     executive director
>     association for progressive communications
>     www.apc.org <http://www.apc.org>
>
>
>     ____________________________________________________________
>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>     To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>     <mailto:governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org>
>
>     For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>     Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
> FGV Direito Rio
>
> Center for Technology and Society
> Getulio Vargas Foundation
> Rio de Janeiro - Brazil


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

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101103/7d8e44ba/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From katitza at eff.org  Wed Nov  3 11:21:56 2010
From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez)
Date: Wed, 03 Nov 2010 17:21:56 +0200
Subject: [governance] RE: CSTD Representatives - report from NomCom
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimf8jN33medy3YtiqgQB2nTW48JL-7DGBSJzUdu@mail.gmail.com>
References: <C8F1C32D.12F3F%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>	<75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC125B373@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>	<4CD0590C.1010607@apc.org> <AANLkTimf8jN33medy3YtiqgQB2nTW48JL-7DGBSJzUdu@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4CD17E14.4040101@eff.org>

This is true, Marilia. I am only answering the second and third 
question. I am not aware about how this process works. May be Ian can 
shed light for us on this. I am also interested to learn the strategy 
that the technical community might be pursuing right now on this area.

Since we are keen to share our civil society strategy with everyone on 
this list (not only CS members) since this list is quite open. I am 
wondering if we can also learn other stakeholders's strategies? ;-)

Best, Katitza

On 11/3/10 4:43 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> Do you know when a final decision on the names that will be part of 
> the WG will be made, and when would the first meeting take place? I am 
> trying to organize my agenda of meetings until the end of the year, 
> and would like to save the dates, just in case.
>
> Thanks in advance for the help.
>
> Marília
>
> On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 4:31 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org 
> <mailto:anriette at apc.org>> wrote:
>
>     Agree with Milton. Thanks all.
>
>     Anriette
>
>
>     On 02/11/10 17:43, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>
>         Thanks to the Nomcom for their very quick work. This is a
>         strong and diverse CS representative group and I am happy to
>         be associated with it.
>
>
>             -----Original Message-----
>
>             Anriette Esterhuysen
>             Parminder Singh
>             Michael Gurstein
>             Wolfgang Kleinwachter
>             Izumi Aizu
>             Katitza Rodriguez
>             Marilia Maciel
>             William J Drake
>             Divina Frau-Meigs
>             Milton Mueller
>
>
>         ____________________________________________________________
>         You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>         governance at lists.cpsr.org <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>         To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>         governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>         <mailto:governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org>
>
>         For all list information and functions, see:
>         http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>         Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>     -- 
>     ------------------------------------------------------
>     anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org <mailto:anriette at apc.org>
>     executive director
>     association for progressive communications
>     www.apc.org <http://www.apc.org>
>
>
>     ____________________________________________________________
>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>     To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>     <mailto:governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org>
>
>     For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>     Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
> FGV Direito Rio
>
> Center for Technology and Society
> Getulio Vargas Foundation
> Rio de Janeiro - Brazil


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

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101103/a212b4d9/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From katitza at eff.org  Wed Nov  3 11:44:30 2010
From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez)
Date: Wed, 03 Nov 2010 17:44:30 +0200
Subject: [governance] RE: CSTD Representatives - report from NomCom
In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC125B373@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
References: <C8F1C32D.12F3F%ian.peter@ianpeter.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC125B373@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <4CD1835E.9090405@eff.org>

I would like to share my appreciation for the Nomcom's work and quick 
response on this process. I also believe that this is a very strong 
group of  civil society members. Thanks for adding my name to this list 
of hard worker and committed civil society group.

Katitza
On 11/2/10 5:43 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> Thanks to the Nomcom for their very quick work. This is a strong and diverse CS representative group and I am happy to be associated with it.
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>>
>> Anriette Esterhuysen
>> Parminder Singh
>> Michael Gurstein
>> Wolfgang Kleinwachter
>> Izumi Aizu
>> Katitza Rodriguez
>> Marilia Maciel
>> William J Drake
>> Divina Frau-Meigs
>> Milton Mueller
>>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>       governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>       governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>       http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


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

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

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

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

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


From gurstein at gmail.com  Wed Nov  3 19:19:29 2010
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2010 07:19:29 +0800
Subject: [governance] RE: CSTD Representatives - report from NomCom
In-Reply-To: <4CD1835E.9090405@eff.org>
Message-ID: <7FB9F454F39B4ACC9D6E0810201588F1@userPC>


My thanks to one and all as well and a commitment to follow up as suitable
to Izumi's call for volunteers when I'm again settled back into a routine...

M
--------------------

On 11/2/10 5:43 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> Thanks to the Nomcom for their very quick work. This is a strong and 
> diverse CS representative group and I am happy to be associated with 
> it.
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>>
>> Anriette Esterhuysen
>> Parminder Singh
>> Michael Gurstein
>> Wolfgang Kleinwachter
>> Izumi Aizu
>> Katitza Rodriguez
>> Marilia Maciel
>> William J Drake
>> Divina Frau-Meigs
>> Milton Mueller
>>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>       governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>       governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>       http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


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

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

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

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

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

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

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 Nov  4 00:18:34 2010
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2010 09:48:34 +0530
Subject: [governance] RE: CSTD Representatives - report from NomCom
In-Reply-To: <4CD1835E.9090405@eff.org>
References: <C8F1C32D.12F3F%ian.peter@ianpeter.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC125B373@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4CD1835E.9090405@eff.org>
Message-ID: <4CD2341A.5080208@itforchange.net>

My thanks too to the nomcom for reposing confidence in me as a CS 
nominee.. Parminder

On Wednesday 03 November 2010 09:14 PM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote:
> I would like to share my appreciation for the Nomcom's work and quick 
> response on this process. I also believe that this is a very strong 
> group of  civil society members. Thanks for adding my name to this 
> list of hard worker and committed civil society group.
>
> Katitza
> On 11/2/10 5:43 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>> Thanks to the Nomcom for their very quick work. This is a strong and 
>> diverse CS representative group and I am happy to be associated with it.
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>
>>> Anriette Esterhuysen
>>> Parminder Singh
>>> Michael Gurstein
>>> Wolfgang Kleinwachter
>>> Izumi Aizu
>>> Katitza Rodriguez
>>> Marilia Maciel
>>> William J Drake
>>> Divina Frau-Meigs
>>> Milton Mueller
>>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>       governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>       governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>       http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101104/841cf7eb/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From aizu at anr.org  Thu Nov  4 00:55:58 2010
From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2010 13:55:58 +0900
Subject: [governance] ICANN Ombudsman says good bye
In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0736B@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <4CBC9C42.1080801@apc.org> <4CBD427D.3070809@itforchange.net>
 <41784D1C-ED35-4DC4-8256-8CBF67BE520D@graduateinstitute.ch>
 <4CBD6936.9060202@itforchange.net> <982CDE0C-6142-48D4-B1AF-9FEBCF539AD4@graduateinstitute.ch>
 <kINCG+UUhYyMFAOk@perry.co.uk> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0736B@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <AANLkTimQuLgHYg66aVVTAYdifvd7+0usuzfRrwfG-v8+@mail.gmail.com>

thanks for letting us know this.

For those who don't know much about ICANN Ombudsman,
some civil society members at ICANN, as members of ALAC
had bad trouble with him a few years ago, I was one of the
victims  ;-).

izumi

2010/10/31 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"
<wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>:
> "It's time for me to spend a bit more time at home with my wonderful wife."
>
> http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-28oct10-en.htm
>
> 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
>
>



-- 
                        >> Izumi Aizu <<

          Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo

           Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,
                                  Japan
                                 * * * * *
           << Writing the Future of the History >>
                                www.anr.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 iza at anr.org  Thu Nov  4 01:18:00 2010
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2010 14:18:00 +0900
Subject: [governance] Very neutral statement on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <4CD17823.8010108@itforchange.net>
References: <70E573F5-00B4-4837-89B7-C05B9DA7E479@ciroap.org>
 <7.0.1.0.2.20101103021355.05d70e60@jefsey.com> <5B31379A-A914-4BE1-945B-EEF2478BA1DC@ciroap.org>
 <7.0.1.0.2.20101103094622.0651ee20@jefsey.com> <3FE17A9E-E507-44DA-8AE2-EC7EC56DD1D8@ciroap.org>
 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006DA4@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4CD17823.8010108@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <AANLkTikONmgaa+4rO+uZkAv4YrPDfSV4aP9YKk_=Lgox@mail.gmail.com>

Dear list,

First, I believe we need to conclude our statement and deliver to
UN DESA/ECOSOC  by Nov. 15, 10 more days, and then this
will be used at the CSTD consultation meeting on Nov 24 in
Geneva. Am I correct?

If so, I don't think we cannot wait until our "Strategy" work finalized
and then solidly incorporated in this statement realistically.
It is not feasible and also risky.

I thought that's why Jeremy made rather "neutral" and non-contentious
draft. That does not mean in our future work to stop there.

What I read from Jeremy's draft is that Civil Society wants the
multi-stakeholder framework at any kind of "enhanced cooperation"
which originally implied, or have tendency to be, inter-governmental,
but not multi-stakeholder. I think that is important and everyone here
agrees.

For that, "MS observatory process convened under the auspices of the IGF"
might be sufficient, at least for the time being.

We can also add "regional balance" and/or "developmental" aspects
to be considered in the enhanced cooperation, if I may suggest.
I mean we do not accept one side (North or South, or East or West)
dominates over the other. Rather than saying "neutral", we can offer
"balanced approach" or something like that.
Mabe we could add gender balance, special attention to minorities in
culture and language, persons with disabilities, small and remote
communities, etc
all to be taken seriously. It could be too descriptive, though, I am afraid.

In 2003 WSIS CS declaration, we  said
"Technological decisions should be taken with the goal of meeting the
life-critical needs of people, not with goal of enriching companies or
enabling undemocratic control by governments. Therefore, fundamental
decisions concerning the design and use of technologies must be made
in cooperation with Civil Society, including individual end-users,
engineers, and scientists."

We can also use this to be applied to the EC principle and framework.

But again, we can make short and clear statement, as "beginning placeholder"
and elaborate as we progress our own debate towards December meeting.

my 2 cents.

izumi


2010/11/3 parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>:
> Hi All
>
> I agree with Lee that we should try to be more substantive in our enhanced
> cooperation statement.
>
> This is also related to Izumi's initiative towards renewing IGC energies
> through more purposeful and focused work, about which more in a separate
> email. We are in a political process and non-decision is itself a political
> choice. As the main global civil society organization it hardly behooves us
> to say, we really have no ideas about what kind of global IG regime we will
> like to have and move towards through the WSIS mandated enhanced cooperation
> process. In fact, since we are kind of being specifically asked, we should
> be able to come up with some relatively clear models of where to go and how.
> We need to at least try to pull together some common position on this most
> important issue. We cannot give up even without a discussion on the list.
>
> On the other hand, if we are indeed so pessimistic that any common
> progressive civil society position on the most appropriate global IG model
> and institutions (or at least a small range of possibilities) is very
> unlikely to emerge, then perhaps we just may not have the political cohesion
> to succeed in the new initiative being proposed by the co-coordinators. I am
> not being dismissive about this initiative, I am very much for it and have
> myself proposed similar things earlier, I am just posing a challenge which
> looks rather real to me.
>
> In short, what I mean is that if we are unable to have a  strategy for such
> an important and urgent issue like enhanced cooperation, when 'the moment'
> stares in our face, can we realistically hope to come up with other running
> strategies for our work.
>
> Parminder
>
>
>
>
> On Wednesday 03 November 2010 07:47 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote:
>
> Jeremy,
>
> If I may wade in here, even if not pretending I know whether we are the moon
> or the sky:
>
> Right now we got a pretty small list with grandiose notions; with volunteer
> human capital its only resource.
>
> There's related dedicated folks clustering around a variety of 'Internet
> governance' institutions or institutions which -also - do Internet
> governance, however else they define and busy themselves. Some are the same
> people here, stretched thinner and thinner...
>
> Anyway, rather than moon and sky if it is just one world of ig,
> it's...easier.
>
> In UN-GAID context in September I advocated a 'social grid' around and
> beyond ICT4D activities...remember a few emails on list re why not have IGF
> messages received by GAID and via GAID's eNabler  tools to development
> planners worldwide. That is just one possible path if a social grid is
> established which more tightly but still loosely because it is only
> virtually or voluntarily coupled one to another ig orgs.
>
> The connection to enhanced cooperation: a social grid into and across ig
> orgs in which civil society ALWAYS has a seat at the table - and oh yeah
> nation-states have a say too - but that is enhanced cooperation.
>
> In my opinion.
>
> So this may all be too much for the enhanced cooperation neutral statement,
> but point is that maybe it is time not to be too too neutral and actually
> work to define -enhanced cooperation- operationally. Starting by advocating
> the same, as part of the next 5 year agenda.
>
> Lee
> ________________________________________
> From: Jeremy Malcolm [jeremy at ciroap.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2010 7:22 AM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; JFC Morfin
> Subject: Re: [governance] Very neutral statement on enhanced cooperation
>
> On 03/11/2010, at 4:22 PM, JFC Morfin wrote:
>
>
>
> As I hinted in talking of a moon in the governance sky, we need to change
> ourselves first if we do not understand what one expects from us. There is
> time to first define our area of responsibility, what civil society means,
> and the legitimacy, pertience and competence it gives us to address people's
> private, civil and public needs.
>
> Sorry if I knocked at the wrong door. My need is for addressing the real
> life impact on public issues of the technology fondamental metachange we
> have obtained (RFC 5890-5895). The important  thing is not the metachange
> (it was implied in the technology) but the intergovernmental assessment of
> what real life should look like from their current perspective.
>
>
> Certainly you are not alone in suggesting that the IGC needs to get more
> practical and to better engage with broader communities.  But it sounds like
> this is (valid, and important) input for the IGC working groups, rather than
> a suggestion for drafting of our statement to the upcoming enhanced
> cooperation consultation, correct?
>
> --
> 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
>



-- 
                        >> Izumi Aizu <<

          Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo

           Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,
                                  Japan
                                 * * * * *
           << Writing the Future of the History >>
                                www.anr.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 ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Thu Nov  4 02:11:23 2010
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2010 17:11:23 +1100
Subject: [governance] It's Time to Stop ICANN's Top-Level Domain (TLD)
 Lunacy!
Message-ID: <C8F899BB.131F6%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>

>From Lauren Weinstein - copied from his blog.

The Executive Summary - "The DNS and the domain name infrastructure made
sense in an era before the universal availability of search engines and
online directories. But for such massive costs and complexities -- such as
those inevitably stemming from the ICANN TLD expansion -- to be incurred
simply to map names to Internet sites is now both technically and
economically obsolete and abominable".

Internet co-founder Robert Kahn is one of just a number of people working on
alternative resource discovery systems more akin to todays needs.

Ian Peter       

Lauren's missive follows.

 It's Time to Stop ICANN's Top-Level Domain (TLD) Lunacy!

              http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000776.html


Greetings.  I'm going to keep this relatively short and sweet, since
I've written of my concerns about ICANN's handling of Top-Level
Domains (TLDs) many times in the past.

The existing Domain Name System (DNS) has been leveraged in multiple
ways into something akin to a protection racket, with vast sums of
money being funneled to existing and wannabe registries, registrars --
and to ICANN itself -- with little or no resulting tangible benefits
to the Internet community at large.  That is, unless you consider ever
increasing levels of costs and confusion to be some sort of benefits.
Dot-com is still the single TLD that most Internet users recognize as
fundamental among the increasingly disruptive clutter -- and you
haven't seen anything yet compared with the pandemonium about to be
unleashed.

"Protective registrations" by trademark owners and other concerned
parties in new TLDs have become an enormous profit center for various
players in the DNS ecosystem, with boasting about the income that will
be derived through such arm-twisting techniques now being commonplace.

The amount of money involved is staggering.  In a few days, ICANN may
release their new "guidebook" for upcoming TLD applicants
( http://bit.ly/9BZUNu [ars technica] ).  The application fee alone for
a single new TLD is reported to be almost $200K, payable to ICANN.
The cost of running a new TLD if you're accepted?  A whole bunch,
likely including (but not limited to) big moola to ICANN every year.

ICANN plans to limit the number of new TLDs to only (only???) about
1000 per year -- maybe half that in the first year.  Let's see,
$185,000 times 1000 ... Nice chunk of change.

Of course, ICANN claims that these fees are justified by the costs
involved in processing these applications.  Assuming this is true, I
can't think of a better proof that the entire process is rotten and
dysfunctional to the core.

The DNS and the domain name infrastructure made sense in an era before
the universal availability of search engines and online directories.
But for such massive costs and complexities -- such as those
inevitably stemming from the ICANN TLD expansion -- to be incurred
simply to map names to Internet sites is now both technically and
economically obsolete and abominable.

It's time to end the TLD madness.  It will take both time and some
heavy lifting.  But there are alternative methodologies -- more
efficient, extensible, and far more economical, much better suited to
the Internet of the 21st century, and we need to start working on them
now.

Vested interests -- basically the entire "domain-industrial
complex" -- who stand to profit mightily by exploiting the continuation
and expansion of the unnecessary, counterproductive, and obsolete domain
name system, can be expected to fight any efforts at significant
changes, using every weapon in their arsenals.  Various other parties
will also fight such changes -- since as we've increasingly seen the
DNS provides an ideal mechanism for centralized censorship and
heavy-handed intellectual property enforcement regimes -- through the
disabling on demand of Web site name-based addressability.

Be that all as it may, this is a battle -- nay, perhaps a war --
necessary for the best interests of both the Internet and its global
community of users.

Please let me know if you'd be interested in participating.

Thanks.  Take care.

--Lauren--
Lauren Weinstein (lauren at vortex.com)
http://www.vortex.com/lauren
Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800
Co-Founder, PFIR (People For Internet Responsibility): http://www.pfir.org
Founder, NNSquad (Network Neutrality Squad): http://www.nnsquad.org
Founder, GCTIP (Global Coalition for Transparent Internet Performance):
  http://www.gctip.org
Founder, PRIVACY Forum: http://www.vortex.com
Member, ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy
Lauren's Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com
Twitter: https://twitter.com/laurenweinstein
Google Buzz: http://bit.ly/lauren-buzz



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

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 Nov  4 02:38:03 2010
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2010 09:38:03 +0300
Subject: [governance] It's Time to Stop ICANN's Top-Level Domain (TLD)
 Lunacy!
In-Reply-To: <C8F899BB.131F6%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
References: <C8F899BB.131F6%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=JwQpsikNoZKegy1Vn==n_AKA7ysK4mqs0v+Nt@mail.gmail.com>

Ian,

As I told Lauren on PFIR list, that ship has sailed, the time to speak
up about it was long ago.

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel


On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 9:11 AM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
> From Lauren Weinstein - copied from his blog.
>
> The Executive Summary - "The DNS and the domain name infrastructure made
> sense in an era before the universal availability of search engines and
> online directories. But for such massive costs and complexities -- such as
> those inevitably stemming from the ICANN TLD expansion -- to be incurred
> simply to map names to Internet sites is now both technically and
> economically obsolete and abominable".
>
> Internet co-founder Robert Kahn is one of just a number of people working on
> alternative resource discovery systems more akin to todays needs.
>
> Ian Peter
>
> Lauren's missive follows.
>
>  It's Time to Stop ICANN's Top-Level Domain (TLD) Lunacy!
>
>              http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000776.html
>
>
> Greetings.  I'm going to keep this relatively short and sweet, since
> I've written of my concerns about ICANN's handling of Top-Level
> Domains (TLDs) many times in the past.
>
> The existing Domain Name System (DNS) has been leveraged in multiple
> ways into something akin to a protection racket, with vast sums of
> money being funneled to existing and wannabe registries, registrars --
> and to ICANN itself -- with little or no resulting tangible benefits
> to the Internet community at large.  That is, unless you consider ever
> increasing levels of costs and confusion to be some sort of benefits.
> Dot-com is still the single TLD that most Internet users recognize as
> fundamental among the increasingly disruptive clutter -- and you
> haven't seen anything yet compared with the pandemonium about to be
> unleashed.
>
> "Protective registrations" by trademark owners and other concerned
> parties in new TLDs have become an enormous profit center for various
> players in the DNS ecosystem, with boasting about the income that will
> be derived through such arm-twisting techniques now being commonplace.
>
> The amount of money involved is staggering.  In a few days, ICANN may
> release their new "guidebook" for upcoming TLD applicants
> ( http://bit.ly/9BZUNu [ars technica] ).  The application fee alone for
> a single new TLD is reported to be almost $200K, payable to ICANN.
> The cost of running a new TLD if you're accepted?  A whole bunch,
> likely including (but not limited to) big moola to ICANN every year.
>
> ICANN plans to limit the number of new TLDs to only (only???) about
> 1000 per year -- maybe half that in the first year.  Let's see,
> $185,000 times 1000 ... Nice chunk of change.
>
> Of course, ICANN claims that these fees are justified by the costs
> involved in processing these applications.  Assuming this is true, I
> can't think of a better proof that the entire process is rotten and
> dysfunctional to the core.
>
> The DNS and the domain name infrastructure made sense in an era before
> the universal availability of search engines and online directories.
> But for such massive costs and complexities -- such as those
> inevitably stemming from the ICANN TLD expansion -- to be incurred
> simply to map names to Internet sites is now both technically and
> economically obsolete and abominable.
>
> It's time to end the TLD madness.  It will take both time and some
> heavy lifting.  But there are alternative methodologies -- more
> efficient, extensible, and far more economical, much better suited to
> the Internet of the 21st century, and we need to start working on them
> now.
>
> Vested interests -- basically the entire "domain-industrial
> complex" -- who stand to profit mightily by exploiting the continuation
> and expansion of the unnecessary, counterproductive, and obsolete domain
> name system, can be expected to fight any efforts at significant
> changes, using every weapon in their arsenals.  Various other parties
> will also fight such changes -- since as we've increasingly seen the
> DNS provides an ideal mechanism for centralized censorship and
> heavy-handed intellectual property enforcement regimes -- through the
> disabling on demand of Web site name-based addressability.
>
> Be that all as it may, this is a battle -- nay, perhaps a war --
> necessary for the best interests of both the Internet and its global
> community of users.
>
> Please let me know if you'd be interested in participating.
>
> Thanks.  Take care.
>
> --Lauren--
> Lauren Weinstein (lauren at vortex.com)
> http://www.vortex.com/lauren
> Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800
> Co-Founder, PFIR (People For Internet Responsibility): http://www.pfir.org
> Founder, NNSquad (Network Neutrality Squad): http://www.nnsquad.org
> Founder, GCTIP (Global Coalition for Transparent Internet Performance):
>  http://www.gctip.org
> Founder, PRIVACY Forum: http://www.vortex.com
> Member, ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy
> Lauren's Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com
> Twitter: https://twitter.com/laurenweinstein
> Google Buzz: http://bit.ly/lauren-buzz
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From parminder at itforchange.net  Thu Nov  4 02:51:47 2010
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2010 12:21:47 +0530
Subject: [governance] It's Time to Stop ICANN's Top-Level Domain (TLD)
In-Reply-To: <C8F899BB.131F6%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
References: <C8F899BB.131F6%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
Message-ID: <4CD25803.1000402@itforchange.net>

While ICANN functions remain essential, I have always felt that the 
ratio of all its paraphernalia/ costs etc to its actual mandate/ 
contribution/ outcomes is exceptionally and unacceptably high....

The reason for this appears twofold

(1) ICANN has a captive and self-determined tax base and income through 
its monopoly service. They need to spend it to justify it.

(2) There is that real underlying struggle to keep representative (but 
deep) democratic governance out of Internet, and if possible, 
information society, realm, and for that purpose to promote a new global 
governance model that is open, transparent and inclusive in its apparent 
design but in fact serves to reproduce existing social and political 
dominations.

Parminder


On Thursday 04 November 2010 11:41 AM, Ian Peter wrote:
> > From Lauren Weinstein - copied from his blog.
>
> The Executive Summary - "The DNS and the domain name infrastructure made
> sense in an era before the universal availability of search engines and
> online directories. But for such massive costs and complexities -- such as
> those inevitably stemming from the ICANN TLD expansion -- to be incurred
> simply to map names to Internet sites is now both technically and
> economically obsolete and abominable".
>
> Internet co-founder Robert Kahn is one of just a number of people working on
> alternative resource discovery systems more akin to todays needs.
>
> Ian Peter
>
> Lauren's missive follows.
>
>   It's Time to Stop ICANN's Top-Level Domain (TLD) Lunacy!
>
>                http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000776.html
>
>
> Greetings.  I'm going to keep this relatively short and sweet, since
> I've written of my concerns about ICANN's handling of Top-Level
> Domains (TLDs) many times in the past.
>
> The existing Domain Name System (DNS) has been leveraged in multiple
> ways into something akin to a protection racket, with vast sums of
> money being funneled to existing and wannabe registries, registrars --
> and to ICANN itself -- with little or no resulting tangible benefits
> to the Internet community at large.  That is, unless you consider ever
> increasing levels of costs and confusion to be some sort of benefits.
> Dot-com is still the single TLD that most Internet users recognize as
> fundamental among the increasingly disruptive clutter -- and you
> haven't seen anything yet compared with the pandemonium about to be
> unleashed.
>
> "Protective registrations" by trademark owners and other concerned
> parties in new TLDs have become an enormous profit center for various
> players in the DNS ecosystem, with boasting about the income that will
> be derived through such arm-twisting techniques now being commonplace.
>
> The amount of money involved is staggering.  In a few days, ICANN may
> release their new "guidebook" for upcoming TLD applicants
> ( http://bit.ly/9BZUNu [ars technica] ).  The application fee alone for
> a single new TLD is reported to be almost $200K, payable to ICANN.
> The cost of running a new TLD if you're accepted?  A whole bunch,
> likely including (but not limited to) big moola to ICANN every year.
>
> ICANN plans to limit the number of new TLDs to only (only???) about
> 1000 per year -- maybe half that in the first year.  Let's see,
> $185,000 times 1000 ... Nice chunk of change.
>
> Of course, ICANN claims that these fees are justified by the costs
> involved in processing these applications.  Assuming this is true, I
> can't think of a better proof that the entire process is rotten and
> dysfunctional to the core.
>
> The DNS and the domain name infrastructure made sense in an era before
> the universal availability of search engines and online directories.
> But for such massive costs and complexities -- such as those
> inevitably stemming from the ICANN TLD expansion -- to be incurred
> simply to map names to Internet sites is now both technically and
> economically obsolete and abominable.
>
> It's time to end the TLD madness.  It will take both time and some
> heavy lifting.  But there are alternative methodologies -- more
> efficient, extensible, and far more economical, much better suited to
> the Internet of the 21st century, and we need to start working on them
> now.
>
> Vested interests -- basically the entire "domain-industrial
> complex" -- who stand to profit mightily by exploiting the continuation
> and expansion of the unnecessary, counterproductive, and obsolete domain
> name system, can be expected to fight any efforts at significant
> changes, using every weapon in their arsenals.  Various other parties
> will also fight such changes -- since as we've increasingly seen the
> DNS provides an ideal mechanism for centralized censorship and
> heavy-handed intellectual property enforcement regimes -- through the
> disabling on demand of Web site name-based addressability.
>
> Be that all as it may, this is a battle -- nay, perhaps a war --
> necessary for the best interests of both the Internet and its global
> community of users.
>
> Please let me know if you'd be interested in participating.
>
> Thanks.  Take care.
>
> --Lauren--
> Lauren Weinstein (lauren at vortex.com)
> http://www.vortex.com/lauren
> Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800
> Co-Founder, PFIR (People For Internet Responsibility): http://www.pfir.org
> Founder, NNSquad (Network Neutrality Squad): http://www.nnsquad.org
> Founder, GCTIP (Global Coalition for Transparent Internet Performance):
>    http://www.gctip.org
> Founder, PRIVACY Forum: http://www.vortex.com
> Member, ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy
> Lauren's Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com
> Twitter: https://twitter.com/laurenweinstein
> Google Buzz: http://bit.ly/lauren-buzz
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>       governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>       governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>       http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>    
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101104/baa83294/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From karl at cavebear.com  Thu Nov  4 03:41:42 2010
From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach)
Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2010 00:41:42 -0700
Subject: [governance] It's Time to Stop ICANN's Top-Level Domain (TLD)
In-Reply-To: <C8F899BB.131F6%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
References: <C8F899BB.131F6%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
Message-ID: <4CD263B6.5010708@cavebear.com>

Although I often agree with Lauren, in this case I do not.

His argument is essentially this:

  - Thing X can be used for ill purposes (among good purposes)

  - Therefore thing X must be banned.

Let's apply that to the internet:

   - The internet can be used for financial scams and ugly content.

   - Therefore the internet must be banned.

Oh that is so much fun, let's try it again:

   - Airplanes can be used to drop bombs.

   - Therefore airplanes must be banned.

We can use that silly logic over and over again and we'd end up in a 
world in which everything from medicine to automobiles to food is banned.

The faux logic forgets that almost everything is a balance of good and 
bad.  And it also forgets that quite often the approach for dealing with 
the bad is to do the obvious: deal with the bad and not ban the thing in 
which the bad is ensconced.

	--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 roland at internetpolicyagency.com  Thu Nov  4 04:48:34 2010
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2010 08:48:34 +0000
Subject: [governance] Very neutral statement on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikONmgaa+4rO+uZkAv4YrPDfSV4aP9YKk_=Lgox@mail.gmail.com>
References: <70E573F5-00B4-4837-89B7-C05B9DA7E479@ciroap.org>
 <7.0.1.0.2.20101103021355.05d70e60@jefsey.com>
 <5B31379A-A914-4BE1-945B-EEF2478BA1DC@ciroap.org>
 <7.0.1.0.2.20101103094622.0651ee20@jefsey.com>
 <3FE17A9E-E507-44DA-8AE2-EC7EC56DD1D8@ciroap.org>
 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006DA4@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
 <4CD17823.8010108@itforchange.net>
 <AANLkTikONmgaa+4rO+uZkAv4YrPDfSV4aP9YKk_=Lgox@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <SXm$xUViNn0MFAIp@internetpolicyagency.com>

In message <AANLkTikONmgaa+4rO+uZkAv4YrPDfSV4aP9YKk_=Lgox at mail.gmail.com
>, at 14:18:00 on Thu, 4 Nov 2010, Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org> writes

>First, I believe we need to conclude our statement and deliver to
>UN DESA/ECOSOC  by Nov. 15, 10 more days, and then this
>will be used at the CSTD consultation meeting on Nov 24 in
>Geneva. Am I correct?

1) I think the Enhanced CoOperation consultation input due on 15th
November is for the New York ECOSOC meeting on 14th December (the one
with limited space for non-Government attendees).

http://www.unpan.org/dpadm/wsisfollowup/

2) As far as I know, the online questionnaire which was predicted in the
"Tentative Roadmap", ahead of the informal CSTD IGF-WG open consultation
meeting on November 24th in Geneva (which is not the first formal
meeting for which ten representatives were recently chosen, that meeting
is in December adjacent to the CSTD Intersessional Panel 15-17th
December in Geneva), has not yet appeared.

<http://www.unctad.org/Templates/Download.asp?docid=14030&lang=1&intItem
ID=4839>

3) In the mean time there's a separate online questionnaire about WSIS
(due by 14th December):

http://www.unctad.info/en/CSTD_WSIS5

... which makes some efforts to distance itself from the other two
exercises above:

        "Please also note that a separate consultation is being
        undertaken by CSTD in relation to the Internet Governance Forum,
        and that a consultation on other outcomes of that section of the
        Tunis Agenda for the Information Society which is concerned with
        “Internet governance” (paragraphs 29-82) is being undertaken by
        UNDESA.  You should make any comments on these issues within
        those consultations rather than in response to this
        questionnaire."

ps It's going to be busy in early December, also with the final results
of IGF renewal emerging from the UN General Assembly.
-- 
Roland Perry
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From jlfullsack at orange.fr  Thu Nov  4 04:56:09 2010
From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK)
Date: Thu,  4 Nov 2010 09:56:09 +0100 (CET)
Subject: [governance] Very neutral statement on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikONmgaa+4rO+uZkAv4YrPDfSV4aP9YKk_=Lgox@mail.gmail.com>
References: <70E573F5-00B4-4837-89B7-C05B9DA7E479@ciroap.org>
 <7.0.1.0.2.20101103021355.05d70e60@jefsey.com>
 <5B31379A-A914-4BE1-945B-EEF2478BA1DC@ciroap.org>
 <7.0.1.0.2.20101103094622.0651ee20@jefsey.com>
 <3FE17A9E-E507-44DA-8AE2-EC7EC56DD1D8@ciroap.org>
 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006DA4@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
 <4CD17823.8010108@itforchange.net>
 <AANLkTikONmgaa+4rO+uZkAv4YrPDfSV4aP9YKk_=Lgox@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <30381541.21608.1288860969090.JavaMail.www@wwinf1d30>

Dear Izumi

I thank you for your constant concern for refferring to our (CS) own values and positions we expressed in our Declarations, both Geneva and Tunis, as well as those made during the WSIS follow-up process.

We should strive to take into account our ideas rather than or before to adapt ourselves to other "partners' ones. At least we should establish a "two column" grid -i.e. our position in one column and the "official" (intergovenmental) in the other- for addressing the issues and questions raised. Just a suggestion ...

I fully support the idea to add "development" (rather -because stronger- than "regional balance") as a major issue to be taken into account in our statements, positions and in our proposals.

My congratulations and encouragements to all our nomcom members.

Jean-Louis Fullsack
CSDPTT



> Message du 04/11/10 06:19
> De : "Izumi AIZU" 
> A : governance at lists.cpsr.org, "parminder" 
> Copie à : 
> Objet : Re: [governance] Very neutral statement on enhanced cooperation
> 
> 
> Dear list,
> 
> First, I believe we need to conclude our statement and deliver to
> UN DESA/ECOSOC by Nov. 15, 10 more days, and then this
> will be used at the CSTD consultation meeting on Nov 24 in
> Geneva. Am I correct?
> 
> If so, I don't think we cannot wait until our "Strategy" work finalized
> and then solidly incorporated in this statement realistically.
> It is not feasible and also risky.
> 
> I thought that's why Jeremy made rather "neutral" and non-contentious
> draft. That does not mean in our future work to stop there.
> 
> What I read from Jeremy's draft is that Civil Society wants the
> multi-stakeholder framework at any kind of "enhanced cooperation"
> which originally implied, or have tendency to be, inter-governmental,
> but not multi-stakeholder. I think that is important and everyone here
> agrees.
> 
> For that, "MS observatory process convened under the auspices of the IGF"
> might be sufficient, at least for the time being.
> 
> We can also add "regional balance" and/or "developmental" aspects
> to be considered in the enhanced cooperation, if I may suggest.
> I mean we do not accept one side (North or South, or East or West)
> dominates over the other. Rather than saying "neutral", we can offer
> "balanced approach" or something like that.
> Mabe we could add gender balance, special attention to minorities in
> culture and language, persons with disabilities, small and remote
> communities, etc
> all to be taken seriously. It could be too descriptive, though, I am afraid.
> 
> In 2003 WSIS CS declaration, we said
> "Technological decisions should be taken with the goal of meeting the
> life-critical needs of people, not with goal of enriching companies or
> enabling undemocratic control by governments. Therefore, fundamental
> decisions concerning the design and use of technologies must be made
> in cooperation with Civil Society, including individual end-users,
> engineers, and scientists."
> 
> We can also use this to be applied to the EC principle and framework.
> 
> But again, we can make short and clear statement, as "beginning placeholder"
> and elaborate as we progress our own debate towards December meeting.
> 
> my 2 cents.
> 
> izumi
> 
> 
> 2010/11/3 parminder :
> > Hi All
> >
> > I agree with Lee that we should try to be more substantive in our enhanced
> > cooperation statement.
> >
> > This is also related to Izumi's initiative towards renewing IGC energies
> > through more purposeful and focused work, about which more in a separate
> > email. We are in a political process and non-decision is itself a political
> > choice. As the main global civil society organization it hardly behooves us
> > to say, we really have no ideas about what kind of global IG regime we will
> > like to have and move towards through the WSIS mandated enhanced cooperation
> > process. In fact, since we are kind of being specifically asked, we should
> > be able to come up with some relatively clear models of where to go and how.
> > We need to at least try to pull together some common position on this most
> > important issue. We cannot give up even without a discussion on the list.
> >
> > On the other hand, if we are indeed so pessimistic that any common
> > progressive civil society position on the most appropriate global IG model
> > and institutions (or at least a small range of possibilities) is very
> > unlikely to emerge, then perhaps we just may not have the political cohesion
> > to succeed in the new initiative being proposed by the co-coordinators. I am
> > not being dismissive about this initiative, I am very much for it and have
> > myself proposed similar things earlier, I am just posing a challenge which
> > looks rather real to me.
> >
> > In short, what I mean is that if we are unable to have a  strategy for such
> > an important and urgent issue like enhanced cooperation, when 'the moment'
> > stares in our face, can we realistically hope to come up with other running
> > strategies for our work.
> >
> > Parminder
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wednesday 03 November 2010 07:47 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote:
> >
> > Jeremy,
> >
> > If I may wade in here, even if not pretending I know whether we are the moon
> > or the sky:
> >
> > Right now we got a pretty small list with grandiose notions; with volunteer
> > human capital its only resource.
> >
> > There's related dedicated folks clustering around a variety of 'Internet
> > governance' institutions or institutions which -also - do Internet
> > governance, however else they define and busy themselves. Some are the same
> > people here, stretched thinner and thinner...
> >
> > Anyway, rather than moon and sky if it is just one world of ig,
> > it's...easier.
> >
> > In UN-GAID context in September I advocated a 'social grid' around and
> > beyond ICT4D activities...remember a few emails on list re why not have IGF
> > messages received by GAID and via GAID's eNabler tools to development
> > planners worldwide. That is just one possible path if a social grid is
> > established which more tightly but still loosely because it is only
> > virtually or voluntarily coupled one to another ig orgs.
> >
> > The connection to enhanced cooperation: a social grid into and across ig
> > orgs in which civil society ALWAYS has a seat at the table - and oh yeah
> > nation-states have a say too - but that is enhanced cooperation.
> >
> > In my opinion.
> >
> > So this may all be too much for the enhanced cooperation neutral statement,
> > but point is that maybe it is time not to be too too neutral and actually
> > work to define -enhanced cooperation- operationally. Starting by advocating
> > the same, as part of the next 5 year agenda.
> >
> > Lee
> > ________________________________________
> > From: Jeremy Malcolm [jeremy at ciroap.org]
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2010 7:22 AM
> > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; JFC Morfin
> > Subject: Re: [governance] Very neutral statement on enhanced cooperation
> >
> > On 03/11/2010, at 4:22 PM, JFC Morfin wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > As I hinted in talking of a moon in the governance sky, we need to change
> > ourselves first if we do not understand what one expects from us. There is
> > time to first define our area of responsibility, what civil society means,
> > and the legitimacy, pertience and competence it gives us to address people's
> > private, civil and public needs.
> >
> > Sorry if I knocked at the wrong door. My need is for addressing the real
> > life impact on public issues of the technology fondamental metachange we
> > have obtained (RFC 5890-5895). The important thing is not the metachange
> > (it was implied in the technology) but the intergovernmental assessment of
> > what real life should look like from their current perspective.
> >
> >
> > Certainly you are not alone in suggesting that the IGC needs to get more
> > practical and to better engage with broader communities. But it sounds like
> > this is (valid, and important) input for the IGC working groups, rather than
> > a suggestion for drafting of our statement to the upcoming enhanced
> > cooperation consultation, correct?
> >
> > --
> > 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
> >
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
>                         >> Izumi Aizu <<
> 
>           Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo
> 
>            Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,
>                                   Japan
>                                  * * * * *
>            << Writing the Future of the History >>
>                                 www.anr.org
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101104/5e632aab/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de  Thu Nov  4 04:57:23 2010
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=)
Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2010 09:57:23 +0100
Subject: AW: [governance] Very neutral statement on enhanced cooperation
References: <70E573F5-00B4-4837-89B7-C05B9DA7E479@ciroap.org>
 <7.0.1.0.2.20101103021355.05d70e60@jefsey.com>
 <5B31379A-A914-4BE1-945B-EEF2478BA1DC@ciroap.org>
 <7.0.1.0.2.20101103094622.0651ee20@jefsey.com>
 <3FE17A9E-E507-44DA-8AE2-EC7EC56DD1D8@ciroap.org>
 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006DA4@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
 <4CD17823.8010108@itforchange.net>
 <AANLkTikONmgaa+4rO+uZkAv4YrPDfSV4aP9YKk_=Lgox@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID:  <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A073AC@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

I fully support Izumis approach. We should seperate for the moment the short-term delivery of a statement for the November consultations from the mid-term production of a strategy document. Both are interlinked, but both are and will be based on the positions CS and IGC developed over the years, starting with the WSIS CS Declaration in 2003. 
 
Wolfgang

 
________________________________

Von: izumiaizu at gmail.com im Auftrag von Izumi AIZU
Gesendet: Do 04.11.2010 06:18
An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; parminder
Betreff: Re: [governance] Very neutral statement on enhanced cooperation



Dear list,

First, I believe we need to conclude our statement and deliver to
UN DESA/ECOSOC  by Nov. 15, 10 more days, and then this
will be used at the CSTD consultation meeting on Nov 24 in
Geneva. Am I correct?

If so, I don't think we cannot wait until our "Strategy" work finalized
and then solidly incorporated in this statement realistically.
It is not feasible and also risky.

I thought that's why Jeremy made rather "neutral" and non-contentious
draft. That does not mean in our future work to stop there.

What I read from Jeremy's draft is that Civil Society wants the
multi-stakeholder framework at any kind of "enhanced cooperation"
which originally implied, or have tendency to be, inter-governmental,
but not multi-stakeholder. I think that is important and everyone here
agrees.

For that, "MS observatory process convened under the auspices of the IGF"
might be sufficient, at least for the time being.

We can also add "regional balance" and/or "developmental" aspects
to be considered in the enhanced cooperation, if I may suggest.
I mean we do not accept one side (North or South, or East or West)
dominates over the other. Rather than saying "neutral", we can offer
"balanced approach" or something like that.
Mabe we could add gender balance, special attention to minorities in
culture and language, persons with disabilities, small and remote
communities, etc
all to be taken seriously. It could be too descriptive, though, I am afraid.

In 2003 WSIS CS declaration, we  said
"Technological decisions should be taken with the goal of meeting the
life-critical needs of people, not with goal of enriching companies or
enabling undemocratic control by governments. Therefore, fundamental
decisions concerning the design and use of technologies must be made
in cooperation with Civil Society, including individual end-users,
engineers, and scientists."

We can also use this to be applied to the EC principle and framework.

But again, we can make short and clear statement, as "beginning placeholder"
and elaborate as we progress our own debate towards December meeting.

my 2 cents.

izumi


2010/11/3 parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>:
> Hi All
>
> I agree with Lee that we should try to be more substantive in our enhanced
> cooperation statement.
>
> This is also related to Izumi's initiative towards renewing IGC energies
> through more purposeful and focused work, about which more in a separate
> email. We are in a political process and non-decision is itself a political
> choice. As the main global civil society organization it hardly behooves us
> to say, we really have no ideas about what kind of global IG regime we will
> like to have and move towards through the WSIS mandated enhanced cooperation
> process. In fact, since we are kind of being specifically asked, we should
> be able to come up with some relatively clear models of where to go and how.
> We need to at least try to pull together some common position on this most
> important issue. We cannot give up even without a discussion on the list.
>
> On the other hand, if we are indeed so pessimistic that any common
> progressive civil society position on the most appropriate global IG model
> and institutions (or at least a small range of possibilities) is very
> unlikely to emerge, then perhaps we just may not have the political cohesion
> to succeed in the new initiative being proposed by the co-coordinators. I am
> not being dismissive about this initiative, I am very much for it and have
> myself proposed similar things earlier, I am just posing a challenge which
> looks rather real to me.
>
> In short, what I mean is that if we are unable to have a  strategy for such
> an important and urgent issue like enhanced cooperation, when 'the moment'
> stares in our face, can we realistically hope to come up with other running
> strategies for our work.
>
> Parminder
>
>
>
>
> On Wednesday 03 November 2010 07:47 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote:
>
> Jeremy,
>
> If I may wade in here, even if not pretending I know whether we are the moon
> or the sky:
>
> Right now we got a pretty small list with grandiose notions; with volunteer
> human capital its only resource.
>
> There's related dedicated folks clustering around a variety of 'Internet
> governance' institutions or institutions which -also - do Internet
> governance, however else they define and busy themselves. Some are the same
> people here, stretched thinner and thinner...
>
> Anyway, rather than moon and sky if it is just one world of ig,
> it's...easier.
>
> In UN-GAID context in September I advocated a 'social grid' around and
> beyond ICT4D activities...remember a few emails on list re why not have IGF
> messages received by GAID and via GAID's eNabler  tools to development
> planners worldwide. That is just one possible path if a social grid is
> established which more tightly but still loosely because it is only
> virtually or voluntarily coupled one to another ig orgs.
>
> The connection to enhanced cooperation: a social grid into and across ig
> orgs in which civil society ALWAYS has a seat at the table - and oh yeah
> nation-states have a say too - but that is enhanced cooperation.
>
> In my opinion.
>
> So this may all be too much for the enhanced cooperation neutral statement,
> but point is that maybe it is time not to be too too neutral and actually
> work to define -enhanced cooperation- operationally. Starting by advocating
> the same, as part of the next 5 year agenda.
>
> Lee
> ________________________________________
> From: Jeremy Malcolm [jeremy at ciroap.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2010 7:22 AM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; JFC Morfin
> Subject: Re: [governance] Very neutral statement on enhanced cooperation
>
> On 03/11/2010, at 4:22 PM, JFC Morfin wrote:
>
>
>
> As I hinted in talking of a moon in the governance sky, we need to change
> ourselves first if we do not understand what one expects from us. There is
> time to first define our area of responsibility, what civil society means,
> and the legitimacy, pertience and competence it gives us to address people's
> private, civil and public needs.
>
> Sorry if I knocked at the wrong door. My need is for addressing the real
> life impact on public issues of the technology fondamental metachange we
> have obtained (RFC 5890-5895). The important  thing is not the metachange
> (it was implied in the technology) but the intergovernmental assessment of
> what real life should look like from their current perspective.
>
>
> Certainly you are not alone in suggesting that the IGC needs to get more
> practical and to better engage with broader communities.  But it sounds like
> this is (valid, and important) input for the IGC working groups, rather than
> a suggestion for drafting of our statement to the upcoming enhanced
> cooperation consultation, correct?
>
> --
> 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
>



--
                        >> Izumi Aizu <<

          Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo

           Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,
                                  Japan
                                 * * * * *
           << Writing the Future of the History >>
                                www.anr.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 wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de  Thu Nov  4 05:02:01 2010
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=)
Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2010 10:02:01 +0100
Subject: AW: [governance] RE: CSTD Representatives - report from NomCom
References: <C8F1C32D.12F3F%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC125B373@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
 <4CD1835E.9090405@eff.org> <4CD2341A.5080208@itforchange.net>
Message-ID:  <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A073AD@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

Thanks for the confidence. I will do my best to make IGF2.0 a civil society friendly environment. 
 
wolfgang

________________________________

Von: parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net]
Gesendet: Do 04.11.2010 05:18
An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Katitza Rodriguez
Betreff: Re: [governance] RE: CSTD Representatives - report from NomCom


My thanks too to the nomcom for reposing confidence in me as a CS nominee.. Parminder 

On Wednesday 03 November 2010 09:14 PM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote: 

	I would like to share my appreciation for the Nomcom's work and quick response on this process. I also believe that this is a very strong group of  civil society members. Thanks for adding my name to this list of hard worker and committed civil society group. 
	
	Katitza 
	On 11/2/10 5:43 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: 
	

		Thanks to the Nomcom for their very quick work. This is a strong and diverse CS representative group and I am happy to be associated with it. 
		
		

			-----Original Message----- 
			
			Anriette Esterhuysen 
			Parminder Singh 
			Michael Gurstein 
			Wolfgang Kleinwachter 
			Izumi Aizu 
			Katitza Rodriguez 
			Marilia Maciel 
			William J Drake 
			Divina Frau-Meigs 
			Milton Mueller 
			
			

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



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

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

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


From jlfullsack at orange.fr  Thu Nov  4 05:25:51 2010
From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK)
Date: Thu,  4 Nov 2010 10:25:51 +0100 (CET)
Subject: AW: [governance] RE: CSTD Representatives - report from NomCom
In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A073AD@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <C8F1C32D.12F3F%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC125B373@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
 <4CD1835E.9090405@eff.org> <4CD2341A.5080208@itforchange.net>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A073AD@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <26383178.22802.1288862751023.JavaMail.www@wwinf1d30>

Alles Gute Wolfgang !

Jean-Louis Fullsack




> Message du 04/11/10 10:04
> De : ""Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"" 
> A : governance at lists.cpsr.org, "parminder" , governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Katitza Rodriguez" 
> Copie à : 
> Objet : AW: [governance] RE: CSTD Representatives - report from NomCom
> 
> 
> Thanks for the confidence. I will do my best to make IGF2.0 a civil society friendly environment. 
> 
> wolfgang
> 
> ________________________________
> 
> Von: parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net]
> Gesendet: Do 04.11.2010 05:18
> An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Katitza Rodriguez
> Betreff: Re: [governance] RE: CSTD Representatives - report from NomCom
> 
> 
> My thanks too to the nomcom for reposing confidence in me as a CS nominee.. Parminder 
> 
> On Wednesday 03 November 2010 09:14 PM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote: 
> 
> I would like to share my appreciation for the Nomcom's work and quick response on this process. I also believe that this is a very strong group of civil society members. Thanks for adding my name to this list of hard worker and committed civil society group. 
> 
> Katitza 
> On 11/2/10 5:43 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: 
> 
> 
> Thanks to the Nomcom for their very quick work. This is a strong and diverse CS representative group and I am happy to be associated with it. 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message----- 
> 
> Anriette Esterhuysen 
> Parminder Singh 
> Michael Gurstein 
> Wolfgang Kleinwachter 
> Izumi Aizu 
> Katitza Rodriguez 
> Marilia Maciel 
> William J Drake 
> Divina Frau-Meigs 
> Milton Mueller 
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________ 
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: 
> governance at lists.cpsr.org 
> To be removed from the list, send any message to: 
> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 
> 
> For all list information and functions, see: 
> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance 
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101104/ba21753e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From jefsey at jefsey.com  Thu Nov  4 05:38:20 2010
From: jefsey at jefsey.com (jefsey)
Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2010 10:38:20 +0100
Subject: AW: [governance] Very neutral statement on enhanced
References: <70E573F5-00B4-4837-89B7-C05B9DA7E479@ciroap.org>
 <7.0.1.0.2.20101103021355.05d70e60@jefsey.com>
 <5B31379A-A914-4BE1-945B-EEF2478BA1DC@ciroap.org>
 <7.0.1.0.2.20101103094622.0651ee20@jefsey.com>
 <3FE17A9E-E507-44DA-8AE2-EC7EC56DD1D8@ciroap.org>
 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006DA4@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
 <4CD17823.8010108@itforchange.net>
 <AANLkTikONmgaa+4rO+uZkAv4YrPDfSV4aP9YKk_=Lgox@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20101104103504.057fdc48@jefsey.com>

At 09:57 04/11/2010, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote:
>I fully support Izumis approach. We should seperate for the moment 
>the short-term delivery of a statement for the November 
>consultations from the mid-term production of a strategy document. 
>Both are interlinked, but both are and will be based on the 
>positions CS and IGC developed over the years, starting with the 
>WSIS CS Declaration in 2003.

My point was not about the proposed procedural document, but about 
the claim it is neutral.
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 jeremy at ciroap.org  Thu Nov  4 07:35:08 2010
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2010 18:35:08 +0700
Subject: [governance] SECOND DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20101104103504.057fdc48@jefsey.com>
References: <70E573F5-00B4-4837-89B7-C05B9DA7E479@ciroap.org> <7.0.1.0.2.20101103021355.05d70e60@jefsey.com> <5B31379A-A914-4BE1-945B-EEF2478BA1DC@ciroap.org> <7.0.1.0.2.20101103094622.0651ee20@jefsey.com> <3FE17A9E-E507-44DA-8AE2-EC7EC56DD1D8@ciroap.org> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006DA4@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4CD17823.8010108@itforchange.net> <AANLkTikONmgaa+4rO+uZkAv4YrPDfSV4aP9YKk_=Lgox@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20101104103504.057fdc48@jefsey.com>
Message-ID: <08B126B5-B3AB-4A91-B8BC-A90579C6EF5A@ciroap.org>

On 04/11/2010, at 4:38 PM, jefsey wrote:

> My point was not about the proposed procedural document, but about the claim it is neutral.

Sorry for any misunderstanding, I didn't mean that it was meant to be neutral as between civil society and governments.  I just meant that in drafting it, I limited myself to what I knew the IGC would agree on, because of the paucity of contributions we had received on the list to that time.  There was only really one suggestion, which came from Bill (and which I incorporated).

Since then, there has been some more, so here is a revised version incorporating all new comments.  Don't worry, it's gradually becoming less neutral/bland - also longer :-(.  All paragraphs but the last have changes, but the biggest changes are to paragraph 2.  I can also send a marked-up version if there is demand for it.

--- begins ---

The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (CS-IGC) is pleased to present its views on the process towards enhanced cooperation on international public policy issues relating to the Internet.  We do not have any detailed prescription of the form which this process should take, but rather we take this opportunity to make three simple points.

First is that enhanced cooperation should encompass all Internet-related public policy issues, second that the existing arrangements of relevant organisations (including the Internet Governance Forum) do not fully implement this ideal of enhanced cooperation, and finally that whatever new arrangements may be put in place, civil society will play an integral part in them.

These points will be explained in turn:

1. Although much of the discussion of enhanced cooperation at WSIS turned around the narrow issue of internationalising the oversight of Internet naming and numbering functions, the Tunis Agenda expresses this principle far more broadly.  It also reminds us that the ultimate objective of our cooperation is to advance a people-centred, inclusive, development-oriented and non-discriminatory Information Society.

2. The IGF in its present form is a very important part of the enhanced cooperation process, in that ideally its multi-stakeholder process can help to shape the decisions that are taken on Internet related public policy issues in other fora.  However the full realisation of enhanced cooperation will require a multi-stakeholder process to extend to other Internet governance organisations that do not already follow this model.

There are various options for enhancing multi-stakeholder cooperation within and amongst all relevant organisations.  These may include:

* making no institutional changes but encouraging organisations to enhance their own cooperation with other stakeholders and to report to the CSTD on their progress;

* establishing a lightweight multi-stakeholder observatory process perhaps hosted under the auspices of the IGF (pursuant to its mandate in paragraph 72(i));

* utilising a virtual and voluntary global social community or "social grid", linking together all Internet governance organisations, in which all stakeholders would participate; or

* establishing a new umbrella governance institution for Internet policy development, with space for the participation of each stakeholder group in its respective role.

3. Paragraph 71 of the Tunis Agenda makes very clear that civil society is an integral participant in the development of any process towards enhanced cooperation.  Therefore the IGC, in our capacity as members of civil society, looks forward to contributing constructively in transparent, accountable and democratic multi-stakeholder consultations towards this end.

-- 
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 --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101104/5ff82099/attachment.bin>

From mueller at syr.edu  Thu Nov  4 10:29:37 2010
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2010 10:29:37 -0400
Subject: [governance] It's Time to Stop ICANN's Top-Level Domain (TLD)
In-Reply-To: <4CD263B6.5010708@cavebear.com>
References: <C8F899BB.131F6%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
 <4CD263B6.5010708@cavebear.com>
Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC108D775@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>

A recent IGP blog dealt with this argument. 
http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2010/10/20/4660721.html#comments 

I might add that the anti-new TLD argument is one that has been heard and aired repeatedly over the past ten years. New TLDs do not enjoy complete consensus (what does?) but within ICANN every conceivable pro and con argument has been heard and taken into account since 2006, and has led to an incredible complex regime. These last-ditch efforts to stall or stop show a lack of respect for ICANN process, and for bottom up policy development.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Karl Auerbach [mailto:karl at cavebear.com]
> Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2010 3:42 AM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] It's Time to Stop ICANN's Top-Level Domain
> (TLD)
> 
> Although I often agree with Lauren, in this case I do not.
> 
> His argument is essentially this:
> 
>   - Thing X can be used for ill purposes (among good purposes)
> 
>   - Therefore thing X must be banned.
> 
> Let's apply that to the internet:
> 
>    - The internet can be used for financial scams and ugly content.
> 
>    - Therefore the internet must be banned.
> 
> Oh that is so much fun, let's try it again:
> 
>    - Airplanes can be used to drop bombs.
> 
>    - Therefore airplanes must be banned.
> 
> We can use that silly logic over and over again and we'd end up in a
> world in which everything from medicine to automobiles to food is
> banned.
> 
> The faux logic forgets that almost everything is a balance of good and
> bad.  And it also forgets that quite often the approach for dealing with
> the bad is to do the obvious: deal with the bad and not ban the thing in
> which the bad is ensconced.
> 
> 	--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
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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  Thu Nov  4 10:32:53 2010
From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight)
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2010 10:32:53 -0400
Subject: [governance] SECOND DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <08B126B5-B3AB-4A91-B8BC-A90579C6EF5A@ciroap.org>
References: <70E573F5-00B4-4837-89B7-C05B9DA7E479@ciroap.org>
 <7.0.1.0.2.20101103021355.05d70e60@jefsey.com>
 <5B31379A-A914-4BE1-945B-EEF2478BA1DC@ciroap.org>
 <7.0.1.0.2.20101103094622.0651ee20@jefsey.com>
 <3FE17A9E-E507-44DA-8AE2-EC7EC56DD1D8@ciroap.org>
 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006DA4@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
 <4CD17823.8010108@itforchange.net>
 <AANLkTikONmgaa+4rO+uZkAv4YrPDfSV4aP9YKk_=Lgox@mail.gmail.com>
 <7.0.1.0.2.20101104103504.057fdc48@jefsey.com>,<08B126B5-B3AB-4A91-B8BC-A90579C6EF5A@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006DB6@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>

Jeremy,

Some suggested further tweaking/tightening of language in 1st 2 paragraphs....for your 3rd draft

Lee
________________________________________


The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (CS-IGC) is pleased to present its views on the process towards enhanced cooperation on international public policy issues relating to the Internet.  We take this opportunity to make three points.

First, enhanced cooperation should encompass all Internet-related public policy issues, second the existing arrangements of relevant organisations (including the Internet Governance Forum) do not fully implement enhanced cooperation, and thirdly whatever new arrangements may be put in place, civil society will play an integral part in them.

These points will be explained in turn:

1. Although much of the discussion of enhanced cooperation at WSIS turned around the narrow issue of internationalising the oversight of Internet naming and numbering functions, the Tunis Agenda expresses this principle far more broadly.  It also reminds us that the ultimate objective of our cooperation is to advance a people-centred, inclusive, development-oriented and non-discriminatory Information Society.

2. The IGF in its present form is a very important part of the enhanced cooperation process, in that ideally its multi-stakeholder process can help to shape decisions taken on Internet related public policy issues in other fora.  However the full realisation of enhanced cooperation will require a multi-stakeholder process to extend to other Internet governance organisations that do not already follow this model.

There are various options for enhancing multi-stakeholder cooperation within and amongst all relevant organisations.  These may include:

* making no institutional changes but encouraging organisations to enhance their own cooperation with other stakeholders and to report to the CSTD on their progress;

* establishing a lightweight multi-stakeholder observatory process perhaps hosted under the auspices of the IGF (pursuant to its mandate in paragraph 72(i));

* utilising a virtual and voluntary global social community or "social grid", linking together all Internet governance organisations, in which all stakeholders would participate; or

* establishing a new umbrella governance institution for Internet policy development, with space for the participation of each stakeholder group in its respective role.

3. Paragraph 71 of the Tunis Agenda makes very clear that civil society is an integral participant in the development of any process towards enhanced cooperation.  Therefore the IGC, in our capacity as members of civil society, looks forward to contributing constructively in transparent, accountable and democratic multi-stakeholder consultations towards this end.

--
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 gate.one205 at yahoo.fr  Thu Nov  4 10:38:46 2010
From: gate.one205 at yahoo.fr (Jean-Yves GATETE)
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2010 14:38:46 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: AW: [governance] RE: CSTD Representatives - report from NomCom
In-Reply-To: <26383178.22802.1288862751023.JavaMail.www@wwinf1d30>
Message-ID: <408979.21619.qm@web27805.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>

Congratulations to all selected,,,  
Thanks to NomCom ,i am finding the list of good motivated IG experts here,
I wish you a good job.

 
Jean-Yves
Burundi
--- En date de : Jeu 4.11.10, Jean-Louis FULLSACK <jlfullsack at orange.fr> a écrit :


De: Jean-Louis FULLSACK <jlfullsack at orange.fr>
Objet: re: AW: [governance] RE: CSTD Representatives - report from NomCom
À: governance at lists.cpsr.org, ""Kleinwächter Wolfgang" <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Date: Jeudi 4 novembre 2010, 10h25


Alles Gute Wolfgang !

Jean-Louis Fullsack





> Message du 04/11/10 10:04
> De : ""Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"" 
> A : governance at lists.cpsr.org, "parminder" , governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Katitza Rodriguez" 
> Copie à : 
> Objet : AW: [governance] RE: CSTD Representatives - report from NomCom
> 
> 
> Thanks for the confidence. I will do my best to make IGF2.0 a civil society friendly environment. 
> 
> wolfgang
> 
> ________________________________
> 
> Von: parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net]
> Gesendet: Do 04.11.2010 05:18
> An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Katitza Rodriguez
> Betreff: Re: [governance] RE: CSTD Representatives - report from NomCom
> 
> 
> My thanks too to the nomcom for reposing confidence in me as a CS nominee.. Parminder 
> 
> On Wednesday 03 November 2010 09:14 PM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote: 
> 
> I would like to share my appreciation for the Nomcom's work and quick response on this process. I also believe that this is a very strong group of civil society members. Thanks for adding my name to this list of hard worker and committed civil society group. 
> 
> Katitza 
> On 11/2/10 5:43 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: 
> 
> 
> Thanks to the Nomcom for their very quick work. This is a strong and diverse CS representative group and I am happy to be associated with it. 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message----- 
> 
> Anriette Esterhuysen 
> Parminder Singh 
> Michael Gurstein 
> Wolfgang Kleinwachter 
> Izumi Aizu 
> Katitza Rodriguez 
> Marilia Maciel 
> William J Drake 
> Divina Frau-Meigs 
> Milton Mueller 
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________ 
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: 
> governance at lists.cpsr.org 
> To be removed from the list, send any message to: 
> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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
> 
> 

-----La pièce jointe associée suit-----


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

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

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


      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101104/2c348931/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From iza at anr.org  Thu Nov  4 10:56:09 2010
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2010 23:56:09 +0900
Subject: [governance] Nov 22/23/24 Consultation Meetings - who are coming?
Message-ID: <AANLkTinBpCdBOvyyoRhSYUfYLPr=4wUj_kZsyOdeN1mi@mail.gmail.com>

Dear list,
IGF will have Taking stock of the Vilnius Meeting as follows, and the
registration
is now open and will be CLOSED by Nov. 18:
 http://info.intgovforum.org/regnov.php

    * 22 November: Open Consultations.
    * 23 November: MAG meeting.
 (Both meetings will be held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva.)
There will also be CSTD Open Consultation meeting on 22 Nov, back-to-back.

I just sent an email to CSTD secretariat asking for any practical information
on CSTD open consultation meeting scheduled on Nov 24.

I like to know who will be attending these meetings from our Caucus, and
also ask you if we can have any preparatory meeting in advance, I mean
on Nov 21, Sunday.

I will arrive around 1 pm at Geneva. If possible, let's have a meeting from,
say 3 or 4 pm. We like to have some kind of work plan how to get involved,
and also how to report/share with the caucus.

-- 
                        >> Izumi Aizu <<

          Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo

           Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,
                                  Japan
                                 * * * * *
           << Writing the Future of the History >>
                                www.anr.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 omar at kaminski.com  Thu Nov  4 11:00:15 2010
From: omar at kaminski.com (Omar Kaminski)
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2010 13:00:15 -0200
Subject: [governance] RE: CSTD Representatives - report from NomCom
In-Reply-To: <408979.21619.qm@web27805.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
References: <408979.21619.qm@web27805.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <169DF76959644AB0B2C1E67441012E19@BASE>

I wish for each one of you a good work taking this important issue - i-gov - 
ahead.

Best from .br,

Omar


> -----Original Message----- 
>
> Anriette Esterhuysen
> Parminder Singh
> Michael Gurstein
> Wolfgang Kleinwachter
> Izumi Aizu
> Katitza Rodriguez
> Marilia Maciel
> William J Drake
> Divina Frau-Meigs
> Milton Mueller
>

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

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 Nov  4 16:06:03 2010
From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M)
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2010 01:36:03 +0530
Subject: [governance] It's Time to Stop ICANN's Top-Level Domain (TLD)
In-Reply-To: <4CD263B6.5010708@cavebear.com>
References: <C8F899BB.131F6%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
	<4CD263B6.5010708@cavebear.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTinLivYyC=J-U5Nstskc4moEe2AkMQnL4teumBbe@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 1:11 PM, Karl Auerbach <karl at cavebear.com> wrote:

> Although I often agree with Lauren, in this case I do not.
>
> His argument is essentially this:
>
>  - Thing X can be used for ill purposes (among good purposes)
>
>  - Therefore thing X must be banned.
>
> Let's apply that to the internet:
>
>  - The internet can be used for financial scams and ugly content.
>
>  - Therefore the internet must be banned.
>
> Oh that is so much fun, let's try it again:
>
>  - Airplanes can be used to drop bombs.
>
>  - Therefore airplanes must be banned.
>
> We can use that silly logic over and over again and we'd end up in a world
> in which everything from medicine to automobiles to food is banned.
>
> The faux logic forgets that almost everything is a balance of good and bad.
>  And it also forgets that quite often the approach for dealing with the bad
> is to do the obvious: deal with the bad and not ban the thing in which the
> bad is ensconced.
>

+1. This rationale in itself is quite balanced



>
>        --karl--
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101105/228e111b/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From toml at communisphere.com  Thu Nov  4 16:16:54 2010
From: toml at communisphere.com (Thomas Lowenhaupt)
Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2010 16:16:54 -0400
Subject: [governance] Following up on Vilnius City-TLD Governance and Best
 Practices Workshop
Message-ID: <4CD314B6.2010902@communisphere.com>

A report on the City-TLD Governance and Best Practices workshop in Vilnius.

Let me first offer my thanks to the IGC for its role in assisting me 
with organizing the City-TLD Governance and Best Practices workshop in 
Vilnius. And in particular, I'd like to thank the workshop participants: 
Izumi Aizu, Sébastien Bachollet, Bertrand de La Chapelle, 
Wolfgang**Kleinwächter, Dirk Krischenowski,  Ana Neves , Thomas 
Schneider, Jonathan Shea, Werner Staub, and Hong Xue. As well, a big 
thanks to Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond, our Remote Moderator who, among 
other feats, enabled Jonathan Shea to participate from Hong Kong. //Each 
thoughtfully addressed the issue at hand and made significant 
contributions. Thank you all.

After consulting with the above I've posted a detailed report on the 
workshop on our wiki 
<http://www.coactivate.org/projects/campaign-for.nyc/vilnius-workshop-report>. 
The further comments of all are welcomed. (After overcoming a technical 
glitch I'll also post it to the IGF site.)

Of the needs identified at the workshop the following stand out:

    * Issues relating to the proposed city-TLD pricing and technology
      /registrar requirements must be addressed for smaller cities - and
      especially for the global south.
    * The need for global outreach to inform cities about the utility
      and requirements for their TLDs.
    * The efficiency of assigning dedicated ICANN staff for processing
      city TLD applications.
    * The desirability of a cities list to facilitate ICANN with
      identifying legitimate city TLD applications, as ISO-3166 helped
      at an earlier time.

Today I'd like to begin to addressing this last issue, a cities list, by 
soliciting this mighty list's assistance with a preliminary step - 
defining a public interest city-TLD. To have meaning withing the scope 
of ICANN's responsibilities, such a list must indicate cities that will 
use their names in the public interest. A first task in that regard 
requires a definition of a public interest city-TLD.

In support of that effort I've created a wiki page where I've posted 
some defining characteristics that might enable the identification of a 
city-TLD operated in the public interest, see 
http://www.coactivate.org/projects/campaign-for.nyc/public-interest-city-tld-definition. 
For your convenience I've copied that page below.

I look forward to your considered thoughts on this and other matters 
relating to city-TLDs.

Best,

Tom Lowenhaupt

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Draft Definition of Public Interest City-TLD

(from wiki, as of November 4, 2010)

Cities are frequently ancient and always complex institutions that 
provide basic food, housing, health, safety, and cultural needs for more 
than half of humankind. They can best serve their residents and 
organizations if they have access to the most advanced technology. Until 
now cities have been prohibited from effectively using good Internet 
Domain Names, requiring residents and organizations to use national or 
global TLDs for local communication. The ICANN's 2008 new TLD policy 
opened the door for the issuance of city-TLDs.

The development of city-TLDs as public interest resources will be 
transformational, providing cities with a Critical Internet Resource, 
and empowering them to develop their digital infrastructure to the 
direct benefit of residents and organizations.

The utility of a list of cities seeking the development of public 
interest TLDs was expressed at the recent IGF Vilnius workshop on 
City-TLD Governance and Best Practices, where the ICANN's chair 
suggested that a cities list would facilitate ICANN's operation. The 
creation of a definition of a Public Interest City-TLD is a first step 
in developing such a list, with outreach to identify interested cities a 
next step.

Definition: Public Interest city-TLDs are those which serve the long 
term interests of city residents and organizations. They serve those 
interests when:

    *

      they use the name-space to facilitate geographic awareness
      enabling residents and organizations to readily locate one another
      to optimize the exchange of services, products, and ideas and
      revivify the traditional networking role of cities;

    *

      they facilitate the availability of civic collaboration tools --
      calendars, maps, mail lists, polling, and other organizing tools
      -- making them available for civic benefit on a public access basis;

    *

      they reserve and advocate for the use of domain names for unbiased
      portals for government, civic, and development use;

    *

      they commit a significant portion of their resources to
      eradicating digital divides by facilitating civic collaboration,
      education, and training;

    *

      they allocate names for the civic benefit of geographic sub areas
      (neighborhoods), civic activities, and public issue resolution;

    *

      they provide names in support of all ethnic populations;

    *

      they strive for name allocation practices that will maintain a
      flow of good domain names for the life of the TLD;

    *

      they establish allocation policies that avoid pitfalls such as
      hoarding and typo-squatting using pricing and nexus requirements.

Additionally, public interest city-TLDs are those that:

    *

      are operated in close cooperation with the extant local
      institutions, to provide a secure experience suitable for
      residents, civic, cultural and business organizations, and visitors;

    *

      exchange experiences and best practices with other cities
      operating TLDs in the public interest;

    *

      operate within a broad "urbanismo" framework that considers their
      geographic, economic, political, social, and cultural impact on
      their environment;

    *

      commit to develop appropriate channels for inter-city sharing of
      vital Internet enabled city resources in areas such as education,
      health, safety, and sanitation;

    *

      commit to working in collaboration with relevant local and
      national public authorities;

    *

      commit to engaging all segments of the population in the
      management of their TLDs;

    *

      commit to the allocation of name spaces that promote sustainable
      cities;

    *

      commit to the use of graphic design practices that facilitate
      cross cultural understanding;

    *

      commit to support their city's branding and external promotion
      activities;

    *

      commit to engage all segments of the population and the technical
      operators of the TLD in a collaborative governance structure.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101104/ca6b0e4f/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From jefsey at jefsey.com  Thu Nov  4 18:27:07 2010
From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin)
Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2010 23:27:07 +0100
Subject: [governance] SECOND DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006DB6@suex07-mbx-08.a
 d.syr.edu>
References: <70E573F5-00B4-4837-89B7-C05B9DA7E479@ciroap.org>
 <7.0.1.0.2.20101103021355.05d70e60@jefsey.com>
 <5B31379A-A914-4BE1-945B-EEF2478BA1DC@ciroap.org>
 <7.0.1.0.2.20101103094622.0651ee20@jefsey.com>
 <3FE17A9E-E507-44DA-8AE2-EC7EC56DD1D8@ciroap.org>
 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006DA4@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
 <4CD17823.8010108@itforchange.net>
 <AANLkTikONmgaa+4rO+uZkAv4YrPDfSV4aP9YKk_=Lgox@mail.gmail.com>
 <7.0.1.0.2.20101104103504.057fdc48@jefsey.com>
 <08B126B5-B3AB-4A91-B8BC-A90579C6EF5A@ciroap.org>
 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006DB6@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20101104190433.057fe2b0@jefsey.com>

At 15:32 04/11/2010, Lee W McKnight wrote:
>Jeremy,
>Some suggested further tweaking/tightening of language in 1st 2 
>paragraphs....for your 3rd draft
>Lee
>________________________________________
>
>
>The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (CS-IGC) is pleased to 
>present its views on the process towards enhanced cooperation on 
>international public policy issues relating to the Internet.

Practically, such a process means that some leading stakeholders (in 
this case, some countries) decide to concert more closely on Internet 
issues, paving the way for a general enhancement of the Internet policies.

1. This model is well known : it is the engineers' and manufacturers' 
enhanced cooperation (namely IETF). It builds the Internet for twenty 
four years. This engineering version of the Internet enhanced 
cooperation model is documented by RFC 3935 
(http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3935.txt The mission of the IETF). Most 
of it could directly be transcribed from engineering to governance. 
This would also permit to identify possible subsequent Enhanced 
Cooperations probable problems in transcribing and adapting RFC 3774 
(http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/rfcmarkup.cgi?rfc=3774 IETF 
problem Statement).

2. This Internet Enhanced Technical Cooperation's mission is "to make 
the Internet work better" in producing relevant documents "that 
influence the way people design, use, and manage the Internet in such 
a way as to make the Internet work better".

The main problems we Internet users think it faces are very similar 
to the civil society and governments:
- to define what is their scope, because this means to fully define 
what the Internet is and who they actually are.
- to define what "work better" means for such an Internet.

3. We can observe that the IETF resists for 34 years to governments' 
influence, while ICANN built itself on the GAC and IGF on the MAG. 
This is why the young IUser community is organizing an IUTF/IUSG 
structure, after having clarified responsibility areas with IESG/IAB. 
This is why the CS-IGC should support the emergence of  a comparable 
attitude to balance governmental possible over-influence and area 
trespassing in the Internet Governance are. If some 'doers' are 
interested to work on this kind of influence, time is now. Getting reals.

4. This is obviously not something to discuss in the statement, nor 
even to publicly bootstrap; but a firmer stance based on it could do. 
Instead of "looks forward" perhaps something like "will continue to 
constructively contribute in exploring in cooperation person-centric 
adapted development and protection, spurring innovation emergence and 
co-sponsoring multi-stakeholder debates, testings and deployments". 
The idea is to make them understand that we are real world actors 
they cannot avoid to take into consideration - rather than activists 
they can use as a democratic alibi and forget.

jfc


>We take this opportunity to make three points.
>
>First, enhanced cooperation should encompass all Internet-related 
>public policy issues, second the existing arrangements of relevant 
>organisations (including the Internet Governance Forum) do not fully 
>implement enhanced cooperation, and thirdly whatever new 
>arrangements may be put in place, civil society will play an 
>integral part in them.
>
>These points will be explained in turn:
>
>1. Although much of the discussion of enhanced cooperation at WSIS 
>turned around the narrow issue of internationalising the oversight 
>of Internet naming and numbering functions, the Tunis Agenda 
>expresses this principle far more broadly.  It also reminds us that 
>the ultimate objective of our cooperation is to advance a 
>people-centred, inclusive, development-oriented and 
>non-discriminatory Information Society.
>
>2. The IGF in its present form is a very important part of the 
>enhanced cooperation process, in that ideally its multi-stakeholder 
>process can help to shape decisions taken on Internet related public 
>policy issues in other fora.  However the full realisation of 
>enhanced cooperation will require a multi-stakeholder process to 
>extend to other Internet governance organisations that do not 
>already follow this model.
>
>There are various options for enhancing multi-stakeholder 
>cooperation within and amongst all relevant organisations.  These may include:
>
>* making no institutional changes but encouraging organisations to 
>enhance their own cooperation with other stakeholders and to report 
>to the CSTD on their progress;
>* establishing a lightweight multi-stakeholder observatory process 
>perhaps hosted under the auspices of the IGF (pursuant to its 
>mandate in paragraph 72(i));
>* utilising a virtual and voluntary global social community or 
>"social grid", linking together all Internet governance 
>organisations, in which all stakeholders would participate; or
>* establishing a new umbrella governance institution for Internet 
>policy development, with space for the participation of each 
>stakeholder group in its respective role.
>
>3. Paragraph 71 of the Tunis Agenda makes very clear that civil 
>society is an integral participant in the development of any process 
>towards enhanced cooperation.  Therefore the IGC, in our capacity as 
>members of civil society, looks forward to contributing 
>constructively in transparent, accountable and democratic 
>multi-stakeholder consultations towards this end.
>
>--
>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 bortzmeyer at internatif.org  Fri Nov  5 04:37:52 2010
From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer)
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2010 09:37:52 +0100
Subject: [governance] Re: It's Time to Stop ICANN's Top-Level Domain (TLD)
 Lunacy!
In-Reply-To: <C8F899BB.131F6%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
References: <C8F899BB.131F6%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
Message-ID: <20101105083752.GA5168@nic.fr>

On Thu, Nov 04, 2010 at 05:11:23PM +1100,
 Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote 
 a message of 114 lines which said:

> From Lauren Weinstein - copied from his blog.

But your mention of Robert Kahn was not in Lauren Weinstein's blog and
rightly so (Kahn was a creator a long time ago; his Handle system -
RFC 3650 - is promoted by him for seven years and never got any sucess
and rigthly so: it has exactly the same governance problems as the
DNS).

> The DNS and the domain name infrastructure made sense in an era
> before the universal availability of search engines and online
> directories. But for such massive costs and complexities -- such as
> those inevitably stemming from the ICANN TLD expansion -- to be
> incurred simply to map names to Internet sites is now both
> technically and economically obsolete and abominable".

Note that Lauren Weinstein does not mention, even in a very sketchy
way, what system could replace the DNS. This makes me very wary
because it really smells like hand-waving ("We need something
better").

The mention of search engines is especially stupid: domain names
provide exactly what is missing with search engines, stability. Today,
"afnic" in Google goes (depending on your previous searches) to
<http://www.afnic.fr/> Tomorrow, it may suddenly goes to
<http://www.afnic.af.mil/> or to <http://www.tsatexas.org/>. 

The domain name system does not provide "mapping of names to Internet
sites", this is very secondary and could be done by other means such
as DHTs. Its main purpose is to provide stable and reliable
identifiers. (This is where I would agree with Lauren Weinstein: UDRP
is an abomination since it breaks this stability: your domain can be
hijacked with an UDRP at any moment.)

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

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

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


From glaser at nic.br  Fri Nov  5 06:06:13 2010
From: glaser at nic.br (Hartmut Glaser)
Date: Fri, 05 Nov 2010 08:06:13 -0200
Subject: [governance] Nov 22/23/24 Consultation Meetings - who are
 coming?
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinBpCdBOvyyoRhSYUfYLPr=4wUj_kZsyOdeN1mi@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTinBpCdBOvyyoRhSYUfYLPr=4wUj_kZsyOdeN1mi@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4CD3D715.6010708@nic.br>


Hi,

-----------------
On 04/11/10 12:56, Izumi AIZU wrote:
> Dear list,
> IGF will have Taking stock of the Vilnius Meeting as follows, and the
> registration
> is now open and will be CLOSED by Nov. 18:
>   http://info.intgovforum.org/regnov.php
>
>      * 22 November: Open Consultations.
>      * 23 November: MAG meeting.
>   (Both meetings will be held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva.)
> There will also be CSTD Open Consultation meeting on 22 Nov, back-to-back.
>
> I just sent an email to CSTD secretariat asking for any practical information
> on CSTD open consultation meeting scheduled on Nov 24.
>
> I like to know who will be attending these meetings from our Caucus, and
> also ask you if we can have any preparatory meeting in advance, I mean
> on Nov 21, Sunday.
>
> I will arrive around 1 pm at Geneva. If possible, let's have a meeting from,
> say 3 or 4 pm. We like to have some kind of work plan how to get involved,
> and also how to report/share with the caucus.
>
Do you have a proposal for this meeting venue?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101105/7c98e856/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From fouadbajwa at gmail.com  Fri Nov  5 06:14:34 2010
From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa)
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2010 15:14:34 +0500
Subject: [governance] Nov 22/23/24 Consultation Meetings - who are
 coming?
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinBpCdBOvyyoRhSYUfYLPr=4wUj_kZsyOdeN1mi@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTinBpCdBOvyyoRhSYUfYLPr=4wUj_kZsyOdeN1mi@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=q_My23WVSx8kb748-OB2krTfCJgkM7Na7XN5D@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Izumi, I will be there.

---Best

On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 7:56 PM, Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org> wrote:
> Dear list,
> IGF will have Taking stock of the Vilnius Meeting as follows, and the
> registration
> is now open and will be CLOSED by Nov. 18:
>  http://info.intgovforum.org/regnov.php
>
>    * 22 November: Open Consultations.
>    * 23 November: MAG meeting.
>  (Both meetings will be held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva.)
> There will also be CSTD Open Consultation meeting on 22 Nov, back-to-back.
>
> I just sent an email to CSTD secretariat asking for any practical information
> on CSTD open consultation meeting scheduled on Nov 24.
>
> I like to know who will be attending these meetings from our Caucus, and
> also ask you if we can have any preparatory meeting in advance, I mean
> on Nov 21, Sunday.
>
> I will arrive around 1 pm at Geneva. If possible, let's have a meeting from,
> say 3 or 4 pm. We like to have some kind of work plan how to get involved,
> and also how to report/share with the caucus.
>
> --
>                         >> Izumi Aizu <<
>
>           Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo
>
>            Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,
>                                   Japan
>                                  * * * * *
>            << Writing the Future of the History >>
>                                 www.anr.org
-- 
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 meryem at marzouki.info  Fri Nov  5 06:39:07 2010
From: meryem at marzouki.info (Meryem Marzouki)
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2010 11:39:07 +0100
Subject: [governance] Re: It's Time to Stop ICANN's Top-Level Domain
 (TLD) Lunacy!
In-Reply-To: <20101105083752.GA5168@nic.fr>
References: <C8F899BB.131F6%ian.peter@ianpeter.com> <20101105083752.GA5168@nic.fr>
Message-ID: <96032D64-28F5-4949-894C-AFAA14965232@marzouki.info>


Le 5 nov. 10 à 09:37, Stephane Bortzmeyer a écrit :

> The mention of search engines is especially stupid: domain names
> provide exactly what is missing with search engines, stability. Today,
> "afnic" in Google goes (depending on your previous searches) to
> <http://www.afnic.fr/> Tomorrow, it may suddenly goes to
> <http://www.afnic.af.mil/> or to <http://www.tsatexas.org/>.

Agree and let me add that, beyond the stability issue, relying on  
search engines only would lead to many fundamental rights and  
democracy concerns (I mean even more than with the current DNS system  
subject to ICANN diktat), especially given lack of transparency of  
commercial search engines criteria and market dominance by a single  
player.

I'm disappointed that Karl hasn't pointed to the source of all  
problems with current DNS scheme management: its unicity. In general,  
his booster shots on alternative DNS are most welcome -- by me at  
least;)))

Best,
Meryem

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

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

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

From kichango at gmail.com  Fri Nov  5 08:02:01 2010
From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango)
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2010 08:02:01 -0400
Subject: [governance] Re: It's Time to Stop ICANN's Top-Level Domain
 (TLD) Lunacy!
In-Reply-To: <96032D64-28F5-4949-894C-AFAA14965232@marzouki.info>
References: <C8F899BB.131F6%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
	<20101105083752.GA5168@nic.fr>
	<96032D64-28F5-4949-894C-AFAA14965232@marzouki.info>
Message-ID: <AANLkTikoM3A4O=Wy+4pNBM7nOTWEoopxtiYbE-XpmETB@mail.gmail.com>

Yeah, I too was surprised that Karl stopped right there ;)

And more: there's something I'm not seeing from nearly all the
comments/reactions here. There are two parts in Lauren's main
statement/title: the infrastructure and the institution managing it. I read
"ICANN's Top-level Domain" (or ICANN's domain name system) as inseparable in
that statement. And even if s/he refers to search engines today as one
argument for contending that *that* DNS (and not necessarily *the* DNS) is
irrelevant, I still don't think s/he said enough *in that post* for anyone
to conclude that what is being proposed here is to take down the DNS and let
the search engines do the job.

Now I had a different thought after I read it myself, which relates to the
institution not the infrastructure (I didn't see hint of that in the IGP
post referred to by Milton, either. And by that I'm not saying none of the
parties here never raised these concerns before, but just that they haven't
in their comments to this blog post, except maybe Parminder.) Are we
witnessing the replacement of one monopolistic mindset by another one, the
replacement of a multistate-driven (or intergovernmental) monopoly by a
private monopoly, at the global level? (I guess both governments and ICANN
may claim to be "nonprofit" so I'm skipping that qualifier.) Yes, with the
private structure more people, private citizens get to talk, but who and
what really get to influence the ultimate policy outcome? Whose interests
are consistently attended to? Or do you folks mean to say that there is
nothing monopolistic regarding how ICANN actually goes about managing the
DNS?

I am wondering.

Best,
Mawaki

On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 6:39 AM, Meryem Marzouki <meryem at marzouki.info>wrote:

>
> Le 5 nov. 10 à 09:37, Stephane Bortzmeyer a écrit :
>
>
>  The mention of search engines is especially stupid: domain names
>> provide exactly what is missing with search engines, stability. Today,
>> "afnic" in Google goes (depending on your previous searches) to
>> <http://www.afnic.fr/> Tomorrow, it may suddenly goes to
>> <http://www.afnic.af.mil/> or to <http://www.tsatexas.org/>.
>>
>
> Agree and let me add that, beyond the stability issue, relying on search
> engines only would lead to many fundamental rights and democracy concerns (I
> mean even more than with the current DNS system subject to ICANN diktat),
> especially given lack of transparency of commercial search engines criteria
> and market dominance by a single player.
>
> I'm disappointed that Karl hasn't pointed to the source of all problems
> with current DNS scheme management: its unicity. In general, his booster
> shots on alternative DNS are most welcome -- by me at least;)))
>
> Best,
> Meryem
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101105/532394d2/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From iza at anr.org  Fri Nov  5 11:04:20 2010
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2010 00:04:20 +0900
Subject: [governance] Nov 22/23/24 Consultation Meetings - who are
 coming?
In-Reply-To: <4CD3D715.6010708@nic.br>
References: <AANLkTinBpCdBOvyyoRhSYUfYLPr=4wUj_kZsyOdeN1mi@mail.gmail.com> <4CD3D715.6010708@nic.br>
Message-ID: <AANLkTik9iVFkNcOUjSiGF33MN-+a_n=XFZeA_EEsS=G6@mail.gmail.com>

Yes, I have contacted DiploFoundation if we can use their office and
in general they said
yes. I need to know how many of us will come to Geneva, say on Sunday,
if we are to convene, and also on Tuesday when we cannot enter into
the MAG closed meeting.

izumi



2010/11/5 Hartmut Glaser <glaser at nic.br>:
>
> Hi,
>
> -----------------
> On 04/11/10 12:56, Izumi AIZU wrote:
>
> Dear list,
> IGF will have Taking stock of the Vilnius Meeting as follows, and the
> registration
> is now open and will be CLOSED by Nov. 18:
>  http://info.intgovforum.org/regnov.php
>
>     * 22 November: Open Consultations.
>     * 23 November: MAG meeting.
>  (Both meetings will be held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva.)
> There will also be CSTD Open Consultation meeting on 22 Nov, back-to-back.
>
> I just sent an email to CSTD secretariat asking for any practical
> information
> on CSTD open consultation meeting scheduled on Nov 24.
>
> I like to know who will be attending these meetings from our Caucus, and
> also ask you if we can have any preparatory meeting in advance, I mean
> on Nov 21, Sunday.
>
> I will arrive around 1 pm at Geneva. If possible, let's have a meeting from,
> say 3 or 4 pm. We like to have some kind of work plan how to get involved,
> and also how to report/share with the caucus.
>
> Do you have a proposal for this meeting venue?
>



-- 
                        >> Izumi Aizu <<

          Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo

           Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,
                                  Japan
                                 * * * * *
           << Writing the Future of the History >>
                                www.anr.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 gpaque at gmail.com  Fri Nov  5 11:09:02 2010
From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque)
Date: Fri, 05 Nov 2010 10:39:02 -0430
Subject: [governance] Nov 22/23/24 Consultation Meetings - who are
 coming?
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTik9iVFkNcOUjSiGF33MN-+a_n=XFZeA_EEsS=G6@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTinBpCdBOvyyoRhSYUfYLPr=4wUj_kZsyOdeN1mi@mail.gmail.com> <4CD3D715.6010708@nic.br> <AANLkTik9iVFkNcOUjSiGF33MN-+a_n=XFZeA_EEsS=G6@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4CD41E0E.60206@paque.net>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101105/c86fb255/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From glaser at nic.br  Fri Nov  5 11:10:16 2010
From: glaser at nic.br (Hartmut Glaser)
Date: Fri, 05 Nov 2010 13:10:16 -0200
Subject: [governance] Nov 22/23/24 Consultation Meetings - who are
 coming?
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTik9iVFkNcOUjSiGF33MN-+a_n=XFZeA_EEsS=G6@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTinBpCdBOvyyoRhSYUfYLPr=4wUj_kZsyOdeN1mi@mail.gmail.com> <4CD3D715.6010708@nic.br> <AANLkTik9iVFkNcOUjSiGF33MN-+a_n=XFZeA_EEsS=G6@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4CD41E58.5020201@nic.br>


Izumi,

I expect to arrive in Geneve early on Sunday ...! And I will stay at 
Hotel Les Arcades,
in front of the Gare Cornavin ...

all the best

Hartmut

=======================
On 05/11/10 13:04, Izumi AIZU wrote:
> Yes, I have contacted DiploFoundation if we can use their office and
> in general they said
> yes. I need to know how many of us will come to Geneva, say on Sunday,
> if we are to convene, and also on Tuesday when we cannot enter into
> the MAG closed meeting.
>
> izumi
>
>
>
> 2010/11/5 Hartmut Glaser<glaser at nic.br>:
>> Hi,
>>
>> -----------------
>> On 04/11/10 12:56, Izumi AIZU wrote:
>>
>> Dear list,
>> IGF will have Taking stock of the Vilnius Meeting as follows, and the
>> registration
>> is now open and will be CLOSED by Nov. 18:
>>   http://info.intgovforum.org/regnov.php
>>
>>      * 22 November: Open Consultations.
>>      * 23 November: MAG meeting.
>>   (Both meetings will be held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva.)
>> There will also be CSTD Open Consultation meeting on 22 Nov, back-to-back.
>>
>> I just sent an email to CSTD secretariat asking for any practical
>> information
>> on CSTD open consultation meeting scheduled on Nov 24.
>>
>> I like to know who will be attending these meetings from our Caucus, and
>> also ask you if we can have any preparatory meeting in advance, I mean
>> on Nov 21, Sunday.
>>
>> I will arrive around 1 pm at Geneva. If possible, let's have a meeting from,
>> say 3 or 4 pm. We like to have some kind of work plan how to get involved,
>> and also how to report/share with the caucus.
>>
>> Do you have a proposal for this meeting venue?
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101105/6dc0c39e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From raquelgatto at uol.com.br  Fri Nov  5 12:30:51 2010
From: raquelgatto at uol.com.br (Raquel Gatto)
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2010 14:30:51 -0200
Subject: [governance] Nov 22/23/24 Consultation Meetings - who are
 coming?
In-Reply-To: <4CD41E0E.60206@paque.net>
References: <AANLkTinBpCdBOvyyoRhSYUfYLPr=4wUj_kZsyOdeN1mi@mail.gmail.com> <4CD3D715.6010708@nic.br> <AANLkTik9iVFkNcOUjSiGF33MN-+a_n=XFZeA_EEsS=G6@mail.gmail.com> <4CD41E0E.60206@paque.net>
Message-ID: <4cd4313b3c319_6bbd6b05e7c211@weasel13.tmail>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101105/6299100b/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From andrespiazza at gmail.com  Fri Nov  5 12:51:43 2010
From: andrespiazza at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Andr=E9s_Piazza?=)
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2010 13:51:43 -0300
Subject: [governance] Nov 22/23/24 Consultation Meetings - who are
 coming?
In-Reply-To: <4cd4313b3c319_6bbd6b05e7c211@weasel13.tmail>
References: <AANLkTinBpCdBOvyyoRhSYUfYLPr=4wUj_kZsyOdeN1mi@mail.gmail.com>
	<4CD3D715.6010708@nic.br>
	<AANLkTik9iVFkNcOUjSiGF33MN-+a_n=XFZeA_EEsS=G6@mail.gmail.com>
	<4CD41E0E.60206@paque.net>
	<4cd4313b3c319_6bbd6b05e7c211@weasel13.tmail>
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=Xo0TO6E2Rd_gqW9H701AnnRAyNUzevaoesUcV@mail.gmail.com>

If there is a skype group, I would be interested on participating.

2010/11/5 Raquel Gatto <raquelgatto at uol.com.br>

> I second Ginger that would be great to have a Skype group and/or other kind
> of remote participation (I am not aware about Diplo office facilities to
> support videoconference etc), if there is a volunteer to play the role of
> remote moderator onsite.
> Raquel
>
>
> ------------------------------
> Em 05/11/2010 13:09, *Ginger Paque < gpaque at gmail.com >* escreveu:
>
> An advantage to the Diplo office is that it is within a few blocks of
> Cornavin. Unfortunately, I will not be able to be present. Please follow
> this up, as Diplo is a willing support partner.
>
> Can we form a Skype group for remote chat conversations? I always found
> that to be very helpful during the meetings, both planning meeting, and the
> OC itself.
>
> gp
>
>
>
> On 11/5/2010 10:34 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote:
>
> Yes, I have contacted DiploFoundation if we can use their office and
> in general they said
> yes. I need to know how many of us will come to Geneva, say on Sunday,
> if we are to convene, and also on Tuesday when we cannot enter into
> the MAG closed meeting.
>
> izumi
>
>
>
> 2010/11/5 Hartmut Glaser  <http://mce_host/compose?to=glaser at nic.br>:
>
>  Hi,
>
> -----------------
> On 04/11/10 12:56, Izumi AIZU wrote:
>
> Dear list,
> IGF will have Taking stock of the Vilnius Meeting as follows, and the
> registration
> is now open and will be CLOSED by Nov. 18:
>  http://info.intgovforum.org/regnov.php
>
>     * 22 November: Open Consultations.
>     * 23 November: MAG meeting.
>  (Both meetings will be held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva.)
> There will also be CSTD Open Consultation meeting on 22 Nov, back-to-back.
>
> I just sent an email to CSTD secretariat asking for any practical
> information
> on CSTD open consultation meeting scheduled on Nov 24.
>
> I like to know who will be attending these meetings from our Caucus, and
> also ask you if we can have any preparatory meeting in advance, I mean
> on Nov 21, Sunday.
>
> I will arrive aro
>  und 1 pm at Geneva. If possible, let's have a meeting from,
> say 3 or 4 pm. We like to have some kind of work plan how to get involved,
> and also how to report/share with the caucus.
>
> Do you have a proposal for this meeting venue?
>
>
>
> --
>
> *
> **Ginger (Virginia) Paque
> *IGCBP Online Coordinator
> DiploFoundation
> www.diplomacy.edu/ig
>
> *The latest from Diplo...*
> http://igbook.diplomacy.edu is the online companion to *An Introduction to
> Internet Governance, *Diplo's publication on IG. Download the book, read
> the blogs and post your comments.
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>



-- 
*Andrés Piazza*
www.andrespiazza.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101105/be06a599/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From katitza at eff.org  Fri Nov  5 12:59:25 2010
From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez)
Date: Fri, 05 Nov 2010 09:59:25 -0700
Subject: [governance] Nov 22/23/24 Consultation Meetings - who are
 coming?
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinBpCdBOvyyoRhSYUfYLPr=4wUj_kZsyOdeN1mi@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTinBpCdBOvyyoRhSYUfYLPr=4wUj_kZsyOdeN1mi@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4CD437ED.6000403@eff.org>

Hi Izumi,

Thanks for coordinating a prep meeting. Very much appreciated. I will be 
arriving on the 21 in the morning. Still, I need to confirm my flight 
schedule.

I strongly support the idea to coordinate a prep meeting for Nov. 22, 
Nov. 23, and the CSTD Open Consultation on the 24 (as far as I 
understand). Is there any other CSTD open consultation meeting held on 
the 22 Nov. back to back to the IGF open consultation?

I would be happy to provide a summary of the MAG meeting, following the 
Chatam House Rules. I don't think I can do it in real time since I need 
to concentrate on the meeting (and constantly speaking). We can also 
strategies previous to the meeting, and may be open some channel of 
communication to try to gather members thoughts?. I am not sure if we 
can work out something taking into account the Chatam House Rules

Best,

Katitza






On 11/4/10 7:56 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote:
> Dear list,
> IGF will have Taking stock of the Vilnius Meeting as follows, and the
> registration
> is now open and will be CLOSED by Nov. 18:
>   http://info.intgovforum.org/regnov.php
>
>      * 22 November: Open Consultations.
>      * 23 November: MAG meeting.
>   (Both meetings will be held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva.)
> There will also be CSTD Open Consultation meeting on 22 Nov, back-to-back.
>
> I just sent an email to CSTD secretariat asking for any practical information
> on CSTD open consultation meeting scheduled on Nov 24.
>
> I like to know who will be attending these meetings from our Caucus, and
> also ask you if we can have any preparatory meeting in advance, I mean
> on Nov 21, Sunday.
>
> I will arrive around 1 pm at Geneva. If possible, let's have a meeting from,
> say 3 or 4 pm. We like to have some kind of work plan how to get involved,
> and also how to report/share with the caucus.
>


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

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

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

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

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


From ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Fri Nov  5 15:41:00 2010
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Sat, 06 Nov 2010 06:41:00 +1100
Subject: [governance] It's Time to Stop ICANN's Top-Level Domain (TLD)
In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC108D775@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <C8FAA8FC.132FD%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>

I hear all the arguments as to why we should support ICANN because it is
bottom up decision making, and because there are avenues for participation
for us little people. I have also heard all the arguments as to why new TLDs
open up competition and is exactly what we should be doing and what Jon
Postel wanted.

However, none of these alter the fact that the Internet has moved a lot
quicker than ICANN, and that the new TLDs will hinder rather than help
resource discovery.

Nor will they do anything positive for internet governance. It may lead to
the establishment of an industry similar to confectionery with endless
similar varieties, but that's about it - and that's hardly an internet
governance issue, rather an industry development issue.

That the establishment of so many tlds was supported by those whose fares to
icann meetings are supported by this development is not surprising.

The fact that a lemming like "bottom up" policy development of the industry
to feed its own expansion led to this conclusion does not make it any more
valuable for internet resource discovery or meaningful for internet
development.

Whatever you think about millions of tlds - it does nothing to aid resource
discovery and will only confuse it. It also has precious little to do with
internet governance.

Perhaps the end result will be that we evolve in a more sensible direction
and ICANN is just left doing nothing of relevance to internet governance.
But given that governments are devoting so much energy to ICANN as the
mechanism for psuedo internet governance, perhaps its all a subtle trap to
divert their attention from anything meaningful?

I think Mawaki's post raises some interesting questions.



Ian Peter


> From: Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu>
> Reply-To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu>
> Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2010 10:29:37 -0400
> To: "governance at lists.cpsr.org" <governance at lists.cpsr.org>, Karl Auerbach
> <karl at cavebear.com>
> Subject: RE: [governance] It's Time to Stop ICANN's Top-Level Domain (TLD)
> 
> A recent IGP blog dealt with this argument.
> http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2010/10/20/4660721.html#comm
> ents 
> 
> I might add that the anti-new TLD argument is one that has been heard and
> aired repeatedly over the past ten years. New TLDs do not enjoy complete
> consensus (what does?) but within ICANN every conceivable pro and con argument
> has been heard and taken into account since 2006, and has led to an incredible
> complex regime. These last-ditch efforts to stall or stop show a lack of
> respect for ICANN process, and for bottom up policy development.
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Karl Auerbach [mailto:karl at cavebear.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2010 3:42 AM
>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> Subject: Re: [governance] It's Time to Stop ICANN's Top-Level Domain
>> (TLD)
>> 
>> Although I often agree with Lauren, in this case I do not.
>> 
>> His argument is essentially this:
>> 
>>   - Thing X can be used for ill purposes (among good purposes)
>> 
>>   - Therefore thing X must be banned.
>> 
>> Let's apply that to the internet:
>> 
>>    - The internet can be used for financial scams and ugly content.
>> 
>>    - Therefore the internet must be banned.
>> 
>> Oh that is so much fun, let's try it again:
>> 
>>    - Airplanes can be used to drop bombs.
>> 
>>    - Therefore airplanes must be banned.
>> 
>> We can use that silly logic over and over again and we'd end up in a
>> world in which everything from medicine to automobiles to food is
>> banned.
>> 
>> The faux logic forgets that almost everything is a balance of good and
>> bad.  And it also forgets that quite often the approach for dealing with
>> the bad is to do the obvious: deal with the bad and not ban the thing in
>> which the bad is ensconced.
>> 
>> --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
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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  Fri Nov  5 15:51:00 2010
From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2010 15:51:00 -0400
Subject: [governance] It's Time to Stop ICANN's Top-Level Domain (TLD)
In-Reply-To: <C8FAA8FC.132FD%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
References: <C8FAA8FC.132FD%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
Message-ID: <2E2C6ABC-E24E-46D9-B9FB-0054355881CF@psg.com>


On 5 Nov 2010, at 15:41, Ian Peter wrote:

> Whatever you think about millions of tlds - it does nothing to aid resource
> discovery and will only confuse it. It also has precious little to do with
> internet governance.


I think this argument has as much in it favor as the obverse.

The point is greater choice, and especially IDN choice, i.e. gTLDs in the form people want them in the languages and scripts they want.  It is all well and good that you have a preference for maintaining the current restricted incumbent market, but that does not mean that opening the market will cause any greater harm.  

Internet governance has very little to do with whether there should be or shouldn't be, except on the issue of incumbent registries.  What Internet governance mostly relates to, is how these are distributed, regulated and how compliance is enforced.

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 ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Fri Nov  5 16:01:29 2010
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Sat, 06 Nov 2010 07:01:29 +1100
Subject: [governance] It's Time to Stop ICANN's Top-Level Domain (TLD)
In-Reply-To: <2E2C6ABC-E24E-46D9-B9FB-0054355881CF@psg.com>
Message-ID: <C8FAADC9.13306%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>

Avri wrote


>  It is all well and
> good that you have a preference for maintaining the current restricted
> incumbent market,


Not at all, and IDNs are a case in point where expansion makes sense for as
long as domain names maintain usefulness - but any attachment of exorbitant
fees to IDNs to allow them to be established would be ridiculous.

I'm simply pointing out, as others are, that endless expansion of domain
name suffixes does nothing to aid resource discovery or improve internet
governance.





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

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

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


From rafik.dammak at gmail.com  Fri Nov  5 16:05:05 2010
From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2010 05:05:05 +0900
Subject: [governance] It's Time to Stop ICANN's Top-Level Domain (TLD)
In-Reply-To: <C8FAADC9.13306%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
References: <2E2C6ABC-E24E-46D9-B9FB-0054355881CF@psg.com> <C8FAADC9.13306%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=9FgeC19PF-O4exhW_kj+LXAj8u_PSQ-cmmRgX@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Ian,

you mentioned many times resource discovery, can you please clarify what you
mean by it? I am not sure that everybody here share the same definition.

Rafik

2010/11/6 Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>

> Avri wrote
>
>
> >  It is all well and
> > good that you have a preference for maintaining the current restricted
> > incumbent market,
>
>
> Not at all, and IDNs are a case in point where expansion makes sense for as
> long as domain names maintain usefulness - but any attachment of exorbitant
> fees to IDNs to allow them to be established would be ridiculous.
>
> I'm simply pointing out, as others are, that endless expansion of domain
> name suffixes does nothing to aid resource discovery or improve internet
> governance.
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101106/11313135/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au  Fri Nov  5 16:13:05 2010
From: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au (David Goldstein)
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2010 13:13:05 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] It's Time to Stop ICANN's Top-Level Domain (TLD)
In-Reply-To: <C8FAADC9.13306%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
References: <C8FAADC9.13306%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
Message-ID: <58664.78264.qm@web120503.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>

And neither have you given a reason why they shouldn't exist Ian.

There could be many reasons why it will help with resource discovery. If I'm 
looking for hotels in Berlin, I would assume those with a .BERLIN TLD would rank 
higher.

And I'm not sure what your issue is about internet governance. As Milton pointed 
out, the process for new gTLDs has been going on for some time with input from 
many people to develop the likely framework.

David


----- Original Message ----
From: Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Avri Doria <avri at psg.com>
Sent: Sat, 6 November, 2010 7:01:29 AM
Subject: Re: [governance] It's Time to Stop ICANN's Top-Level Domain (TLD)

Avri wrote


>  It is all well and
> good that you have a preference for maintaining the current restricted
> incumbent market,


Not at all, and IDNs are a case in point where expansion makes sense for as
long as domain names maintain usefulness - but any attachment of exorbitant
fees to IDNs to allow them to be established would be ridiculous.

I'm simply pointing out, as others are, that endless expansion of domain
name suffixes does nothing to aid resource discovery or improve internet
governance.





____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
    governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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  Fri Nov  5 16:27:47 2010
From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2010 16:27:47 -0400
Subject: [governance] It's Time to Stop ICANN's Top-Level Domain (TLD)
In-Reply-To: <C8FAADC9.13306%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
References: <C8FAADC9.13306%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
Message-ID: <53298C8F-8F96-4D94-A266-2DAD88725C20@psg.com>

Hi,

The point about exorbitant fees is quite another topic altogether and it is something several of us are very involved in trying to get mitigated or reduced.  That is partly what I mean by Internet Governance issues related to the distribution of these names.

Don't know if we will have any luck, but a WG that has been focusing on just this problem will be releasing its recommendations real soon now.  I hope that the IGC will consider those recommendations and will see fit to send in comments on them.

Once the report is released, in 6 languages I think, I will notify the IGC of its whereabouts and of the comment period.

a.

On 5 Nov 2010, at 16:01, Ian Peter wrote:

> Avri wrote
> 
> 
>> It is all well and
>> good that you have a preference for maintaining the current restricted
>> incumbent market,
> 
> 
> Not at all, and IDNs are a case in point where expansion makes sense for as
> long as domain names maintain usefulness - but any attachment of exorbitant
> fees to IDNs to allow them to be established would be ridiculous.
> 
> I'm simply pointing out, as others are, that endless expansion of domain
> name suffixes does nothing to aid resource discovery or improve internet
> governance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

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

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 Nov  5 16:42:29 2010
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Sat, 06 Nov 2010 07:42:29 +1100
Subject: [governance] It's Time to Stop ICANN's Top-Level Domain (TLD)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=9FgeC19PF-O4exhW_kj+LXAj8u_PSQ-cmmRgX@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <C8FAB765.13310%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>

Hi Rafik,

Resource discovery is , simply, ³being able to find things² on the Internet.

The original reason for having domain names was that it was thought
(correctly) that it would be easier to remember the name of a site than the
IP number of the site (eg easier to remember berkeley.edu than
199.133.223.253). Thus the domain name system was born and a mechanism was
needed to map all internet addressable numbers to appropriate names.

These days the domain name is becoming less and less relevant for this task.
People use search engines, directories and apps rather than directly using
names to find things. The awkwardness of the domain name system in providing
sensible resource discovery with the internet the size it is now (let alone
what is to come) has led a lot of people to look at other ways to do this.

Ian Peter



From: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2010 05:05:05 +0900
To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
Cc: Avri Doria <avri at psg.com>
Subject: Re: [governance] It's Time to Stop ICANN's Top-Level Domain (TLD)

Hi Ian,

you mentioned many times resource discovery, can you please clarify what you
mean by it? I am not sure that everybody here share the same definition.

Rafik

2010/11/6 Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
> Avri wrote
> 
> 
>> >  It is all well and
>> > good that you have a preference for maintaining the current restricted
>> > incumbent market,
> 
> 
> Not at all, and IDNs are a case in point where expansion makes sense for as
> long as domain names maintain usefulness - but any attachment of exorbitant
> fees to IDNs to allow them to be established would be ridiculous.
> 
> I'm simply pointing out, as others are, that endless expansion of domain
> name suffixes does nothing to aid resource discovery or improve internet
> governance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101106/e34ada8e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From lmcknigh at syr.edu  Fri Nov  5 17:01:33 2010
From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight)
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2010 17:01:33 -0400
Subject: [governance] It's Time to Stop ICANN's Top-Level Domain (TLD)
In-Reply-To: <C8FAB765.13310%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
References: <AANLkTi=9FgeC19PF-O4exhW_kj+LXAj8u_PSQ-cmmRgX@mail.gmail.com>,<C8FAB765.13310%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006DC9@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>

Hi,

If I may wade in briefly; re the reform of the gTLD creation process which has led to the potential creation of many more gtld's:  while obviously as yet far from perfect, it is a significant setp forward - in internet governance. 

Ian, while you may not care for the decision to permit more gTLDs, but compared to the arbitrariness of prior processes which prevented that or made it almost impossible, it is a big big step forward toward more transparent admin procedures within ICANN, and hence indeed a step forward for internet governance. In my view. Whether or not we feel specific new gTLDs are good or bad or succeed or fail, it shouldn't be to you or me - or ICANN - to prevent suitably qualified folks from giving it a go.

Further re resource discovery, that is a far bigger topic than DNS, and can involve multiple methods and techniques, to which the addition of TLDs can be a constraint or insignificant, depending. 

Lee


________________________________________
From: Ian Peter [ian.peter at ianpeter.com]
Sent: Friday, November 05, 2010 4:42 PM
To: Rafik Dammak; governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: Re: [governance] It's Time to Stop ICANN's Top-Level Domain (TLD)

Hi Rafik,

Resource discovery is , simply, “being able to find things” on the Internet.

The original reason for having domain names was that it was thought (correctly) that it would be easier to remember the name of a site than the IP number of the site (eg easier to remember berkeley.edu than 199.133.223.253). Thus the domain name system was born and a mechanism was needed to map all internet addressable numbers to appropriate names.

These days the domain name is becoming less and less relevant for this task. People use search engines, directories and apps rather than directly using names to find things. The awkwardness of the domain name system in providing sensible resource discovery with the internet the size it is now (let alone what is to come) has led a lot of people to look at other ways to do this.

Ian Peter


________________________________
From: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2010 05:05:05 +0900
To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
Cc: Avri Doria <avri at psg.com>
Subject: Re: [governance] It's Time to Stop ICANN's Top-Level Domain (TLD)

Hi Ian,

you mentioned many times resource discovery, can you please clarify what you mean by it? I am not sure that everybody here share the same definition.

Rafik

2010/11/6 Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
Avri wrote


>  It is all well and
> good that you have a preference for maintaining the current restricted
> incumbent market,


Not at all, and IDNs are a case in point where expansion makes sense for as
long as domain names maintain usefulness - but any attachment of exorbitant
fees to IDNs to allow them to be established would be ridiculous.

I'm simply pointing out, as others are, that endless expansion of domain
name suffixes does nothing to aid resource discovery or improve internet
governance.





____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 kichango at gmail.com  Fri Nov  5 17:29:35 2010
From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango)
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2010 17:29:35 -0400
Subject: [governance] It's Time to Stop ICANN's Top-Level Domain (TLD)
In-Reply-To: <53298C8F-8F96-4D94-A266-2DAD88725C20@psg.com>
References: <C8FAADC9.13306%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
	<53298C8F-8F96-4D94-A266-2DAD88725C20@psg.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTinOXFsPSjPKPL7_h+Qjvvc83UxFu2-y=_sjaAMJ@mail.gmail.com>

Avri,

Could you please point to some more information, eg the genesis, of that WG?
How was it formed and who are the members? I would have loved to join had I
known about it - assuming I was eligible.
Thanks,

Mawaki

On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 4:27 PM, Avri Doria <avri at psg.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> The point about exorbitant fees is quite another topic altogether and it is
> something several of us are very involved in trying to get mitigated or
> reduced.  That is partly what I mean by Internet Governance issues related
> to the distribution of these names.
>
> Don't know if we will have any luck, but a WG that has been focusing on
> just this problem will be releasing its recommendations real soon now.  I
> hope that the IGC will consider those recommendations and will see fit to
> send in comments on them.
>
> Once the report is released, in 6 languages I think, I will notify the IGC
> of its whereabouts and of the comment period.
>
> a.
>
> On 5 Nov 2010, at 16:01, Ian Peter wrote:
>
> > Avri wrote
> >
> >
> >> It is all well and
> >> good that you have a preference for maintaining the current restricted
> >> incumbent market,
> >
> >
> > Not at all, and IDNs are a case in point where expansion makes sense for
> as
> > long as domain names maintain usefulness - but any attachment of
> exorbitant
> > fees to IDNs to allow them to be established would be ridiculous.
> >
> > I'm simply pointing out, as others are, that endless expansion of domain
> > name suffixes does nothing to aid resource discovery or improve internet
> > governance.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101105/014e3d82/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From avri at psg.com  Fri Nov  5 17:50:17 2010
From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2010 17:50:17 -0400
Subject: [governance] It's Time to Stop ICANN's Top-Level Domain (TLD)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinOXFsPSjPKPL7_h+Qjvvc83UxFu2-y=_sjaAMJ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <C8FAADC9.13306%ian.peter@ianpeter.com> <53298C8F-8F96-4D94-A266-2DAD88725C20@psg.com> <AANLkTinOXFsPSjPKPL7_h+Qjvvc83UxFu2-y=_sjaAMJ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <25D67547-AF6E-4C87-8E84-726EA124E467@psg.com>

Hi,

Of course you were eligible.  A general call went out, though I do not remember whether it was posted to this list.  Should have been and it is something those of involved in ICANN should remember - make sure we post the creation of WGs to the IGC and other non ICANN lists.  By and large the open calls are left to ICANN Staff, but they don't necessarily have the outreach we do.  I will try to remember from this point on.  All GNSO WGs are open as are most of the joint WGs.

The draft of the final report is going through a last call right now, the addenda had some more editing done at a meeting today and will be updated before it goes out for final review.  The primary documents under review can be found at: 

http://forum.icann.org/lists/soac-newgtldapsup-wg/msg00822.html  if you don't want to wait for the release.

the entire archive of the email list is:   http://forum.icann.org/lists/soac-newgtldapsup-wg/

Unfortunately the wiki is offline at the moment as they are switching from one wiki type to another.

We will next attempt to have our charter updated with some new actions as outlined in section "Next Steps" of the report.  If we do get an extended charter, we will be putting out a new call for additional group members.  I will make sure to pass on the notice.

a.




On 5 Nov 2010, at 17:29, Mawaki Chango wrote:

> Avri,
>  
> Could you please point to some more information, eg the genesis, of that WG? How was it formed and who are the members? I would have loved to join had I known about it - assuming I was eligible.
> Thanks,
>  
> Mawaki
> 
> On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 4:27 PM, Avri Doria <avri at psg.com> wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> The point about exorbitant fees is quite another topic altogether and it is something several of us are very involved in trying to get mitigated or reduced.  That is partly what I mean by Internet Governance issues related to the distribution of these names.
> 
> Don't know if we will have any luck, but a WG that has been focusing on just this problem will be releasing its recommendations real soon now.  I hope that the IGC will consider those recommendations and will see fit to send in comments on them.
> 
> Once the report is released, in 6 languages I think, I will notify the IGC of its whereabouts and of the comment period.
> 
> a.
> 
> On 5 Nov 2010, at 16:01, Ian Peter wrote:
> 
> > Avri wrote
> >
> >
> >> It is all well and
> >> good that you have a preference for maintaining the current restricted
> >> incumbent market,
> >
> >
> > Not at all, and IDNs are a case in point where expansion makes sense for as
> > long as domain names maintain usefulness - but any attachment of exorbitant
> > fees to IDNs to allow them to be established would be ridiculous.
> >
> > I'm simply pointing out, as others are, that endless expansion of domain
> > name suffixes does nothing to aid resource discovery or improve internet
> > governance.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 

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

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

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

From roland at internetpolicyagency.com  Fri Nov  5 17:49:37 2010
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2010 21:49:37 +0000
Subject: [governance] It's Time to Stop ICANN's Top-Level Domain (TLD)
In-Reply-To: <C8FAB765.13310%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
References: <AANLkTi=9FgeC19PF-O4exhW_kj+LXAj8u_PSQ-cmmRgX@mail.gmail.com>
 <C8FAB765.13310%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
Message-ID: <AMDLnV6xvH1MFACp@internetpolicyagency.com>

In message <C8FAB765.13310%ian.peter at ianpeter.com>, at 07:42:29 on Sat, 
6 Nov 2010, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> writes
>Resource discovery is , simply, ?being able to find things? on the 
>Internet.
>
>The original reason for having domain names was that it was thought 
>(correctly) that it would be easier to remember the name of a site than 
>the IP number of the site (eg easier to remember berkeley.edu than 
>199.133.223.253). Thus the domain name system was born and a mechanism 
>was needed to map all internet addressable numbers to appropriate names

But it wasn't intended for you to guess that the University of Berkeley 
might have the domain berkeley.edu

And what of a hypothetical University of Berkeley in Australia?

berkeley-au.edu is inelegant for many reasons, whereas extending the TLD 
space and assigning berkeley.edu.au is both memorable and scaleable.
-- 
Roland Perry
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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


From roland at internetpolicyagency.com  Fri Nov  5 17:50:10 2010
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2010 21:50:10 +0000
Subject: [governance] It's Time to Stop ICANN's Top-Level Domain (TLD)
In-Reply-To: <C8FAADC9.13306%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
References: <2E2C6ABC-E24E-46D9-B9FB-0054355881CF@psg.com>
 <C8FAADC9.13306%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
Message-ID: <I8LJrL7SwH1MFAg$@internetpolicyagency.com>

In message <C8FAADC9.13306%ian.peter at ianpeter.com>, at 07:01:29 on Sat, 
6 Nov 2010, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> writes

>I'm simply pointing out, as others are, that endless expansion of domain
>name suffixes does nothing to aid resource discovery

The DNS is not about "resource discovery", by which I assume you mean 
"making a guess at a url and seeing if you find what you expected when 
you get there".

>or improve internet governance.

Internet Governance (a small part of it, anyway) affects which new gTLDs 
there might be, not the other way around.
-- 
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 psg.com  Fri Nov  5 17:56:52 2010
From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2010 17:56:52 -0400
Subject: [governance] It's Time to Stop ICANN's Top-Level Domain (TLD)
In-Reply-To: <25D67547-AF6E-4C87-8E84-726EA124E467@psg.com>
References: <C8FAADC9.13306%ian.peter@ianpeter.com> <53298C8F-8F96-4D94-A266-2DAD88725C20@psg.com> <AANLkTinOXFsPSjPKPL7_h+Qjvvc83UxFu2-y=_sjaAMJ@mail.gmail.com> <25D67547-AF6E-4C87-8E84-726EA124E467@psg.com>
Message-ID: <DFE88F51-71AB-4673-A28D-66BC3A0C4D3A@psg.com>

Note: All the WG has done is make recommendations.

It will be up the GNSO and the ALAC to accept them or not and to pass them on the Board.
And in the process of making the decisions they will be a period of community comment.
And hopefully the community comment will support at least some of the recommendations, and that will have something to do with the degree to which they are accepted.

a.

On 5 Nov 2010, at 17:50, Avri Doria wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> Of course you were eligible.  A general call went out, though I do not remember whether it was posted to this list.  Should have been and it is something those of involved in ICANN should remember - make sure we post the creation of WGs to the IGC and other non ICANN lists.  By and large the open calls are left to ICANN Staff, but they don't necessarily have the outreach we do.  I will try to remember from this point on.  All GNSO WGs are open as are most of the joint WGs.
> 
> The draft of the final report is going through a last call right now, the addenda had some more editing done at a meeting today and will be updated before it goes out for final review.  The primary documents under review can be found at: 
> 
> http://forum.icann.org/lists/soac-newgtldapsup-wg/msg00822.html  if you don't want to wait for the release.
> 
> the entire archive of the email list is:   http://forum.icann.org/lists/soac-newgtldapsup-wg/
> 
> Unfortunately the wiki is offline at the moment as they are switching from one wiki type to another.
> 
> We will next attempt to have our charter updated with some new actions as outlined in section "Next Steps" of the report.  If we do get an extended charter, we will be putting out a new call for additional group members.  I will make sure to pass on the notice.
> 
> a.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 5 Nov 2010, at 17:29, Mawaki Chango wrote:
> 
>> Avri,
>> 
>> Could you please point to some more information, eg the genesis, of that WG? How was it formed and who are the members? I would have loved to join had I known about it - assuming I was eligible.
>> Thanks,
>> 
>> Mawaki
>> 
>> On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 4:27 PM, Avri Doria <avri at psg.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> The point about exorbitant fees is quite another topic altogether and it is something several of us are very involved in trying to get mitigated or reduced.  That is partly what I mean by Internet Governance issues related to the distribution of these names.
>> 
>> Don't know if we will have any luck, but a WG that has been focusing on just this problem will be releasing its recommendations real soon now.  I hope that the IGC will consider those recommendations and will see fit to send in comments on them.
>> 
>> Once the report is released, in 6 languages I think, I will notify the IGC of its whereabouts and of the comment period.
>> 
>> a.
>> 
>> On 5 Nov 2010, at 16:01, Ian Peter wrote:
>> 
>>> Avri wrote
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> It is all well and
>>>> good that you have a preference for maintaining the current restricted
>>>> incumbent market,
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Not at all, and IDNs are a case in point where expansion makes sense for as
>>> long as domain names maintain usefulness - but any attachment of exorbitant
>>> fees to IDNs to allow them to be established would be ridiculous.
>>> 
>>> I'm simply pointing out, as others are, that endless expansion of domain
>>> name suffixes does nothing to aid resource discovery or improve internet
>>> governance.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 meryem at marzouki.info  Fri Nov  5 17:58:40 2010
From: meryem at marzouki.info (Meryem Marzouki)
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2010 22:58:40 +0100
Subject: [governance] It's Time to Stop ICANN's Top-Level Domain (TLD)
In-Reply-To: <C8FAADC9.13306%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
References: <C8FAADC9.13306%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
Message-ID: <00B3CE05-A684-417D-A363-63DD513B9F23@marzouki.info>


Le 5 nov. 10 à 21:01, Ian Peter a écrit :

> Avri wrote
>
>>  It is all well and
>> good that you have a preference for maintaining the current  
>> restricted
>> incumbent market,
>
>
> Not at all, and IDNs are a case in point where expansion makes  
> sense for as
> long as domain names maintain usefulness - but any attachment of  
> exorbitant
> fees to IDNs to allow them to be established would be ridiculous.
>
> I'm simply pointing out, as others are, that endless expansion of  
> domain
> name suffixes does nothing to aid resource discovery or improve  
> internet
> governance.

But how and why do you infer, from the fact that fees are exorbitant,  
that expansion of domain names should be stopped (or limited), rather  
than that fees should be reduced to the strict minimal cost (not  
necessarily determined by ICANN) of new TLDs inclusion and management  
-- and then let a zillion TLDs bloom?

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

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 Nov  5 18:06:29 2010
From: ocl at gih.com (Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond)
Date: Fri, 05 Nov 2010 23:06:29 +0100
Subject: [governance] It's Time to Stop ICANN's Top-Level Domain (TLD)
In-Reply-To: <C8FAB765.13310%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
References: <C8FAB765.13310%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
Message-ID: <4CD47FE5.4000402@gih.com>

Hello Ian,

since the domain name system,in your view is solely about resource
discovery, I suggest you give up ianpeter.com altogether and move your
email to gmail, whilst hosting your Web site under a generic domain.
Only troubles are:
1. I won't know how to find your Web site or how to email you. (except
if you manage to position yourself well with search engines and there's
an art to that - pay more, get more)
2. if you start becoming too controversial for your ISPs, you might
vanish from the Internet altogether. DItto if your ISP is purchased by
someone else. You'll just be forced to change email address, change web
address... you get the point.

Kind regards,

Olivier

Le 05/11/2010 21:42, Ian Peter a écrit :
> Hi Rafik,
>
> Resource discovery is , simply, "being able to find things" on the
> Internet.
>
> The original reason for having domain names was that it was thought
> (correctly) that it would be easier to remember the name of a site
> than the IP number of the site (eg easier to remember berkeley.edu
> than 199.133.223.253). Thus the domain name system was born and a
> mechanism was needed to map all internet addressable numbers to
> appropriate names.
>
> These days the domain name is becoming less and less relevant for this
> task. People use search engines, directories and apps rather than
> directly using names to find things. The awkwardness of the domain
> name system in providing sensible resource discovery with the internet
> the size it is now (let alone what is to come) has led a lot of people
> to look at other ways to do this.
>
> Ian Peter
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From: *Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
> *Date: *Sat, 6 Nov 2010 05:05:05 +0900
> *To: *<governance at lists.cpsr.org>, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
> *Cc: *Avri Doria <avri at psg.com>
> *Subject: *Re: [governance] It's Time to Stop ICANN's Top-Level Domain
> (TLD)
>
> Hi Ian,
>
> you mentioned many times resource discovery, can you please clarify
> what you mean by it? I am not sure that everybody here share the same
> definition.
>
> Rafik
>
> 2010/11/6 Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
>
>     Avri wrote
>
>
>     >  It is all well and
>     > good that you have a preference for maintaining the current
>     restricted
>     > incumbent market,
>
>
>     Not at all, and IDNs are a case in point where expansion makes
>     sense for as
>     long as domain names maintain usefulness - but any attachment of
>     exorbitant
>     fees to IDNs to allow them to be established would be ridiculous.
>
>     I'm simply pointing out, as others are, that endless expansion of
>     domain
>     name suffixes does nothing to aid resource discovery or improve
>     internet
>     governance.
>
>
>
>
>
>     ____________________________________________________________
>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>          governance at lists.cpsr.org
>     To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>          governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
>     For all list information and functions, see:
>          http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>     Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>

-- 
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
http://www.gih.com/ocl.html

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101105/814e6fb6/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From fouadbajwa at gmail.com  Fri Nov  5 20:06:28 2010
From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa)
Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2010 05:06:28 +0500
Subject: [governance] It's Time to Stop ICANN's Top-Level Domain (TLD)
In-Reply-To: <C8FAB765.13310%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
References: <AANLkTi=9FgeC19PF-O4exhW_kj+LXAj8u_PSQ-cmmRgX@mail.gmail.com>
	<C8FAB765.13310%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTikq9FD=+Z5inxDqmfnvicSKhFxCWW-C6dDNN=LM@mail.gmail.com>

I still see the new TLDs spurring an opportunity for colonizing the
address space building neospaces that get to be controlled more and/or
governed more by private entities than just the governments. ICANN at
many stages does seem like distraction but that IMHO is just one face
of things. It is also an attempt to build a wall of many services
around the resource mapping system to keep governance away from it
from entities other than ICANN...........the exorbitant fees are a
capital raising disguised as a governance system to build security by
the colonizers to sustain their state :o)

-- Fouad

On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 1:42 AM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
> Hi Rafik,
>
> Resource discovery is , simply, “being able to find things” on the Internet.
>
> The original reason for having domain names was that it was thought
> (correctly) that it would be easier to remember the name of a site than the
> IP number of the site (eg easier to remember berkeley.edu than
> 199.133.223.253). Thus the domain name system was born and a mechanism was
> needed to map all internet addressable numbers to appropriate names.
>
> These days the domain name is becoming less and less relevant for this task.
> People use search engines, directories and apps rather than directly using
> names to find things. The awkwardness of the domain name system in providing
> sensible resource discovery with the internet the size it is now (let alone
> what is to come) has led a lot of people to look at other ways to do this.
>
> Ian Peter
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
> Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2010 05:05:05 +0900
> To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
> Cc: Avri Doria <avri at psg.com>
> Subject: Re: [governance] It's Time to Stop ICANN's Top-Level Domain (TLD)
>
> Hi Ian,
>
> you mentioned many times resource discovery, can you please clarify what you
> mean by it? I am not sure that everybody here share the same definition.
>
> Rafik
>
> 2010/11/6 Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
>
> Avri wrote
>
>
>>  It is all well and
>> good that you have a preference for maintaining the current restricted
>> incumbent market,
>
>
> Not at all, and IDNs are a case in point where expansion makes sense for as
> long as domain names maintain usefulness - but any attachment of exorbitant
> fees to IDNs to allow them to be established would be ridiculous.
>
> I'm simply pointing out, as others are, that endless expansion of domain
> name suffixes does nothing to aid resource discovery or improve internet
> governance.
>
>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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 Nov  5 20:17:17 2010
From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa)
Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2010 05:17:17 +0500
Subject: [governance] It's Time to Stop ICANN's Top-Level Domain (TLD)
In-Reply-To: <4CD47FE5.4000402@gih.com>
References: <C8FAB765.13310%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
	<4CD47FE5.4000402@gih.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTinwTbHFNsFRzgTcfEtrxbuRQucVUa7jdnnWn0cN@mail.gmail.com>

We are living with an address space that is gearing up for
colonization and private control ;o) very true Olivier with your
clarification.

The issue of information brokers and intermediaries also come into
play here where certain neospaces (new colonies of information) may
actually not require this addressing if all of it just went into one
space or one colony:

1. www.education.google
2. www.health.google.
3. www.news.google
4. www.mail.google
5. www.school.google
6. www.4G.google
7. www.andriod.google
8. www.earth.google
9. www.broadband.google

Numbers and machine language on the network would never have been easy
for the simple users of the Internet to memorize. That remains the
base of the addressing system, address yourself on the Internetwork!
But, the growth, expansion and development of the Internetwork really
is beyond ICANN and may be the bend towards new gTLDs is something
being enforced on it so capitalist control of information and
knowledge can happen through network colonization.

The real governance of the network is currently perceived to be
enforceable by governments where as content development and
distribution remains in the hands of entities beyond governments and
in location where legal jurisdictions vary and no common or universal
litigation instruments exist. Where certain do, they exist in
neospaces developed by certain powerful governments and attempts are
usually made through trade and industry IPR instruments to enforce
such things but still can't be applicable to everyone.

-- Best

Fouad

On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 3:06 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com> wrote:
> Hello Ian,
>
> since the domain name system,in your view is solely about resource
> discovery, I suggest you give up ianpeter.com altogether and move your email
> to gmail, whilst hosting your Web site under a generic domain.
> Only troubles are:
> 1. I won't know how to find your Web site or how to email you. (except if
> you manage to position yourself well with search engines and there's an art
> to that - pay more, get more)
> 2. if you start becoming too controversial for your ISPs, you might vanish
> from the Internet altogether. DItto if your ISP is purchased by someone
> else. You'll just be forced to change email address, change web address...
> you get the point.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Olivier
>
> Le 05/11/2010 21:42, Ian Peter a écrit :
>
> Hi Rafik,
>
> Resource discovery is , simply, “being able to find things” on the Internet.
>
> The original reason for having domain names was that it was thought
> (correctly) that it would be easier to remember the name of a site than the
> IP number of the site (eg easier to remember berkeley.edu than
> 199.133.223.253). Thus the domain name system was born and a mechanism was
> needed to map all internet addressable numbers to appropriate names.
>
> These days the domain name is becoming less and less relevant for this task.
> People use search engines, directories and apps rather than directly using
> names to find things. The awkwardness of the domain name system in providing
> sensible resource discovery with the internet the size it is now (let alone
> what is to come) has led a lot of people to look at other ways to do this.
>
> Ian Peter
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
> Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2010 05:05:05 +0900
> To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
> Cc: Avri Doria <avri at psg.com>
> Subject: Re: [governance] It's Time to Stop ICANN's Top-Level Domain (TLD)
>
> Hi Ian,
>
> you mentioned many times resource discovery, can you please clarify what you
> mean by it? I am not sure that everybody here share the same definition.
>
> Rafik
>
> 2010/11/6 Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
>
> Avri wrote
>
>
>>  It is all well and
>> good that you have a preference for maintaining the current restricted
>> incumbent market,
>
>
> Not at all, and IDNs are a case in point where expansion makes sense for as
> long as domain names maintain usefulness - but any attachment of exorbitant
> fees to IDNs to allow them to be established would be ridiculous.
>
> I'm simply pointing out, as others are, that endless expansion of domain
> name suffixes does nothing to aid resource discovery or improve internet
> governance.
>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From iza at anr.org  Fri Nov  5 22:25:57 2010
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2010 11:25:57 +0900
Subject: [governance] Nov 22/23/24 Consultation Meetings - who are
 coming?
In-Reply-To: <4CD437ED.6000403@eff.org>
References: <AANLkTinBpCdBOvyyoRhSYUfYLPr=4wUj_kZsyOdeN1mi@mail.gmail.com> <4CD437ED.6000403@eff.org>
Message-ID: <AANLkTimSUejXky3nKGYYOrWRxbebJv=u08nQiEd6OY84@mail.gmail.com>

2010/11/6 Katitza Rodriguez <katitza at eff.org>:
> Hi Izumi,
>
> Thanks for coordinating a prep meeting. Very much appreciated. I will be
> arriving on the 21 in the morning. Still, I need to confirm my flight
> schedule.

Great!

>
> I strongly support the idea to coordinate a prep meeting for Nov. 22, Nov.
> 23, and the CSTD Open Consultation on the 24 (as far as I understand). Is
> there any other CSTD open consultation meeting held on the 22 Nov. back to
> back to the IGF open consultation?

I am not aware of any CSTD meeting on 22 Nov. I think 22nd is only
spent for IGF stocktaking itself.

>
> I would be happy to provide a summary of the MAG meeting, following the
> Chatam House Rules. I don't think I can do it in real time since I need to
> concentrate on the meeting (and constantly speaking). We can also strategies
> previous to the meeting, and may be open some channel of communication to
> try to gather members thoughts?. I am not sure if we can work out something
> taking into account the Chatam House Rules

Well, the summary can be very much a summary of major points.
It still is very much useful for the "outsiders".

Keep in touch,

izumi

>
> Best,
>
> Katitza
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 11/4/10 7:56 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote:
>>
>> Dear list,
>> IGF will have Taking stock of the Vilnius Meeting as follows, and the
>> registration
>> is now open and will be CLOSED by Nov. 18:
>>  http://info.intgovforum.org/regnov.php
>>
>>     * 22 November: Open Consultations.
>>     * 23 November: MAG meeting.
>>  (Both meetings will be held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva.)
>> There will also be CSTD Open Consultation meeting on 22 Nov, back-to-back.
>>
>> I just sent an email to CSTD secretariat asking for any practical
>> information
>> on CSTD open consultation meeting scheduled on Nov 24.
>>
>> I like to know who will be attending these meetings from our Caucus, and
>> also ask you if we can have any preparatory meeting in advance, I mean
>> on Nov 21, Sunday.
>>
>> I will arrive around 1 pm at Geneva. If possible, let's have a meeting
>> from,
>> say 3 or 4 pm. We like to have some kind of work plan how to get involved,
>> and also how to report/share with the caucus.
>>
>
>
> --
> 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
>
>



-- 
                        >> Izumi Aizu <<

          Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo

           Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,
                                  Japan
                                 * * * * *
           << Writing the Future of the History >>
                                www.anr.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 parminder at itforchange.net  Fri Nov  5 23:44:03 2010
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Sat, 06 Nov 2010 09:14:03 +0530
Subject: [governance] Re: SECOND DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <08B126B5-B3AB-4A91-B8BC-A90579C6EF5A@ciroap.org>
References: <70E573F5-00B4-4837-89B7-C05B9DA7E479@ciroap.org> <7.0.1.0.2.20101103021355.05d70e60@jefsey.com> <5B31379A-A914-4BE1-945B-EEF2478BA1DC@ciroap.org> <7.0.1.0.2.20101103094622.0651ee20@jefsey.com> <3FE17A9E-E507-44DA-8AE2-EC7EC56DD1D8@ciroap.org> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006DA4@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4CD17823.8010108@itforchange.net> <AANLkTikONmgaa+4rO+uZkAv4YrPDfSV4aP9YKk_=Lgox@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20101104103504.057fdc48@jefsey.com> <08B126B5-B3AB-4A91-B8BC-A90579C6EF5A@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <4CD4CF03.3000900@itforchange.net>

Hi All

The question here is - do we need new global IG processes - for 
developing public policies and not technical policies (Tunis Agenda 
makes that distinction clear).

Antecedent question is - is there a gap / vacuum versus global IG 
policies or not? The Tunis Agenda appears to be clear that there is such 
a vacuum.

What does the IGC think? We need to be able to give an answer.

And if we think there is a global vacuum vis a vis global IG policies, 
what is our analysis about whose interests such a vacuum serves, and 
whose interests it dis-serves most. It is my submission, and most 
sociological/ political theories also hold, that absence of (democratic) 
political structures serves the powerful most, and disserve the 
marginalised.

Globally, Internet is today being shaped by dominant forces in a manner 
that is often opposite of what can be called progressive. Only 
democratic global political institutions can remedy this situation.

If we have no position on this, my opinion is that our position is 
regressive. It is against the interests of the marginalised and the 
excluded. And CS is supposed to protect these interests most.

If we have to take our cues from global  CS outside IG arena, then 
perhaps CS organisations concerned with globalisation issues come 
closest. Information Society is but globalisation on steroids. And the 
global CS's prescription to address the ill and excesses of 
globalisation is mostly better and more democratic global governance 
institutions (see for instance writings of Joseph Stiglitz). This is 
mostly the primary prescription on 'what to do'. And now when the IG 
related CS is presented with a possibility of shaping new more 
democratic global governance institution, can we just remain silent  or 
say, well we are not very interested. That is what looks coming out of 
the present statement; other than saying, if indeed anything of this 
nature does come up, make sure CS is also involved. I am unable to agree 
with such a statement coming from IGC. And I also cannot agree to it as 
a default statement. In not saying what is needed to be said, much is 
being said. I am, and my organisation is, unable to be associated with 
what is being said in this manner.

What we will like to be said is something as follows.

There is a huge institutional vacuum in terms of global IG policies and 
such a vacuum hurts the interests of the marginalised and the excluded 
most. It is an urgent imperative that new institutional developments 
emerge to address this vacuum, in a democratic and inclusive manner.  It 
will be worthwhile to consider a global or world Internet organisation 
or council, with adequate and equitable representation to governments 
from all regions as well as non-governmental representatives of people 
and interests that cannot adequately be represented merely through  
inter-governmental systems, especially in the new emerging trans-global 
reality. Such non-governmental participation is also necessary to give 
equitable representation to marginalised groups, like disability and 
indigenous groups, who find strength through global organization, and 
whose interests need a more direct representation at global  policy 
forum. Such an institutional mechanism will be the best way to deepen 
democracy at global level, and ensure a really democratic global 
Internet regime.

We may also try and get more specific, maybe, suggest such a World/ 
Global Internet Council/ Organization  has five governmental members 
each from each  region and 6 additional non-governmental members. The 
ways to select these non-governmental members may be arrived at through 
consultation with all involved groups. However the process should be 
open and bottom up.

This GIO or CIC (referred to as 'Body' hereafter) should have a mandate 
for all areas of global Internet public policies, including, but not 
restricted to, oversight of CIR management.

This Body should come up with policy recommendations on all global IG 
matters, especially those in which regard there is no existing 
specialized agency dealing with the issue(s) to be adopted globally and 
nationally through different means/mechanisms of such global policy 
making/ adopting.

It should also facilitate negotiation of treaties, conventions and 
agreements on Internet-related public policies.

This Body should also help  set up, or anchor, as appropriate, global 
coordination methods for transborder Internet Governance related issues 
that require coordination on an ongoing basis.

This Body should also develop rules and procedures for dispute 
resolution mechanisms and conduct arbitration, as required.

The relationship between this Body and technical and operational 
Internet institutions, such as the reformed and internationalized ICANN, 
should be formalized. In this model, ICANN will be accountable to GIC. 
In this regard, US government should cede all controls/ supervision of 
ICANN and IANA and such related functions to this body.

(A lot of stuff here is taken from different models suggested by the 
WGIG report)


The above is merely suggestive and hastily drafted to invite comments. 
There is of course much that be improved and even substantively changed 
here if we put our creative and political energies on the task.  However 
abstaining, or giving rather vague comments, when asked about our 
specific preferences for a global IG order is not, in my opinion, 
something the IGC can afford to do. It may only do so at the risk of 
compromising its political legitimacy as the leading progressive global 
civil society organization.

Parminder



On Thursday 04 November 2010 05:05 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> On 04/11/2010, at 4:38 PM, jefsey wrote:
>
>    
>> My point was not about the proposed procedural document, but about the claim it is neutral.
>>      
> Sorry for any misunderstanding, I didn't mean that it was meant to be neutral as between civil society and governments.  I just meant that in drafting it, I limited myself to what I knew the IGC would agree on, because of the paucity of contributions we had received on the list to that time.  There was only really one suggestion, which came from Bill (and which I incorporated).
>
> Since then, there has been some more, so here is a revised version incorporating all new comments.  Don't worry, it's gradually becoming less neutral/bland - also longer :-(.  All paragraphs but the last have changes, but the biggest changes are to paragraph 2.  I can also send a marked-up version if there is demand for it.
>
> --- begins ---
>
> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (CS-IGC) is pleased to present its views on the process towards enhanced cooperation on international public policy issues relating to the Internet.  We do not have any detailed prescription of the form which this process should take, but rather we take this opportunity to make three simple points.
>
> First is that enhanced cooperation should encompass all Internet-related public policy issues, second that the existing arrangements of relevant organisations (including the Internet Governance Forum) do not fully implement this ideal of enhanced cooperation, and finally that whatever new arrangements may be put in place, civil society will play an integral part in them.
>
> These points will be explained in turn:
>
> 1. Although much of the discussion of enhanced cooperation at WSIS turned around the narrow issue of internationalising the oversight of Internet naming and numbering functions, the Tunis Agenda expresses this principle far more broadly.  It also reminds us that the ultimate objective of our cooperation is to advance a people-centred, inclusive, development-oriented and non-discriminatory Information Society.
>
> 2. The IGF in its present form is a very important part of the enhanced cooperation process, in that ideally its multi-stakeholder process can help to shape the decisions that are taken on Internet related public policy issues in other fora.  However the full realisation of enhanced cooperation will require a multi-stakeholder process to extend to other Internet governance organisations that do not already follow this model.
>
> There are various options for enhancing multi-stakeholder cooperation within and amongst all relevant organisations.  These may include:
>
> * making no institutional changes but encouraging organisations to enhance their own cooperation with other stakeholders and to report to the CSTD on their progress;
>
> * establishing a lightweight multi-stakeholder observatory process perhaps hosted under the auspices of the IGF (pursuant to its mandate in paragraph 72(i));
>
> * utilising a virtual and voluntary global social community or "social grid", linking together all Internet governance organisations, in which all stakeholders would participate; or
>
> * establishing a new umbrella governance institution for Internet policy development, with space for the participation of each stakeholder group in its respective role.
>
> 3. Paragraph 71 of the Tunis Agenda makes very clear that civil society is an integral participant in the development of any process towards enhanced cooperation.  Therefore the IGC, in our capacity as members of civil society, looks forward to contributing constructively in transparent, accountable and democratic multi-stakeholder consultations towards this end.
>
>    
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101106/a32779f3/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From avri at psg.com  Sat Nov  6 00:04:58 2010
From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2010 00:04:58 -0400
Subject: [governance] Re: SECOND DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <4CD4CF03.3000900@itforchange.net>
References: <70E573F5-00B4-4837-89B7-C05B9DA7E479@ciroap.org> <7.0.1.0.2.20101103021355.05d70e60@jefsey.com> <5B31379A-A914-4BE1-945B-EEF2478BA1DC@ciroap.org> <7.0.1.0.2.20101103094622.0651ee20@jefsey.com> <3FE17A9E-E507-44DA-8AE2-EC7EC56DD1D8@ciroap.org> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006DA4@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4CD17823.8010108@itforchange.net> <AANLkTikONmgaa+4rO+uZkAv4YrPDfSV4aP9YKk_=Lgox@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20101104103504.057fdc48@jefsey.com> <08B126B5-B3AB-4A91-B8BC-A90579C6EF5A@ciroap.org> <4CD4CF03.3000900@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <D1E1B737-C8E1-4657-8A1A-FDB3E30DB92D@psg.com>

Hi,

I think this proposal is horribly government centric and hope that it is does not become the consensus of the IGC.

A civil society caucus should not become a government serving body.  To voluntarily surrender full control of Internet governance to governments, except for a token 'other' presence strikes me as unthinkable.

a.

On 5 Nov 2010, at 23:44, parminder wrote:

> Hi All
> 
> The question here is - do we need new global IG processes - for developing public policies and not technical policies (Tunis Agenda makes that distinction clear).
> 
> Antecedent question is - is there a gap / vacuum versus global IG policies or not? The Tunis Agenda appears to be clear that there is such a vacuum.
> 
> What does the IGC think? We need to be able to give an answer. 
> 
> And if we think there is a global vacuum vis a vis global IG policies, what is our analysis about whose interests such a vacuum serves, and whose interests it dis-serves most. It is my submission, and most sociological/ political theories also hold, that absence of (democratic) political structures serves the powerful most, and disserve the marginalised. 
> 
> Globally, Internet is today being shaped by dominant forces in a manner that is often opposite of what can be called progressive. Only democratic global political institutions can remedy this situation.
> 
> If we have no position on this, my opinion is that our position is regressive. It is against the interests of the marginalised and the excluded. And CS is supposed to protect these interests most.
> 
> If we have to take our cues from global  CS outside IG arena, then perhaps CS organisations concerned with globalisation issues come closest. Information Society is but globalisation on steroids. And the global CS's prescription to address the ill and excesses of globalisation is mostly better and more democratic global governance institutions (see for instance writings of Joseph Stiglitz). This is mostly the primary prescription on 'what to do'. And now when the IG related CS is presented with a possibility of shaping new more democratic global governance institution, can we just remain silent  or say, well we are not very interested. That is what looks coming out of the present statement; other than saying, if indeed anything of this nature does come up, make sure CS is also involved. I am unable to agree with such a statement coming from IGC. And I also cannot agree to it as a default statement. In not saying what is needed to be said, much is being said. I am, and my organisation is, unable to be associated with what is being said in this manner.
> 
> What we will like to be said is something as follows.
> 
> There is a huge institutional vacuum in terms of global IG policies and such a vacuum hurts the interests of the marginalised and the excluded most. It is an urgent imperative that new institutional developments emerge to address this vacuum, in a democratic and inclusive manner.  It will be worthwhile to consider a global or world Internet organisation or council, with adequate and equitable representation to governments from all regions as well as non-governmental representatives of people and interests that cannot adequately be represented merely through  inter-governmental systems, especially in the new emerging trans-global reality. Such non-governmental participation is also necessary to give equitable representation to marginalised groups, like disability and indigenous groups, who find strength through global organization, and whose interests need a more direct representation at global  policy forum. Such an institutional mechanism will be the best way to deepen democracy at global level, and ensure a really democratic global Internet regime. 
> 
> We may also try and get more specific, maybe, suggest such a World/ Global Internet Council/ Organization  has five governmental members each from each  region and 6 additional non-governmental members. The ways to select these non-governmental members may be arrived at through consultation with all involved groups. However the process should be open and bottom up. 
> 
> This GIO or CIC (referred to as 'Body' hereafter) should have a mandate for all areas of global Internet public policies, including, but not restricted to, oversight of CIR management. 
> 
> This Body should come up with policy recommendations on all global IG matters, especially those in which regard there is no existing specialized agency dealing with the issue(s) to be adopted globally and nationally through different means/mechanisms of such global policy making/ adopting. 
> 
> It should also facilitate negotiation of treaties, conventions and agreements on Internet-related public policies. 
> 
> This Body should also help  set up, or anchor, as appropriate, global coordination methods for transborder Internet Governance related issues that require coordination on an ongoing basis. 
> 
> This Body should also develop rules and procedures for dispute resolution mechanisms and conduct arbitration, as required. 
> 
> The relationship between this Body and technical and operational Internet institutions, such as the reformed and internationalized ICANN, should be formalized. In this model, ICANN will be accountable to GIC. In this regard, US government should cede all controls/ supervision of ICANN and IANA and such related functions to this body. 
> (A lot of stuff here is taken from different models suggested by the WGIG report)
> 
> The above is merely suggestive and hastily drafted to invite comments. There is of course much that be improved and even substantively changed here if we put our creative and political energies on the task.  However abstaining, or giving rather vague comments, when asked about our specific preferences for a global IG order is not, in my opinion, something the IGC can afford to do. It may only do so at the risk of compromising its political legitimacy as the leading progressive global civil society organization. 
> 
> Parminder 
> 
> 
> 
> On Thursday 04 November 2010 05:05 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>> On 04/11/2010, at 4:38 PM, jefsey wrote:
>> 
>>   
>> 
>>> My point was not about the proposed procedural document, but about the claim it is neutral.
>>>     
>>> 
>> Sorry for any misunderstanding, I didn't mean that it was meant to be neutral as between civil society and governments.  I just meant that in drafting it, I limited myself to what I knew the IGC would agree on, because of the paucity of contributions we had received on the list to that time.  There was only really one suggestion, which came from Bill (and which I incorporated).
>> 
>> Since then, there has been some more, so here is a revised version incorporating all new comments.  Don't worry, it's gradually becoming less neutral/bland - also longer :-(.  All paragraphs but the last have changes, but the biggest changes are to paragraph 2.  I can also send a marked-up version if there is demand for it.
>> 
>> --- begins ---
>> 
>> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (CS-IGC) is pleased to present its views on the process towards enhanced cooperation on international public policy issues relating to the Internet.  We do not have any detailed prescription of the form which this process should take, but rather we take this opportunity to make three simple points.
>> 
>> First is that enhanced cooperation should encompass all Internet-related public policy issues, second that the existing arrangements of relevant organisations (including the Internet Governance Forum) do not fully implement this ideal of enhanced cooperation, and finally that whatever new arrangements may be put in place, civil society will play an integral part in them.
>> 
>> These points will be explained in turn:
>> 
>> 1. Although much of the discussion of enhanced cooperation at WSIS turned around the narrow issue of internationalising the oversight of Internet naming and numbering functions, the Tunis Agenda expresses this principle far more broadly.  It also reminds us that the ultimate objective of our cooperation is to advance a people-centred, inclusive, development-oriented and non-discriminatory Information Society.
>> 
>> 2. The IGF in its present form is a very important part of the enhanced cooperation process, in that ideally its multi-stakeholder process can help to shape the decisions that are taken on Internet related public policy issues in other fora.  However the full realisation of enhanced cooperation will require a multi-stakeholder process to extend to other Internet governance organisations that do not already follow this model.
>> 
>> There are various options for enhancing multi-stakeholder cooperation within and amongst all relevant organisations.  These may include:
>> 
>> * making no institutional changes but encouraging organisations to enhance their own cooperation with other stakeholders and to report to the CSTD on their progress;
>> 
>> * establishing a lightweight multi-stakeholder observatory process perhaps hosted under the auspices of the IGF (pursuant to its mandate in paragraph 72(i));
>> 
>> * utilising a virtual and voluntary global social community or "social grid", linking together all Internet governance organisations, in which all stakeholders would participate; or
>> 
>> * establishing a new umbrella governance institution for Internet policy development, with space for the participation of each stakeholder group in its respective role.
>> 
>> 3. Paragraph 71 of the Tunis Agenda makes very clear that civil society is an integral participant in the development of any process towards enhanced cooperation.  Therefore the IGC, in our capacity as members of civil society, looks forward to contributing constructively in transparent, accountable and democratic multi-stakeholder consultations towards this end.
>> 
>>   
>> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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  Sat Nov  6 00:59:10 2010
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Sat, 06 Nov 2010 15:59:10 +1100
Subject: [governance] Re: SECOND DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <D1E1B737-C8E1-4657-8A1A-FDB3E30DB92D@psg.com>
Message-ID: <C8FB2BCE.13351%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>

While agreeing totally with Avri about the makeup, I also agree totally with
Parminder and his logic in recommending that some sort of body come into
existence. To paraphrase

Tunis did suggest there was some sort of gap/vacuum in IG policies

That gap does serve the interests of the powerful (wittingly or unwittingly)
and does result in marginalisation

It is an urgent imperative that new institutional developments emerge to
address this vacuum

Ian



> From: Avri Doria <avri at psg.com>
> Reply-To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>, Avri Doria <avri at psg.com>
> Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2010 00:04:58 -0400
> To: IGC <governance at lists.cpsr.org>
> Subject: Re: [governance] Re: SECOND DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I think this proposal is horribly government centric and hope that it is does
> not become the consensus of the IGC.
> 
> A civil society caucus should not become a government serving body.  To
> voluntarily surrender full control of Internet governance to governments,
> except for a token 'other' presence strikes me as unthinkable.
> 
> a.
> 
> On 5 Nov 2010, at 23:44, parminder wrote:
> 
>> Hi All
>> 
>> The question here is - do we need new global IG processes - for developing
>> public policies and not technical policies (Tunis Agenda makes that
>> distinction clear).
>> 
>> Antecedent question is - is there a gap / vacuum versus global IG policies or
>> not? The Tunis Agenda appears to be clear that there is such a vacuum.
>> 
>> What does the IGC think? We need to be able to give an answer.
>> 
>> And if we think there is a global vacuum vis a vis global IG policies, what
>> is our analysis about whose interests such a vacuum serves, and whose
>> interests it dis-serves most. It is my submission, and most sociological/
>> political theories also hold, that absence of (democratic) political
>> structures serves the powerful most, and disserve the marginalised.
>> 
>> Globally, Internet is today being shaped by dominant forces in a manner that
>> is often opposite of what can be called progressive. Only democratic global
>> political institutions can remedy this situation.
>> 
>> If we have no position on this, my opinion is that our position is
>> regressive. It is against the interests of the marginalised and the excluded.
>> And CS is supposed to protect these interests most.
>> 
>> If we have to take our cues from global  CS outside IG arena, then perhaps CS
>> organisations concerned with globalisation issues come closest. Information
>> Society is but globalisation on steroids. And the global CS's prescription to
>> address the ill and excesses of globalisation is mostly better and more
>> democratic global governance institutions (see for instance writings of
>> Joseph Stiglitz). This is mostly the primary prescription on 'what to do'.
>> And now when the IG related CS is presented with a possibility of shaping new
>> more democratic global governance institution, can we just remain silent  or
>> say, well we are not very interested. That is what looks coming out of the
>> present statement; other than saying, if indeed anything of this nature does
>> come up, make sure CS is also involved. I am unable to agree with such a
>> statement coming from IGC. And I also cannot agree to it as a default
>> statement. In not saying what is needed to be said, much is being said. I am,
>> and my organisation is, unable to be associated with what is being said in
>> this manner.
>> 
>> What we will like to be said is something as follows.
>> 
>> There is a huge institutional vacuum in terms of global IG policies and such
>> a vacuum hurts the interests of the marginalised and the excluded most. It is
>> an urgent imperative that new institutional developments emerge to address
>> this vacuum, in a democratic and inclusive manner.  It will be worthwhile to
>> consider a global or world Internet organisation or council, with adequate
>> and equitable representation to governments from all regions as well as
>> non-governmental representatives of people and interests that cannot
>> adequately be represented merely through  inter-governmental systems,
>> especially in the new emerging trans-global reality. Such non-governmental
>> participation is also necessary to give equitable representation to
>> marginalised groups, like disability and indigenous groups, who find strength
>> through global organization, and whose interests need a more direct
>> representation at global  policy forum. Such an institutional mechanism will
>> be the best way to deepen democracy at global level, and ensure a really
>> democratic global Internet regime.
>> 
>> We may also try and get more specific, maybe, suggest such a World/ Global
>> Internet Council/ Organization  has five governmental members each from each
>> region and 6 additional non-governmental members. The ways to select these
>> non-governmental members may be arrived at through consultation with all
>> involved groups. However the process should be open and bottom up.
>> 
>> This GIO or CIC (referred to as 'Body' hereafter) should have a mandate for
>> all areas of global Internet public policies, including, but not restricted
>> to, oversight of CIR management.
>> 
>> This Body should come up with policy recommendations on all global IG
>> matters, especially those in which regard there is no existing specialized
>> agency dealing with the issue(s) to be adopted globally and nationally
>> through different means/mechanisms of such global policy making/ adopting.
>> 
>> It should also facilitate negotiation of treaties, conventions and agreements
>> on Internet-related public policies.
>> 
>> This Body should also help  set up, or anchor, as appropriate, global
>> coordination methods for transborder Internet Governance related issues that
>> require coordination on an ongoing basis.
>> 
>> This Body should also develop rules and procedures for dispute resolution
>> mechanisms and conduct arbitration, as required.
>> 
>> The relationship between this Body and technical and operational Internet
>> institutions, such as the reformed and internationalized ICANN, should be
>> formalized. In this model, ICANN will be accountable to GIC. In this regard,
>> US government should cede all controls/ supervision of ICANN and IANA and
>> such related functions to this body.
>> (A lot of stuff here is taken from different models suggested by the WGIG
>> report)
>> 
>> The above is merely suggestive and hastily drafted to invite comments. There
>> is of course much that be improved and even substantively changed here if we
>> put our creative and political energies on the task.  However abstaining, or
>> giving rather vague comments, when asked about our specific preferences for a
>> global IG order is not, in my opinion, something the IGC can afford to do. It
>> may only do so at the risk of compromising its political legitimacy as the
>> leading progressive global civil society organization.
>> 
>> Parminder 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Thursday 04 November 2010 05:05 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>>> On 04/11/2010, at 4:38 PM, jefsey wrote:
>>> 
>>>   
>>> 
>>>> My point was not about the proposed procedural document, but about the
>>>> claim it is neutral.
>>>>     
>>>> 
>>> Sorry for any misunderstanding, I didn't mean that it was meant to be
>>> neutral as between civil society and governments.  I just meant that in
>>> drafting it, I limited myself to what I knew the IGC would agree on, because
>>> of the paucity of contributions we had received on the list to that time.
>>> There was only really one suggestion, which came from Bill (and which I
>>> incorporated).
>>> 
>>> Since then, there has been some more, so here is a revised version
>>> incorporating all new comments.  Don't worry, it's gradually becoming less
>>> neutral/bland - also longer :-(.  All paragraphs but the last have changes,
>>> but the biggest changes are to paragraph 2.  I can also send a marked-up
>>> version if there is demand for it.
>>> 
>>> --- begins ---
>>> 
>>> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (CS-IGC) is pleased to present
>>> its views on the process towards enhanced cooperation on international
>>> public policy issues relating to the Internet.  We do not have any detailed
>>> prescription of the form which this process should take, but rather we take
>>> this opportunity to make three simple points.
>>> 
>>> First is that enhanced cooperation should encompass all Internet-related
>>> public policy issues, second that the existing arrangements of relevant
>>> organisations (including the Internet Governance Forum) do not fully
>>> implement this ideal of enhanced cooperation, and finally that whatever new
>>> arrangements may be put in place, civil society will play an integral part
>>> in them.
>>> 
>>> These points will be explained in turn:
>>> 
>>> 1. Although much of the discussion of enhanced cooperation at WSIS turned
>>> around the narrow issue of internationalising the oversight of Internet
>>> naming and numbering functions, the Tunis Agenda expresses this principle
>>> far more broadly.  It also reminds us that the ultimate objective of our
>>> cooperation is to advance a people-centred, inclusive, development-oriented
>>> and non-discriminatory Information Society.
>>> 
>>> 2. The IGF in its present form is a very important part of the enhanced
>>> cooperation process, in that ideally its multi-stakeholder process can help
>>> to shape the decisions that are taken on Internet related public policy
>>> issues in other fora.  However the full realisation of enhanced cooperation
>>> will require a multi-stakeholder process to extend to other Internet
>>> governance organisations that do not already follow this model.
>>> 
>>> There are various options for enhancing multi-stakeholder cooperation within
>>> and amongst all relevant organisations.  These may include:
>>> 
>>> * making no institutional changes but encouraging organisations to enhance
>>> their own cooperation with other stakeholders and to report to the CSTD on
>>> their progress;
>>> 
>>> * establishing a lightweight multi-stakeholder observatory process perhaps
>>> hosted under the auspices of the IGF (pursuant to its mandate in paragraph
>>> 72(i));
>>> 
>>> * utilising a virtual and voluntary global social community or "social
>>> grid", linking together all Internet governance organisations, in which all
>>> stakeholders would participate; or
>>> 
>>> * establishing a new umbrella governance institution for Internet policy
>>> development, with space for the participation of each stakeholder group in
>>> its respective role.
>>> 
>>> 3. Paragraph 71 of the Tunis Agenda makes very clear that civil society is
>>> an integral participant in the development of any process towards enhanced
>>> cooperation.  Therefore the IGC, in our capacity as members of civil
>>> society, looks forward to contributing constructively in transparent,
>>> accountable and democratic multi-stakeholder consultations towards this end.
>>> 
>>>   
>>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 parminder at itforchange.net  Sat Nov  6 01:26:37 2010
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Sat, 06 Nov 2010 10:56:37 +0530
Subject: [governance] Re: SECOND DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <D1E1B737-C8E1-4657-8A1A-FDB3E30DB92D@psg.com>
References: <70E573F5-00B4-4837-89B7-C05B9DA7E479@ciroap.org> <7.0.1.0.2.20101103021355.05d70e60@jefsey.com> <5B31379A-A914-4BE1-945B-EEF2478BA1DC@ciroap.org> <7.0.1.0.2.20101103094622.0651ee20@jefsey.com> <3FE17A9E-E507-44DA-8AE2-EC7EC56DD1D8@ciroap.org> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006DA4@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4CD17823.8010108@itforchange.net> <AANLkTikONmgaa+4rO+uZkAv4YrPDfSV4aP9YKk_=Lgox@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20101104103504.057fdc48@jefsey.com> <08B126B5-B3AB-4A91-B8BC-A90579C6EF5A@ciroap.org> <4CD4CF03.3000900@itforchange.net> <D1E1B737-C8E1-4657-8A1A-FDB3E30DB92D@psg.com>
Message-ID: <4CD4E70D.8010807@itforchange.net>



On Saturday 06 November 2010 09:34 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I think this proposal is horribly government centric and hope that it is does not become the consensus of the IGC.
>    
I took a lot of pains to state whom the proposal seeks to serve, and 
whom does a studied silence on enhanced cooperation issue serves.
> A civil society caucus should not become a government serving body.
Neither should it become a body in service of anarchic global elites, 
who in and through techno-fascination, seek to subvert our democratic 
polities, and willy nilly serve the interests of the already dominant 
(businesses, governments, classes). That is what a 'we dont know, and we 
dont care' response to the 'enhanced cooperation' consultation in effect 
means.
> To voluntarily surrender full control of Internet governance to governments, except for a token 'other' presence strikes me as unthinkable.
>    
I may be wrong, but there seems to be here an underpinning of 
rejection/hatred of governments - as a social institution,  without any 
distinction between good ones and bad ones, and about that I will not be 
able to offer much argumentation here. (BTW, a true practice of this 
ideology should entail giving up of all government provided benefits and 
protection, for the purpose of which ,in the present circumstances, 
maybe taking up residence in Southern Afganistan will be the best 
exemplar. Such an experience may be quite insightful.)

Any system systematically developing and enforcing public policies is in 
effect a government. we can have a good - more inclusive, transparent, 
accountable, progressive etc - government or governance system, or a bad 
one.

So, can you, Avri, specifically state whether you are against the 
suggested governance model or against any system of effectively 
developing global public policies related to the Internet, and enforcing 
them. If not the latter, which I truely hope, then what is your 
suggested global model for global Internet related public policies - 
which is the subject matter and the primary concern of the Tunis Agenda, 
and to which the process of 'enhanced cooperation' relates. And how can 
your suggested model take care of all the aspects of political 
governance of the Internet, including what may be called as 
'progressive' (i can discuss this term more if you want), beyond just 
some narrow technical matters, which are expressly excluded from the 
ambit of the enhanced cooperation as per the Tunis agenda.

Parminder

> a.
>
> On 5 Nov 2010, at 23:44, parminder wrote:
>
>    
>> Hi All
>>
>> The question here is - do we need new global IG processes - for developing public policies and not technical policies (Tunis Agenda makes that distinction clear).
>>
>> Antecedent question is - is there a gap / vacuum versus global IG policies or not? The Tunis Agenda appears to be clear that there is such a vacuum.
>>
>> What does the IGC think? We need to be able to give an answer.
>>
>> And if we think there is a global vacuum vis a vis global IG policies, what is our analysis about whose interests such a vacuum serves, and whose interests it dis-serves most. It is my submission, and most sociological/ political theories also hold, that absence of (democratic) political structures serves the powerful most, and disserve the marginalised.
>>
>> Globally, Internet is today being shaped by dominant forces in a manner that is often opposite of what can be called progressive. Only democratic global political institutions can remedy this situation.
>>
>> If we have no position on this, my opinion is that our position is regressive. It is against the interests of the marginalised and the excluded. And CS is supposed to protect these interests most.
>>
>> If we have to take our cues from global  CS outside IG arena, then perhaps CS organisations concerned with globalisation issues come closest. Information Society is but globalisation on steroids. And the global CS's prescription to address the ill and excesses of globalisation is mostly better and more democratic global governance institutions (see for instance writings of Joseph Stiglitz). This is mostly the primary prescription on 'what to do'. And now when the IG related CS is presented with a possibility of shaping new more democratic global governance institution, can we just remain silent  or say, well we are not very interested. That is what looks coming out of the present statement; other than saying, if indeed anything of this nature does come up, make sure CS is also involved. I am unable to agree with such a statement coming from IGC. And I also cannot agree to it as a default statement. In not saying what is needed to be said, much is being said. I am, and my orga
>> nisation is, unable to be associated with what is being said in this manner.
>>
>> What we will like to be said is something as follows.
>>
>> There is a huge institutional vacuum in terms of global IG policies and such a vacuum hurts the interests of the marginalised and the excluded most. It is an urgent imperative that new institutional developments emerge to address this vacuum, in a democratic and inclusive manner.  It will be worthwhile to consider a global or world Internet organisation or council, with adequate and equitable representation to governments from all regions as well as non-governmental representatives of people and interests that cannot adequately be represented merely through  inter-governmental systems, especially in the new emerging trans-global reality. Such non-governmental participation is also necessary to give equitable representation to marginalised groups, like disability and indigenous groups, who find strength through global organization, and whose interests need a more direct representation at global  policy forum. Such an institutional mechanism will be the best way to deepen democ
>> racy at global level, and ensure a really democratic global Internet regime.
>>
>> We may also try and get more specific, maybe, suggest such a World/ Global Internet Council/ Organization  has five governmental members each from each  region and 6 additional non-governmental members. The ways to select these non-governmental members may be arrived at through consultation with all involved groups. However the process should be open and bottom up.
>>
>> This GIO or CIC (referred to as 'Body' hereafter) should have a mandate for all areas of global Internet public policies, including, but not restricted to, oversight of CIR management.
>>
>> This Body should come up with policy recommendations on all global IG matters, especially those in which regard there is no existing specialized agency dealing with the issue(s) to be adopted globally and nationally through different means/mechanisms of such global policy making/ adopting.
>>
>> It should also facilitate negotiation of treaties, conventions and agreements on Internet-related public policies.
>>
>> This Body should also help  set up, or anchor, as appropriate, global coordination methods for transborder Internet Governance related issues that require coordination on an ongoing basis.
>>
>> This Body should also develop rules and procedures for dispute resolution mechanisms and conduct arbitration, as required.
>>
>> The relationship between this Body and technical and operational Internet institutions, such as the reformed and internationalized ICANN, should be formalized. In this model, ICANN will be accountable to GIC. In this regard, US government should cede all controls/ supervision of ICANN and IANA and such related functions to this body.
>> (A lot of stuff here is taken from different models suggested by the WGIG report)
>>
>> The above is merely suggestive and hastily drafted to invite comments. There is of course much that be improved and even substantively changed here if we put our creative and political energies on the task.  However abstaining, or giving rather vague comments, when asked about our specific preferences for a global IG order is not, in my opinion, something the IGC can afford to do. It may only do so at the risk of compromising its political legitimacy as the leading progressive global civil society organization.
>>
>> Parminder
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thursday 04 November 2010 05:05 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>>      
>>> On 04/11/2010, at 4:38 PM, jefsey wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>        
>>>> My point was not about the proposed procedural document, but about the claim it is neutral.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>          
>>> Sorry for any misunderstanding, I didn't mean that it was meant to be neutral as between civil society and governments.  I just meant that in drafting it, I limited myself to what I knew the IGC would agree on, because of the paucity of contributions we had received on the list to that time.  There was only really one suggestion, which came from Bill (and which I incorporated).
>>>
>>> Since then, there has been some more, so here is a revised version incorporating all new comments.  Don't worry, it's gradually becoming less neutral/bland - also longer :-(.  All paragraphs but the last have changes, but the biggest changes are to paragraph 2.  I can also send a marked-up version if there is demand for it.
>>>
>>> --- begins ---
>>>
>>> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (CS-IGC) is pleased to present its views on the process towards enhanced cooperation on international public policy issues relating to the Internet.  We do not have any detailed prescription of the form which this process should take, but rather we take this opportunity to make three simple points.
>>>
>>> First is that enhanced cooperation should encompass all Internet-related public policy issues, second that the existing arrangements of relevant organisations (including the Internet Governance Forum) do not fully implement this ideal of enhanced cooperation, and finally that whatever new arrangements may be put in place, civil society will play an integral part in them.
>>>
>>> These points will be explained in turn:
>>>
>>> 1. Although much of the discussion of enhanced cooperation at WSIS turned around the narrow issue of internationalising the oversight of Internet naming and numbering functions, the Tunis Agenda expresses this principle far more broadly.  It also reminds us that the ultimate objective of our cooperation is to advance a people-centred, inclusive, development-oriented and non-discriminatory Information Society.
>>>
>>> 2. The IGF in its present form is a very important part of the enhanced cooperation process, in that ideally its multi-stakeholder process can help to shape the decisions that are taken on Internet related public policy issues in other fora.  However the full realisation of enhanced cooperation will require a multi-stakeholder process to extend to other Internet governance organisations that do not already follow this model.
>>>
>>> There are various options for enhancing multi-stakeholder cooperation within and amongst all relevant organisations.  These may include:
>>>
>>> * making no institutional changes but encouraging organisations to enhance their own cooperation with other stakeholders and to report to the CSTD on their progress;
>>>
>>> * establishing a lightweight multi-stakeholder observatory process perhaps hosted under the auspices of the IGF (pursuant to its mandate in paragraph 72(i));
>>>
>>> * utilising a virtual and voluntary global social community or "social grid", linking together all Internet governance organisations, in which all stakeholders would participate; or
>>>
>>> * establishing a new umbrella governance institution for Internet policy development, with space for the participation of each stakeholder group in its respective role.
>>>
>>> 3. Paragraph 71 of the Tunis Agenda makes very clear that civil society is an integral participant in the development of any process towards enhanced cooperation.  Therefore the IGC, in our capacity as members of civil society, looks forward to contributing constructively in transparent, accountable and democratic multi-stakeholder consultations towards this end.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>        
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>
>> Translate this email:http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>      
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>       governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>       governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>       http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> Translate this email:http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>    
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101106/187f1fb7/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From parminder at itforchange.net  Sat Nov  6 01:53:27 2010
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Sat, 06 Nov 2010 11:23:27 +0530
Subject: [governance] Re: SECOND DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <C8FB2BCE.13351%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
References: <C8FB2BCE.13351%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
Message-ID: <4CD4ED57.9010804@itforchange.net>

>
> While agreeing totally with Avri about the makeup,
Yes, we can recommend something different. Maybe 9 or 15 non gov 
members. I was being conservative since, if our suggestion was to be 
accepted, this is the first time ever that any substative global 
governance  body will have non government members in a substantive 
capacity. That is entirely a new model, and we should indeed be trying 
to get a foot in somehow.  We need to slowly, and with good reasoning 
and show of practical work, build the basis of substantive 
non-governmental political representation at gobal levels. Suggesting an 
entirely 'unreasonable' number right away may not be very useful as a 
practical strategy. But I am quite open on this.

Parminder

> I also agree totally with
> Parminder and his logic in recommending that some sort of body come into
> existence. To paraphrase
>
> Tunis did suggest there was some sort of gap/vacuum in IG policies
>
> That gap does serve the interests of the powerful (wittingly or unwittingly)
> and does result in marginalisation
>
> It is an urgent imperative that new institutional developments emerge to
> address this vacuum
>
> Ian
>
>
>
>    
>> From: Avri Doria<avri at psg.com>
>> Reply-To:<governance at lists.cpsr.org>, Avri Doria<avri at psg.com>
>> Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2010 00:04:58 -0400
>> To: IGC<governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>> Subject: Re: [governance] Re: SECOND DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I think this proposal is horribly government centric and hope that it is does
>> not become the consensus of the IGC.
>>
>> A civil society caucus should not become a government serving body.  To
>> voluntarily surrender full control of Internet governance to governments,
>> except for a token 'other' presence strikes me as unthinkable.
>>
>> a.
>>
>> On 5 Nov 2010, at 23:44, parminder wrote:
>>
>>      
>>> Hi All
>>>
>>> The question here is - do we need new global IG processes - for developing
>>> public policies and not technical policies (Tunis Agenda makes that
>>> distinction clear).
>>>
>>> Antecedent question is - is there a gap / vacuum versus global IG policies or
>>> not? The Tunis Agenda appears to be clear that there is such a vacuum.
>>>
>>> What does the IGC think? We need to be able to give an answer.
>>>
>>> And if we think there is a global vacuum vis a vis global IG policies, what
>>> is our analysis about whose interests such a vacuum serves, and whose
>>> interests it dis-serves most. It is my submission, and most sociological/
>>> political theories also hold, that absence of (democratic) political
>>> structures serves the powerful most, and disserve the marginalised.
>>>
>>> Globally, Internet is today being shaped by dominant forces in a manner that
>>> is often opposite of what can be called progressive. Only democratic global
>>> political institutions can remedy this situation.
>>>
>>> If we have no position on this, my opinion is that our position is
>>> regressive. It is against the interests of the marginalised and the excluded.
>>> And CS is supposed to protect these interests most.
>>>
>>> If we have to take our cues from global  CS outside IG arena, then perhaps CS
>>> organisations concerned with globalisation issues come closest. Information
>>> Society is but globalisation on steroids. And the global CS's prescription to
>>> address the ill and excesses of globalisation is mostly better and more
>>> democratic global governance institutions (see for instance writings of
>>> Joseph Stiglitz). This is mostly the primary prescription on 'what to do'.
>>> And now when the IG related CS is presented with a possibility of shaping new
>>> more democratic global governance institution, can we just remain silent  or
>>> say, well we are not very interested. That is what looks coming out of the
>>> present statement; other than saying, if indeed anything of this nature does
>>> come up, make sure CS is also involved. I am unable to agree with such a
>>> statement coming from IGC. And I also cannot agree to it as a default
>>> statement. In not saying what is needed to be said, much is being said. I am,
>>> and my organisation is, unable to be associated with what is being said in
>>> this manner.
>>>
>>> What we will like to be said is something as follows.
>>>
>>> There is a huge institutional vacuum in terms of global IG policies and such
>>> a vacuum hurts the interests of the marginalised and the excluded most. It is
>>> an urgent imperative that new institutional developments emerge to address
>>> this vacuum, in a democratic and inclusive manner.  It will be worthwhile to
>>> consider a global or world Internet organisation or council, with adequate
>>> and equitable representation to governments from all regions as well as
>>> non-governmental representatives of people and interests that cannot
>>> adequately be represented merely through  inter-governmental systems,
>>> especially in the new emerging trans-global reality. Such non-governmental
>>> participation is also necessary to give equitable representation to
>>> marginalised groups, like disability and indigenous groups, who find strength
>>> through global organization, and whose interests need a more direct
>>> representation at global  policy forum. Such an institutional mechanism will
>>> be the best way to deepen democracy at global level, and ensure a really
>>> democratic global Internet regime.
>>>
>>> We may also try and get more specific, maybe, suggest such a World/ Global
>>> Internet Council/ Organization  has five governmental members each from each
>>> region and 6 additional non-governmental members. The ways to select these
>>> non-governmental members may be arrived at through consultation with all
>>> involved groups. However the process should be open and bottom up.
>>>
>>> This GIO or CIC (referred to as 'Body' hereafter) should have a mandate for
>>> all areas of global Internet public policies, including, but not restricted
>>> to, oversight of CIR management.
>>>
>>> This Body should come up with policy recommendations on all global IG
>>> matters, especially those in which regard there is no existing specialized
>>> agency dealing with the issue(s) to be adopted globally and nationally
>>> through different means/mechanisms of such global policy making/ adopting.
>>>
>>> It should also facilitate negotiation of treaties, conventions and agreements
>>> on Internet-related public policies.
>>>
>>> This Body should also help  set up, or anchor, as appropriate, global
>>> coordination methods for transborder Internet Governance related issues that
>>> require coordination on an ongoing basis.
>>>
>>> This Body should also develop rules and procedures for dispute resolution
>>> mechanisms and conduct arbitration, as required.
>>>
>>> The relationship between this Body and technical and operational Internet
>>> institutions, such as the reformed and internationalized ICANN, should be
>>> formalized. In this model, ICANN will be accountable to GIC. In this regard,
>>> US government should cede all controls/ supervision of ICANN and IANA and
>>> such related functions to this body.
>>> (A lot of stuff here is taken from different models suggested by the WGIG
>>> report)
>>>
>>> The above is merely suggestive and hastily drafted to invite comments. There
>>> is of course much that be improved and even substantively changed here if we
>>> put our creative and political energies on the task.  However abstaining, or
>>> giving rather vague comments, when asked about our specific preferences for a
>>> global IG order is not, in my opinion, something the IGC can afford to do. It
>>> may only do so at the risk of compromising its political legitimacy as the
>>> leading progressive global civil society organization.
>>>
>>> Parminder
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thursday 04 November 2010 05:05 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>>>        
>>>> On 04/11/2010, at 4:38 PM, jefsey wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>          
>>>>> My point was not about the proposed procedural document, but about the
>>>>> claim it is neutral.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>            
>>>> Sorry for any misunderstanding, I didn't mean that it was meant to be
>>>> neutral as between civil society and governments.  I just meant that in
>>>> drafting it, I limited myself to what I knew the IGC would agree on, because
>>>> of the paucity of contributions we had received on the list to that time.
>>>> There was only really one suggestion, which came from Bill (and which I
>>>> incorporated).
>>>>
>>>> Since then, there has been some more, so here is a revised version
>>>> incorporating all new comments.  Don't worry, it's gradually becoming less
>>>> neutral/bland - also longer :-(.  All paragraphs but the last have changes,
>>>> but the biggest changes are to paragraph 2.  I can also send a marked-up
>>>> version if there is demand for it.
>>>>
>>>> --- begins ---
>>>>
>>>> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (CS-IGC) is pleased to present
>>>> its views on the process towards enhanced cooperation on international
>>>> public policy issues relating to the Internet.  We do not have any detailed
>>>> prescription of the form which this process should take, but rather we take
>>>> this opportunity to make three simple points.
>>>>
>>>> First is that enhanced cooperation should encompass all Internet-related
>>>> public policy issues, second that the existing arrangements of relevant
>>>> organisations (including the Internet Governance Forum) do not fully
>>>> implement this ideal of enhanced cooperation, and finally that whatever new
>>>> arrangements may be put in place, civil society will play an integral part
>>>> in them.
>>>>
>>>> These points will be explained in turn:
>>>>
>>>> 1. Although much of the discussion of enhanced cooperation at WSIS turned
>>>> around the narrow issue of internationalising the oversight of Internet
>>>> naming and numbering functions, the Tunis Agenda expresses this principle
>>>> far more broadly.  It also reminds us that the ultimate objective of our
>>>> cooperation is to advance a people-centred, inclusive, development-oriented
>>>> and non-discriminatory Information Society.
>>>>
>>>> 2. The IGF in its present form is a very important part of the enhanced
>>>> cooperation process, in that ideally its multi-stakeholder process can help
>>>> to shape the decisions that are taken on Internet related public policy
>>>> issues in other fora.  However the full realisation of enhanced cooperation
>>>> will require a multi-stakeholder process to extend to other Internet
>>>> governance organisations that do not already follow this model.
>>>>
>>>> There are various options for enhancing multi-stakeholder cooperation within
>>>> and amongst all relevant organisations.  These may include:
>>>>
>>>> * making no institutional changes but encouraging organisations to enhance
>>>> their own cooperation with other stakeholders and to report to the CSTD on
>>>> their progress;
>>>>
>>>> * establishing a lightweight multi-stakeholder observatory process perhaps
>>>> hosted under the auspices of the IGF (pursuant to its mandate in paragraph
>>>> 72(i));
>>>>
>>>> * utilising a virtual and voluntary global social community or "social
>>>> grid", linking together all Internet governance organisations, in which all
>>>> stakeholders would participate; or
>>>>
>>>> * establishing a new umbrella governance institution for Internet policy
>>>> development, with space for the participation of each stakeholder group in
>>>> its respective role.
>>>>
>>>> 3. Paragraph 71 of the Tunis Agenda makes very clear that civil society is
>>>> an integral participant in the development of any process towards enhanced
>>>> cooperation.  Therefore the IGC, in our capacity as members of civil
>>>> society, looks forward to contributing constructively in transparent,
>>>> accountable and democratic multi-stakeholder consultations towards this end.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>          
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>>
>>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>>
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>        
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>       governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>       governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>       http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>      
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>       governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>       governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>       http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>    
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101106/91fa6ed9/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From parminder at itforchange.net  Sat Nov  6 02:33:38 2010
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Sat, 06 Nov 2010 12:03:38 +0530
Subject: [governance] Re: SECOND DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <4CD4ED57.9010804@itforchange.net>
References: <C8FB2BCE.13351%ian.peter@ianpeter.com> <4CD4ED57.9010804@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <4CD4F6C2.5020509@itforchange.net>

Also just now re-read my proposal and see that I mistyped the numbers 
for the proposed global Internet body

>We may also try and get more specific, maybe, suggest such a World/ Global
>Internet Council/ Organization  has five governmental members each from each
>region and 6 additional non-governmental members.

I meant 3 gov members from each of 5 regions, and not as stated. That 
makes it look somewhat more balanced, but we can still increase non gov 
numbers in our recommendation. Sorry for that mistake. Parminder

On Saturday 06 November 2010 11:23 AM, parminder wrote:
>> While agreeing totally with Avri about the makeup,
> Yes, we can recommend something different. Maybe 9 or 15 non gov 
> members. I was being conservative since, if our suggestion was to be 
> accepted, this is the first time ever that any substative global 
> governance  body will have non government members in a substantive 
> capacity. That is entirely a new model, and we should indeed be trying 
> to get a foot in somehow.  We need to slowly, and with good reasoning 
> and show of practical work, build the basis of substantive 
> non-governmental political representation at gobal levels. Suggesting 
> an entirely 'unreasonable' number right away may not be very useful as 
> a practical strategy. But I am quite open on this.
>
> Parminder
>
>> I also agree totally with
>> Parminder and his logic in recommending that some sort of body come into
>> existence. To paraphrase
>>
>> Tunis did suggest there was some sort of gap/vacuum in IG policies
>>
>> That gap does serve the interests of the powerful (wittingly or unwittingly)
>> and does result in marginalisation
>>
>> It is an urgent imperative that new institutional developments emerge to
>> address this vacuum
>>
>> Ian
>>
>>
>>
>>    
>>> From: Avri Doria<avri at psg.com>
>>> Reply-To:<governance at lists.cpsr.org>, Avri Doria<avri at psg.com>
>>> Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2010 00:04:58 -0400
>>> To: IGC<governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>>> Subject: Re: [governance] Re: SECOND DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I think this proposal is horribly government centric and hope that it is does
>>> not become the consensus of the IGC.
>>>
>>> A civil society caucus should not become a government serving body.  To
>>> voluntarily surrender full control of Internet governance to governments,
>>> except for a token 'other' presence strikes me as unthinkable.
>>>
>>> a.
>>>
>>> On 5 Nov 2010, at 23:44, parminder wrote:
>>>
>>>      
>>>> Hi All
>>>>
>>>> The question here is - do we need new global IG processes - for developing
>>>> public policies and not technical policies (Tunis Agenda makes that
>>>> distinction clear).
>>>>
>>>> Antecedent question is - is there a gap / vacuum versus global IG policies or
>>>> not? The Tunis Agenda appears to be clear that there is such a vacuum.
>>>>
>>>> What does the IGC think? We need to be able to give an answer.
>>>>
>>>> And if we think there is a global vacuum vis a vis global IG policies, what
>>>> is our analysis about whose interests such a vacuum serves, and whose
>>>> interests it dis-serves most. It is my submission, and most sociological/
>>>> political theories also hold, that absence of (democratic) political
>>>> structures serves the powerful most, and disserve the marginalised.
>>>>
>>>> Globally, Internet is today being shaped by dominant forces in a manner that
>>>> is often opposite of what can be called progressive. Only democratic global
>>>> political institutions can remedy this situation.
>>>>
>>>> If we have no position on this, my opinion is that our position is
>>>> regressive. It is against the interests of the marginalised and the excluded.
>>>> And CS is supposed to protect these interests most.
>>>>
>>>> If we have to take our cues from global  CS outside IG arena, then perhaps CS
>>>> organisations concerned with globalisation issues come closest. Information
>>>> Society is but globalisation on steroids. And the global CS's prescription to
>>>> address the ill and excesses of globalisation is mostly better and more
>>>> democratic global governance institutions (see for instance writings of
>>>> Joseph Stiglitz). This is mostly the primary prescription on 'what to do'.
>>>> And now when the IG related CS is presented with a possibility of shaping new
>>>> more democratic global governance institution, can we just remain silent  or
>>>> say, well we are not very interested. That is what looks coming out of the
>>>> present statement; other than saying, if indeed anything of this nature does
>>>> come up, make sure CS is also involved. I am unable to agree with such a
>>>> statement coming from IGC. And I also cannot agree to it as a default
>>>> statement. In not saying what is needed to be said, much is being said. I am,
>>>> and my organisation is, unable to be associated with what is being said in
>>>> this manner.
>>>>
>>>> What we will like to be said is something as follows.
>>>>
>>>> There is a huge institutional vacuum in terms of global IG policies and such
>>>> a vacuum hurts the interests of the marginalised and the excluded most. It is
>>>> an urgent imperative that new institutional developments emerge to address
>>>> this vacuum, in a democratic and inclusive manner.  It will be worthwhile to
>>>> consider a global or world Internet organisation or council, with adequate
>>>> and equitable representation to governments from all regions as well as
>>>> non-governmental representatives of people and interests that cannot
>>>> adequately be represented merely through  inter-governmental systems,
>>>> especially in the new emerging trans-global reality. Such non-governmental
>>>> participation is also necessary to give equitable representation to
>>>> marginalised groups, like disability and indigenous groups, who find strength
>>>> through global organization, and whose interests need a more direct
>>>> representation at global  policy forum. Such an institutional mechanism will
>>>> be the best way to deepen democracy at global level, and ensure a really
>>>> democratic global Internet regime.
>>>>
>>>> We may also try and get more specific, maybe, suggest such a World/ Global
>>>> Internet Council/ Organization  has five governmental members each from each
>>>> region and 6 additional non-governmental members. The ways to select these
>>>> non-governmental members may be arrived at through consultation with all
>>>> involved groups. However the process should be open and bottom up.
>>>>
>>>> This GIO or CIC (referred to as 'Body' hereafter) should have a mandate for
>>>> all areas of global Internet public policies, including, but not restricted
>>>> to, oversight of CIR management.
>>>>
>>>> This Body should come up with policy recommendations on all global IG
>>>> matters, especially those in which regard there is no existing specialized
>>>> agency dealing with the issue(s) to be adopted globally and nationally
>>>> through different means/mechanisms of such global policy making/ adopting.
>>>>
>>>> It should also facilitate negotiation of treaties, conventions and agreements
>>>> on Internet-related public policies.
>>>>
>>>> This Body should also help  set up, or anchor, as appropriate, global
>>>> coordination methods for transborder Internet Governance related issues that
>>>> require coordination on an ongoing basis.
>>>>
>>>> This Body should also develop rules and procedures for dispute resolution
>>>> mechanisms and conduct arbitration, as required.
>>>>
>>>> The relationship between this Body and technical and operational Internet
>>>> institutions, such as the reformed and internationalized ICANN, should be
>>>> formalized. In this model, ICANN will be accountable to GIC. In this regard,
>>>> US government should cede all controls/ supervision of ICANN and IANA and
>>>> such related functions to this body.
>>>> (A lot of stuff here is taken from different models suggested by the WGIG
>>>> report)
>>>>
>>>> The above is merely suggestive and hastily drafted to invite comments. There
>>>> is of course much that be improved and even substantively changed here if we
>>>> put our creative and political energies on the task.  However abstaining, or
>>>> giving rather vague comments, when asked about our specific preferences for a
>>>> global IG order is not, in my opinion, something the IGC can afford to do. It
>>>> may only do so at the risk of compromising its political legitimacy as the
>>>> leading progressive global civil society organization.
>>>>
>>>> Parminder
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thursday 04 November 2010 05:05 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>>>>        
>>>>> On 04/11/2010, at 4:38 PM, jefsey wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>          
>>>>>> My point was not about the proposed procedural document, but about the
>>>>>> claim it is neutral.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>            
>>>>> Sorry for any misunderstanding, I didn't mean that it was meant to be
>>>>> neutral as between civil society and governments.  I just meant that in
>>>>> drafting it, I limited myself to what I knew the IGC would agree on, because
>>>>> of the paucity of contributions we had received on the list to that time.
>>>>> There was only really one suggestion, which came from Bill (and which I
>>>>> incorporated).
>>>>>
>>>>> Since then, there has been some more, so here is a revised version
>>>>> incorporating all new comments.  Don't worry, it's gradually becoming less
>>>>> neutral/bland - also longer :-(.  All paragraphs but the last have changes,
>>>>> but the biggest changes are to paragraph 2.  I can also send a marked-up
>>>>> version if there is demand for it.
>>>>>
>>>>> --- begins ---
>>>>>
>>>>> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (CS-IGC) is pleased to present
>>>>> its views on the process towards enhanced cooperation on international
>>>>> public policy issues relating to the Internet.  We do not have any detailed
>>>>> prescription of the form which this process should take, but rather we take
>>>>> this opportunity to make three simple points.
>>>>>
>>>>> First is that enhanced cooperation should encompass all Internet-related
>>>>> public policy issues, second that the existing arrangements of relevant
>>>>> organisations (including the Internet Governance Forum) do not fully
>>>>> implement this ideal of enhanced cooperation, and finally that whatever new
>>>>> arrangements may be put in place, civil society will play an integral part
>>>>> in them.
>>>>>
>>>>> These points will be explained in turn:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. Although much of the discussion of enhanced cooperation at WSIS turned
>>>>> around the narrow issue of internationalising the oversight of Internet
>>>>> naming and numbering functions, the Tunis Agenda expresses this principle
>>>>> far more broadly.  It also reminds us that the ultimate objective of our
>>>>> cooperation is to advance a people-centred, inclusive, development-oriented
>>>>> and non-discriminatory Information Society.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. The IGF in its present form is a very important part of the enhanced
>>>>> cooperation process, in that ideally its multi-stakeholder process can help
>>>>> to shape the decisions that are taken on Internet related public policy
>>>>> issues in other fora.  However the full realisation of enhanced cooperation
>>>>> will require a multi-stakeholder process to extend to other Internet
>>>>> governance organisations that do not already follow this model.
>>>>>
>>>>> There are various options for enhancing multi-stakeholder cooperation within
>>>>> and amongst all relevant organisations.  These may include:
>>>>>
>>>>> * making no institutional changes but encouraging organisations to enhance
>>>>> their own cooperation with other stakeholders and to report to the CSTD on
>>>>> their progress;
>>>>>
>>>>> * establishing a lightweight multi-stakeholder observatory process perhaps
>>>>> hosted under the auspices of the IGF (pursuant to its mandate in paragraph
>>>>> 72(i));
>>>>>
>>>>> * utilising a virtual and voluntary global social community or "social
>>>>> grid", linking together all Internet governance organisations, in which all
>>>>> stakeholders would participate; or
>>>>>
>>>>> * establishing a new umbrella governance institution for Internet policy
>>>>> development, with space for the participation of each stakeholder group in
>>>>> its respective role.
>>>>>
>>>>> 3. Paragraph 71 of the Tunis Agenda makes very clear that civil society is
>>>>> an integral participant in the development of any process towards enhanced
>>>>> cooperation.  Therefore the IGC, in our capacity as members of civil
>>>>> society, looks forward to contributing constructively in transparent,
>>>>> accountable and democratic multi-stakeholder consultations towards this end.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>          
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>>>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>>>
>>>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>>>
>>>> Translate this email:http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>>        
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>       governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>>       governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>>
>>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>>       http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>>
>>> Translate this email:http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>      
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>       governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>       governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>       http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>
>> Translate this email:http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>    
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101106/11f3d4a5/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From jlfullsack at orange.fr  Sat Nov  6 03:51:35 2010
From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK)
Date: Sat,  6 Nov 2010 08:51:35 +0100 (CET)
Subject: [governance] Re: SECOND DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <4CD4CF03.3000900@itforchange.net>
References: <70E573F5-00B4-4837-89B7-C05B9DA7E479@ciroap.org>
 <7.0.1.0.2.20101103021355.05d70e60@jefsey.com>
 <5B31379A-A914-4BE1-945B-EEF2478BA1DC@ciroap.org>
 <7.0.1.0.2.20101103094622.0651ee20@jefsey.com>
 <3FE17A9E-E507-44DA-8AE2-EC7EC56DD1D8@ciroap.org>
 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006DA4@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
 <4CD17823.8010108@itforchange.net>
 <AANLkTikONmgaa+4rO+uZkAv4YrPDfSV4aP9YKk_=Lgox@mail.gmail.com>
 <7.0.1.0.2.20101104103504.057fdc48@jefsey.com>
 <08B126B5-B3AB-4A91-B8BC-A90579C6EF5A@ciroap.org>
 <4CD4CF03.3000900@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <4952413.8306.1289029895678.JavaMail.www@wwinf1j14>

Dear Parminder 

I fully support your views and proposals. Many thanks for having clarified what is really on stake for the CS orgs in this paramount topic of Internet democratic governance that takes into account our values (generic : inclusive) i.e. our solidarity with all those who are willing to be  "on the net" and are prevented from for a lot of reasons, but mainy because they are living in DCs. 

Best regards
Jean-Louis Fullsack
CSDPTT



> Message du 06/11/10 04:44
> De : "parminder" 
> A : 
> Copie à : "governance at lists.cpsr.org" 
> Objet : [governance] Re: SECOND DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
> 
> Hi All
> 
> The question here is - do we need new global IG processes - for developing public policies and not technical policies (Tunis Agenda makes that distinction clear).
> 
> Antecedent question is - is there a gap / vacuum versus global IG policies or not? The Tunis Agenda appears to be clear that there is such a vacuum.
> 
> What does the IGC think? We need to be able to give an answer. 
> 
> And if we think there is a global vacuum vis a vis global IG policies, what is our analysis about whose interests such a vacuum serves, and whose interests it dis-serves most. It is my submission, and most sociological/ political theories also hold, that absence of (democratic) political structures serves the powerful most, and disserve the marginalised. 
> 
> Globally, Internet is today being shaped by dominant forces in a manner that is often opposite of what can be called progressive. Only democratic global political institutions can remedy this situation.
> 
> If we have no position on this, my opinion is that our position is regressive. It is against the interests of the marginalised and the excluded. And CS is supposed to protect these interests most.
> 
> If we have to take our cues from global  CS outside IG arena, then perhaps CS organisations concerned with globalisation issues come closest. Information Society is but globalisation on steroids. And the global CS's prescription to address the ill and excesses of globalisation is mostly better and more democratic global governance institutions (see for instance writings of Joseph Stiglitz). This is mostly the primary prescription on 'what to do'. And now when the IG related CS is presented with a possibility of shaping new more democratic global governance institution, can we just remain silent  or say, well we are not very interested. That is what looks coming out of the present statement; other than saying, if indeed anything of this nature does come up, make sure CS is also involved. I am unable to agree with such a statement coming from IGC. And I also cannot agree to it as a default statement. In not saying what is needed to be said, much is being said. I am, and my organisation is, unable to be associated with what is being said in this manner.
> 
> What we will like to be said is something as follows.
> 
> There is a huge institutional vacuum in terms of global IG policies and such a vacuum hurts the interests of the marginalised and the excluded most. It is an urgent imperative that new institutional developments emerge to address this vacuum, in a democratic and inclusive manner.  It will be worthwhile to consider a global or world Internet organisation or council, with adequate and equitable representation to governments from all regions as well as non-governmental representatives of people and interests that cannot adequately be represented merely through  inter-governmental systems, especially in the new emerging trans-global reality. Such non-governmental participation is also necessary to give equitable representation to marginalised groups, like disability and indigenous groups, who find strength through global organization, and whose interests need a more direct representation at global  policy forum. Such an institutional mechanism will be the best way to deepen democracy at global level, and ensure a really democratic global Internet regime. 
> 
> We may also try and get more specific, maybe, suggest such a World/ Global Internet Council/ Organization  has five governmental members each from each  region and 6 additional non-governmental members. The ways to select these non-governmental members may be arrived at through consultation with all involved groups. However the process should be open and bottom up. 
> 
> This GIO or CIC (referred to as 'Body' hereafter) should have a mandate for all areas of global Internet public policies, including, but not restricted to, oversight of CIR management. 
> 
> This Body should come up with policy recommendations on all global IG matters, especially those in which regard there is no existing specialized agency dealing with the issue(s) to be adopted globally and nationally through different means/mechanisms of such global policy making/ adopting. 
> 
> It should also facilitate p { margin-bottom: 0.21cm; }negotiation of treaties, conventions and agreements on Internet-related public policies. 
> 
> This Body should also help  set up, or anchor, as appropriate, global coordination methods for transborder Internet Governance related issues that require coordination on an ongoing basis. 
> 
> This Body should also develop rules and procedures for dispute resolution mechanisms and conduct arbitration, as required. 
> 
> p { margin-bottom: 0.21cm; } The relationship between this Body and technical and operational Internet institutions, such as the reformed and internationalized ICANN, should be formalized. In this model, ICANN will be accountable to GIC. In this regard, US government should cede all controls/ supervision of ICANN and IANA and such related functions to this body. 
> 
(A lot of stuff here is taken from different models suggested by the WGIG report)
> 

> The above is merely suggestive and hastily drafted to invite comments. There is of course much that be improved and even substantively changed here if we put our creative and political energies on the task.  However abstaining, or giving rather vague comments, when asked about our specific preferences for a global IG order is not, in my opinion, something the IGC can afford to do. It may only do so at the risk of compromising its political legitimacy as the leading progressive global civil society organization. 
> 
> Parminder 
> 
> 
> 
> On Thursday 04 November 2010 05:05 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: On 04/11/2010, at 4:38 PM, jefsey wrote: My point was not about the proposed procedural document, but about the claim it is neutral. Sorry for any misunderstanding, I didn't mean that it was meant to be neutral as between civil society and governments. I just meant that in drafting it, I limited myself to what I knew the IGC would agree on, because of the paucity of contributions we had received on the list to that time. There was only really one suggestion, which came from Bill (and which I incorporated). Since then, there has been some more, so here is a revised version incorporating all new comments. Don't worry, it's gradually becoming less neutral/bland - also longer :-(. All paragraphs but the last have changes, but the biggest changes are to paragraph 2. I can also send a marked-up version if there is demand for it. --- begins --- The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (CS-IGC) is pleased to present its views on the process towards enhanced cooperation on international public policy issues relating to the Internet. We do not have any detailed prescription of the form which this process should take, but rather we take this opportunity to make three simple points. First is that enhanced cooperation should encompass all Internet-related public policy issues, second that the existing arrangements of relevant organisations (including the Internet Governance Forum) do not fully implement this ideal of enhanced cooperation, and finally that whatever new arrangements may be put in place, civil society will play an integral part in them. These points will be explained in turn: 1. Although much of the discussion of enhanced cooperation at WSIS turned around the narrow issue of internationalising the oversight of Internet naming and numbering functions, the Tunis Agenda expresses this principle far more broadly. It also reminds us that the ultimate objective of our cooperation is to advance a people-centred, inclusive, development-oriented and non-discriminatory Information Society. 2. The IGF in its present form is a very important part of the enhanced cooperation process, in that ideally its multi-stakeholder process can help to shape the decisions that are taken on Internet related public policy issues in other fora. However the full realisation of enhanced cooperation will require a multi-stakeholder process to extend to other Internet governance organisations that do not already follow this model. There are various options for enhancing multi-stakeholder cooperation within and amongst all relevant organisations. These may include: * making no institutional changes but encouraging organisations to enhance their own cooperation with other stakeholders and to report to the CSTD on their progress; * establishing a lightweight multi-stakeholder observatory process perhaps hosted under the auspices of the IGF (pursuant to its mandate in paragraph 72(i)); * utilising a virtual and voluntary global social community or "social grid", linking together all Internet governance organisations, in which all stakeholders would participate; or * establishing a new umbrella governance institution for Internet policy development, with space for the participation of each stakeholder group in its respective role. 3. Paragraph 71 of the Tunis Agenda makes very clear that civil society is an integral participant in the development of any process towards enhanced cooperation. Therefore the IGC, in our capacity as members of civil society, looks forward to contributing constructively in transparent, accountable and democratic multi-stakeholder consultations towards this end. 
>
> [ message-footer.txt (0.4 Ko) ]
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101106/83f8522e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From dogwallah at gmail.com  Sat Nov  6 03:56:34 2010
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2010 10:56:34 +0300
Subject: [governance] Re: SECOND DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <4CD4CF03.3000900@itforchange.net>
References: <70E573F5-00B4-4837-89B7-C05B9DA7E479@ciroap.org>
 <7.0.1.0.2.20101103021355.05d70e60@jefsey.com> <5B31379A-A914-4BE1-945B-EEF2478BA1DC@ciroap.org>
 <7.0.1.0.2.20101103094622.0651ee20@jefsey.com> <3FE17A9E-E507-44DA-8AE2-EC7EC56DD1D8@ciroap.org>
 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006DA4@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
 <4CD17823.8010108@itforchange.net> <AANLkTikONmgaa+4rO+uZkAv4YrPDfSV4aP9YKk_=Lgox@mail.gmail.com>
 <7.0.1.0.2.20101104103504.057fdc48@jefsey.com> <08B126B5-B3AB-4A91-B8BC-A90579C6EF5A@ciroap.org>
 <4CD4CF03.3000900@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=gWOfhnaJd385OJ0XNjtbSjaCgEAOA-6KLsNEe@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 6:44 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
> Hi All
>
> The question here is - do we need new global IG processes - for developing
> public policies and not technical policies (Tunis Agenda makes that
> distinction clear).

My answer is no.

>
> Antecedent question is - is there a gap / vacuum versus global IG policies
> or not? The Tunis Agenda appears to be clear that there is such a vacuum.

There is certainly a vacuum, as in there is no Global body with
authority to deal with all IG issues in an authoritative manner.

This is a feature NOT a bug!!


>
> What does the IGC think? We need to be able to give an answer.

I agree with Avri.

>
> And if we think there is a global vacuum vis a vis global IG policies, what
> is our analysis about whose interests such a vacuum serves,

It seems to have served innovation quite well, built economies and
eco-sytems.  Look at your own backyard to find the

 and whose
> interests it dis-serves most. It is my submission, and most sociological/
> political theories also hold, that absence of (democratic) political
> structures serves the powerful most, and disserve the marginalised.


If by democratic, you mean (one person one vote) "representative
democracy" then I say again this is a FEATURE, not a bug!

I refer you again to "A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace"

http://w2.eff.org/Censorship/Internet_censorship_bills/barlow_0296.declaration

"We have no elected government, nor are we likely to have one, so I
address you with no greater authority than that with which liberty
itself always speaks. I declare the global social space we are
building to be naturally independent of the tyrannies you seek to
impose on us. You have no moral
right to rule us nor do you possess any methods of enforcement we have
true reason to fear.

Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed.
You have neither solicited nor received ours. We did not invite you.
You do not know us, nor do  you know our world. Cyberspace does not
lie within your borders. Do not think that you can build it, as though
it were a public construction project. You cannot. It is an act of
nature and it grows itself through our collective actions."


>
> Globally, Internet is today being shaped by dominant forces in a manner that
> is often opposite of what can be called progressive.

Evidence please.


Only democratic global
> political institutions can remedy this situation.

See above Declaration:

"You claim there are problems among us that you need to solve. You use
this claim as an excuse to invade our precincts. Many of these
problems don't exist. Where there are real conflicts, where there are
wrongs, we will
identify them and address them by our means. We are forming our own
Social Contract . This governance will arise according to the
conditions of our world, not yours. Our world is different."

>
> If we have no position on this, my opinion is that our position is
> regressive.

or status quoist, which IMHO is progressive.

 It is against the interests of the marginalised and the
> excluded. And CS is supposed to protect these interests most.
>
> If we have to take our cues from global  CS outside IG arena, then perhaps
> CS organisations concerned with globalisation issues come closest.
> Information Society is but globalisation on steroids. And the global CS's
> prescription to address the ill and excesses of globalisation is mostly
> better and more democratic global governance institutions (see for instance
> writings of Joseph Stiglitz). This is mostly the primary prescription on
> 'what to do'. And now when the IG related CS is presented with a possibility
> of shaping new more democratic global governance institution, can we just
> remain silent  or say, well we are not very interested.

We can however say that we support a mostly non-governmental IG
system, whereby gov'ts are welcome to come to our table(s).  We do
ourselves a disservice by asking them for a seat at a table we want
them to make.


That is what looks
> coming out of the present statement; other than saying, if indeed anything
> of this nature does come up, make sure CS is also involved.

This is what we get when we align ourselves (exclusively) as a group
with intergovernmental processes.

I am unable to
> agree with such a statement coming from IGC. And I also cannot agree to it
> as a default statement. In not saying what is needed to be said, much is
> being said. I am, and my organisation is, unable to be associated with what
> is being said in this manner.
>
> What we will like to be said is something as follows.
>
> There is a huge institutional vacuum in terms of global IG policies and such
> a vacuum hurts the interests of the marginalised and the excluded most. It
> is an urgent imperative that new institutional developments emerge to
> address this vacuum, in a democratic and inclusive manner.  It will be
> worthwhile to consider a global or world Internet organisation or council,
> with adequate and equitable representation to governments from all regions
> as well as non-governmental representatives of people and interests that
> cannot adequately be represented merely through  inter-governmental systems,
> especially in the new emerging trans-global reality. Such non-governmental
> participation is also necessary to give equitable representation to
> marginalised groups, like disability and indigenous groups, who find
> strength through global organization, and whose interests need a more direct
> representation at global  policy forum. Such an institutional mechanism will
> be the best way to deepen democracy at global level, and ensure a really
> democratic global Internet regime.
>
> We may also try and get more specific, maybe, suggest such a World/ Global
> Internet Council/ Organization  has five governmental members each from
> each  region and 6 additional non-governmental members. The ways to select
> these non-governmental members may be arrived at through consultation with
> all involved groups. However the process should be open and bottom up.
>
> This GIO or CIC (referred to as 'Body' hereafter) should have a mandate for
> all areas of global Internet public policies, including, but not restricted
> to, oversight of CIR management.
>
> This Body should come up with policy recommendations on all global IG
> matters, especially those in which regard there is no existing specialized
> agency dealing with the issue(s) to be adopted globally and nationally
> through different means/mechanisms of such global policy making/ adopting.
>
> It should also facilitate negotiation of treaties, conventions and
> agreements on Internet-related public policies.
>
> This Body should also help  set up, or anchor, as appropriate, global
> coordination methods for transborder Internet Governance related issues that
> require coordination on an ongoing basis.
>
> This Body should also develop rules and procedures for dispute resolution
> mechanisms and conduct arbitration, as required.
>
> The relationship between this Body and technical and operational Internet
> institutions, such as the reformed and internationalized ICANN, should be
> formalized. In this model, ICANN will be accountable to GIC. In this regard,
> US government should cede all controls/ supervision of ICANN and IANA and
> such related functions to this body.


I reject the above for the reasons Avri stated.

-- 
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 roland at internetpolicyagency.com  Sat Nov  6 04:09:20 2010
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2010 08:09:20 +0000
Subject: [governance] It's Time to Stop ICANN's Top-Level Domain (TLD)
In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006DC9@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
References: <AANLkTi=9FgeC19PF-O4exhW_kj+LXAj8u_PSQ-cmmRgX@mail.gmail.com>
 <C8FAB765.13310%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006DC9@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <wGDnl5Mw0Q1MFAUs@internetpolicyagency.com>

In message 
<93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006DC9 at suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>, 
at 17:01:33 on Fri, 5 Nov 2010, Lee W McKnight <lmcknigh at syr.edu> writes
>Ian, while you may not care for the decision to permit more gTLDs, but 
>compared to the arbitrariness of prior processes which prevented that 
>or made it almost impossible, it is a big big step forward toward more 
>transparent admin procedures within ICANN, and hence indeed a step 
>forward for internet governance. In my view. Whether or not we feel 
>specific new gTLDs are good or bad or succeed or fail, it shouldn't be 
>to you or me - or ICANN - to prevent suitably qualified folks from 
>giving it a go.

We should not forget the history - new gTLDs have been introduced 
steadily over the last ten years; starting with .biz .info and .museum, 
and finishing (I would say) with .post this year; and has always been a 
prime objective of the ICANN process.

An early list of applications is at the bottom of this page:

http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/app-index.htm

But later on, a problem arose with the application for .xxx, in so far 
as the decision-making process (to use Vint Cerf's words) "failed to 
converge". Every time it came to a vote, the board seemed to be more 
polarised than before. Whereas he was felt that good governance should 
result in a debate steadily converging towards either a "yes" or a "no".

He therefore resolved to create (and I simplify) a new "one size fits 
all" approval process which would streamline the situation and remove as 
much as possible of the subjective decision-making. Which is the DAG etc 
that we see coming ever closer to delivery.

The debates within the DAG process are essentially about the merits (or 
otherwise) of quarantining definable parts of the potential namespace 
which overlap with trademarks, geographical names, and most recently 
MOPO issues. My favourite example is .lincoln which is a trademark of 
the Ford Motor Company, the Capital of Nebraska, and a Cathedral City 
and County Town in the UK.
-- 
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 parminder at itforchange.net  Sat Nov  6 09:19:36 2010
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Sat, 06 Nov 2010 18:49:36 +0530
Subject: [governance] Re: SECOND DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=gWOfhnaJd385OJ0XNjtbSjaCgEAOA-6KLsNEe@mail.gmail.com>
References: <70E573F5-00B4-4837-89B7-C05B9DA7E479@ciroap.org> <7.0.1.0.2.20101103021355.05d70e60@jefsey.com> <5B31379A-A914-4BE1-945B-EEF2478BA1DC@ciroap.org> <7.0.1.0.2.20101103094622.0651ee20@jefsey.com> <3FE17A9E-E507-44DA-8AE2-EC7EC56DD1D8@ciroap.org> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006DA4@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4CD17823.8010108@itforchange.net> <AANLkTikONmgaa+4rO+uZkAv4YrPDfSV4aP9YKk_=Lgox@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20101104103504.057fdc48@jefsey.com> <08B126B5-B3AB-4A91-B8BC-A90579C6EF5A@ciroap.org> <4CD4CF03.3000900@itforchange.net> <AANLkTi=gWOfhnaJd385OJ0XNjtbSjaCgEAOA-6KLsNEe@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4CD555E8.2040707@itforchange.net>

McTim

Rest of your responses to my proposal are a bit of a standard exchange 
between us, and I may have not have much new to say, but I will like to 
make a comment on the following.

On Saturday 06 November 2010 01:26 PM, McTim wrote:
>> >
>> >  And if we think there is a global vacuum vis a vis global IG policies, what
>> >  is our analysis about whose interests such a vacuum serves,
>>      
> It seems to have served innovation quite well, built economies and
> eco-sytems.  Look at your own backyard to find the
>
>    
About my backyard, two things

one, pl read this article about the recent 2010 UNDP HDR report, from 
which I quote

    "India has failed to make any significant improvement in its poverty
    figures,with over 400 million -- more than the total in the poorest
    African nations -- still struck in poverty, the Human Development
    Report 2010 said today, listing India at the 119th position on the
    Human Development Index." ( some more details, that may be startling
    to some, at 
    http://www.mydigitalfc.com/economy/indias-growth-fails-translate-poverty-alleviation-hdr-024
    )

One may wonder how in this time of ICTs and instant news from all over 
the world, people seem to keep getting not too right a picture of where 
and how things really may be in India. Any comments on this?

Second thing about my backyard, I did share with the list a few weeks 
back, mobile companies are colonizing the mobile Internet in India by 
the day like nobody's business. Mobile Internet is facebook, google and 
yahoo, not the neutral and open Internet we seem to be thinking and 
talking about here. I have no doubt that, going this way, the Internet 
would soon turn into an instrument of increased dependency of the 
marginalised on outside forces and agents. Its potential for empowering 
local, community based processes is being increasingly compromised.

So, yes, I do look at my backyard, and my comments and my proposal are 
informed by it.

Parminder




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101106/15ecf57d/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From parminder at itforchange.net  Sat Nov  6 10:03:43 2010
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Sat, 06 Nov 2010 19:33:43 +0530
Subject: [governance] Re: SECOND DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <4CD555E8.2040707@itforchange.net>
References: <70E573F5-00B4-4837-89B7-C05B9DA7E479@ciroap.org> <7.0.1.0.2.20101103021355.05d70e60@jefsey.com> <5B31379A-A914-4BE1-945B-EEF2478BA1DC@ciroap.org> <7.0.1.0.2.20101103094622.0651ee20@jefsey.com> <3FE17A9E-E507-44DA-8AE2-EC7EC56DD1D8@ciroap.org> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006DA4@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4CD17823.8010108@itforchange.net> <AANLkTikONmgaa+4rO+uZkAv4YrPDfSV4aP9YKk_=Lgox@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20101104103504.057fdc48@jefsey.com> <08B126B5-B3AB-4A91-B8BC-A90579C6EF5A@ciroap.org> <4CD4CF03.3000900@itforchange.net> <AANLkTi=gWOfhnaJd385OJ0XNjtbSjaCgEAOA-6KLsNEe@mail.gmail.com> <4CD555E8.2040707@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <4CD5603F.50507@itforchange.net>

McTim

And if, in response to my cited figures about India, you may want to say 
that the real full impact of ICTs may be yet to come to India, you may 
be interested in the statistics of the 'front yard' , the US, where the 
new innovation based 'ecosystems' you speak of have had the longest play.

To quote from the academic paper at 
www.networkideas.org/ideasact/jan09/PDF/Fine.pdf

    "Over the period of neo-liberalism, from the mid-1970s, there have
    been dramatic and
    uniquely extreme reversals in the evolving patterns of income
    distribution in the United
    States. Whilst, without wishing to finesse the figures, the average
    income of 90% of the
    population has stagnated, the share of income of the top 1% has
    increased from well
    below 10% to around double that. "

These figures, along with those below about India, may take some gloss 
off the supposedly big and neutrally (or equally for all) advantageous 
role that ICTs are touted to play in our socio-economic systems.

Parminder



On Saturday 06 November 2010 06:49 PM, parminder wrote:
> McTim
>
> Rest of your responses to my proposal are a bit of a standard exchange 
> between us, and I may have not have much new to say, but I will like 
> to make a comment on the following.
>
> On Saturday 06 November 2010 01:26 PM, McTim wrote:
>>> >
>>> >  And if we think there is a global vacuum vis a vis global IG policies, what
>>> >  is our analysis about whose interests such a vacuum serves,
>>>      
>> It seems to have served innovation quite well, built economies and
>> eco-sytems.  Look at your own backyard to find the
>>
>>    
> About my backyard, two things
>
> one, pl read this article about the recent 2010 UNDP HDR report, from 
> which I quote
>
>     "India has failed to make any significant improvement in its
>     poverty figures,with over 400 million -- more than the total in
>     the poorest African nations -- still struck in poverty, the Human
>     Development Report 2010 said today, listing India at the 119th
>     position on the Human Development Index." ( some more details,
>     that may be startling to some, at
>     http://www.mydigitalfc.com/economy/indias-growth-fails-translate-poverty-alleviation-hdr-024
>     )
>
> One may wonder how in this time of ICTs and instant news from all over 
> the world, people seem to keep getting not too right a picture of 
> where and how things really may be in India. Any comments on this?
>
> Second thing about my backyard, I did share with the list a few weeks 
> back, mobile companies are colonizing the mobile Internet in India by 
> the day like nobody's business. Mobile Internet is facebook, google 
> and yahoo, not the neutral and open Internet we seem to be thinking 
> and talking about here. I have no doubt that, going this way, the 
> Internet would soon turn into an instrument of increased dependency of 
> the marginalised on outside forces and agents. Its potential for 
> empowering local, community based processes is being increasingly 
> compromised.
>
> So, yes, I do look at my backyard, and my comments and my proposal are 
> informed by it.
>
> Parminder
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101106/9d4bb9a8/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From mueller at syr.edu  Sat Nov  6 10:12:13 2010
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2010 10:12:13 -0400
Subject: [governance] It's Time to Stop ICANN's Top-Level Domain (TLD)
In-Reply-To: <C8FAB765.13310%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
References: <AANLkTi=9FgeC19PF-O4exhW_kj+LXAj8u_PSQ-cmmRgX@mail.gmail.com>
 <C8FAB765.13310%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC108D802@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>

We dealt with this issue at some length in the 2005 National Research Council report.
Ever since 1996, people have been confusing the DNS, and the demand for new domain names, with the demand for search and location services.
And ever since, they have been predicting (falsely) that the demand for domain names would decline as search tools improved. Indeed, many were hoping that all the sticky DNS policy issues would just go away as this happened. It was wrong, wishful thinking.

Instead, there is continuing, long-term growth in second level domains. The reason is simple. If Ian Peter is given a choice between an email address that says ian.peter at user.isp.com<mailto:ian.peter at user.isp.com> or ian at ianpeter.com<mailto:ian at ianpeter.com>, he will prefer the latter. The same is true for millions of others. That means that we want our websites and email addresses to have meaningful, accessible names. It has nothing to do with searching for content. It has to do with identification and memorization.

I will accede to your argument about new TLDs not being needed, Ian, the day you give up ianpeter.com because anyone can find your website using Google. ;-)

From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com]
Sent: Friday, November 05, 2010 4:42 PM
To: Rafik Dammak; governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: Re: [governance] It's Time to Stop ICANN's Top-Level Domain (TLD)

Hi Rafik,

Resource discovery is , simply, "being able to find things" on the Internet.

The original reason for having domain names was that it was thought (correctly) that it would be easier to remember the name of a site than the IP number of the site (eg easier to remember berkeley.edu than 199.133.223.253). Thus the domain name system was born and a mechanism was needed to map all internet addressable numbers to appropriate names.

These days the domain name is becoming less and less relevant for this task. People use search engines, directories and apps rather than directly using names to find things. The awkwardness of the domain name system in providing sensible resource discovery with the internet the size it is now (let alone what is to come) has led a lot of people to look at other ways to do this.

Ian Peter

________________________________
From: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2010 05:05:05 +0900
To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
Cc: Avri Doria <avri at psg.com>
Subject: Re: [governance] It's Time to Stop ICANN's Top-Level Domain (TLD)

Hi Ian,

you mentioned many times resource discovery, can you please clarify what you mean by it? I am not sure that everybody here share the same definition.

Rafik

2010/11/6 Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
Avri wrote


>  It is all well and
> good that you have a preference for maintaining the current restricted
> incumbent market,


Not at all, and IDNs are a case in point where expansion makes sense for as
long as domain names maintain usefulness - but any attachment of exorbitant
fees to IDNs to allow them to be established would be ridiculous.

I'm simply pointing out, as others are, that endless expansion of domain
name suffixes does nothing to aid resource discovery or improve internet
governance.





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

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

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101106/3d221ded/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From mueller at syr.edu  Sat Nov  6 10:13:13 2010
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2010 10:13:13 -0400
Subject: [governance] It's Time to Stop ICANN's Top-Level Domain (TLD)
In-Reply-To: <4CD47FE5.4000402@gih.com>
References: <C8FAB765.13310%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
 <4CD47FE5.4000402@gih.com>
Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC108D803@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>

Oops, I see that Olivier made my point a day ago.
The point about not being dependent on your isp is also important.

From: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond [mailto:ocl at gih.com]
Sent: Friday, November 05, 2010 6:06 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter
Cc: Rafik Dammak
Subject: Re: [governance] It's Time to Stop ICANN's Top-Level Domain (TLD)

Hello Ian,

since the domain name system,in your view is solely about resource discovery, I suggest you give up ianpeter.com altogether and move your email to gmail, whilst hosting your Web site under a generic domain.
Only troubles are:
1. I won't know how to find your Web site or how to email you. (except if you manage to position yourself well with search engines and there's an art to that - pay more, get more)
2. if you start becoming too controversial for your ISPs, you might vanish from the Internet altogether. DItto if your ISP is purchased by someone else. You'll just be forced to change email address, change web address... you get the point.

Kind regards,

Olivier

Le 05/11/2010 21:42, Ian Peter a écrit :
Hi Rafik,

Resource discovery is , simply, "being able to find things" on the Internet.

The original reason for having domain names was that it was thought (correctly) that it would be easier to remember the name of a site than the IP number of the site (eg easier to remember berkeley.edu than 199.133.223.253). Thus the domain name system was born and a mechanism was needed to map all internet addressable numbers to appropriate names.

These days the domain name is becoming less and less relevant for this task. People use search engines, directories and apps rather than directly using names to find things. The awkwardness of the domain name system in providing sensible resource discovery with the internet the size it is now (let alone what is to come) has led a lot of people to look at other ways to do this.

Ian Peter

________________________________
From: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2010 05:05:05 +0900
To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
Cc: Avri Doria <avri at psg.com>
Subject: Re: [governance] It's Time to Stop ICANN's Top-Level Domain (TLD)

Hi Ian,

you mentioned many times resource discovery, can you please clarify what you mean by it? I am not sure that everybody here share the same definition.

Rafik

2010/11/6 Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
Avri wrote


>  It is all well and
> good that you have a preference for maintaining the current restricted
> incumbent market,


Not at all, and IDNs are a case in point where expansion makes sense for as
long as domain names maintain usefulness - but any attachment of exorbitant
fees to IDNs to allow them to be established would be ridiculous.

I'm simply pointing out, as others are, that endless expansion of domain
name suffixes does nothing to aid resource discovery or improve internet
governance.





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

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

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




--

Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD

http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101106/dba14b85/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From mueller at syr.edu  Sat Nov  6 10:23:08 2010
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2010 10:23:08 -0400
Subject: [governance] It's Time to Stop ICANN's Top-Level Domain (TLD)
In-Reply-To: <wGDnl5Mw0Q1MFAUs@internetpolicyagency.com>
References: <AANLkTi=9FgeC19PF-O4exhW_kj+LXAj8u_PSQ-cmmRgX@mail.gmail.com>
 <C8FAB765.13310%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006DC9@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
 <wGDnl5Mw0Q1MFAUs@internetpolicyagency.com>
Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC108D804@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roland Perry [mailto:roland at internetpolicyagency.com]
> 
> We should not forget the history - new gTLDs have been introduced
> steadily over the last ten years; starting with .biz .info and .museum,
> and finishing (I would say) with .post this year; and has always been a

Not quite correct. The first round (in 2000), was considered an "experiment" or "proof of concept". Only 7 were added.
The second round was artificially restricted to so-called "sponsored top level domains" although that restriction ended up being honored more in the breach than in substance. Only 8 or so more were added.

What needs to happen, and is finally happening now, is to define a standardized process to apply for and get new TLDs, so that this is a routine part of ICANN's process and not considered some big exception or massive privilege. As new linguistic groups and communities come on to the internet there will always be a demand for new top level domains. 

> But later on, a problem arose with the application for .xxx, in so far
> as the decision-making process (to use Vint Cerf's words) "failed to
> converge". Every time it came to a vote, the board seemed to be more

This is not what happened, either. What happened is that the US government intervened after the decision was made and threw the whole process off the rails. This is well documented in the .xxx independent review process. So well documented, that ICM Registry won.

> He therefore resolved to create (and I simplify) a new "one size fits
> all" approval process which would streamline the situation and remove as
> much as possible of the subjective decision-making. Which is the DAG etc
> that we see coming ever closer to delivery.

False again. The decision to create an ongoing new TLD addition process had nothing to do with the .xxx mess - indeed, the preparation for a new TLD process preceded the .xxx fiasco. Developing an ongoing process is perfectly sensible - can you imagine a radio spectrum management authority that had no standard process for letting people apply for and get new radio channels or applications? That would be utterly stupid. ICANN administers the domain name space. If it doesn't know how to award new TLDs to people who need/want them it isn't doing its job. 

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

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  Sat Nov  6 10:31:12 2010
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2010 10:31:12 -0400
Subject: [governance] Re: SECOND DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <4CD555E8.2040707@itforchange.net>
References: <70E573F5-00B4-4837-89B7-C05B9DA7E479@ciroap.org>
 <7.0.1.0.2.20101103021355.05d70e60@jefsey.com>
 <5B31379A-A914-4BE1-945B-EEF2478BA1DC@ciroap.org>
 <7.0.1.0.2.20101103094622.0651ee20@jefsey.com>
 <3FE17A9E-E507-44DA-8AE2-EC7EC56DD1D8@ciroap.org>
 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006DA4@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
 <4CD17823.8010108@itforchange.net>
 <AANLkTikONmgaa+4rO+uZkAv4YrPDfSV4aP9YKk_=Lgox@mail.gmail.com>
 <7.0.1.0.2.20101104103504.057fdc48@jefsey.com>
 <08B126B5-B3AB-4A91-B8BC-A90579C6EF5A@ciroap.org>
 <4CD4CF03.3000900@itforchange.net>
 <AANLkTi=gWOfhnaJd385OJ0XNjtbSjaCgEAOA-6KLsNEe@mail.gmail.com>
 <4CD555E8.2040707@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC108D805@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>

Parminder:
A bit tendentious, as usual. While the overall number of poor in India is very large, as a percentage of the total population it has halved since the 1970s and the slope of the downward line seems to have increased since economic liberalization.
Tell me if this statistical graph is incorrect: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:BPL_Data_GOI.png
Most sources I see, admittedly second-hand, indicate that the bureaucratic "license Raj" in India stifled growth after the 1950s and that poverty has decreased since the 1980s liberalizing reforms.

From: parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net]
Sent: Saturday, November 06, 2010 9:20 AM
To: McTim
Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: Re: [governance] Re: SECOND DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation

McTim

Rest of your responses to my proposal are a bit of a standard exchange between us, and I may have not have much new to say, but I will like to make a comment on the following.

On Saturday 06 November 2010 01:26 PM, McTim wrote:

>

> And if we think there is a global vacuum vis a vis global IG policies, what

> is our analysis about whose interests such a vacuum serves,



It seems to have served innovation quite well, built economies and

eco-sytems.  Look at your own backyard to find the




About my backyard, two things

one, pl read this article about the recent 2010 UNDP HDR report, from which I quote
"India has failed to make any significant improvement in its poverty figures,with over 400 million -- more than the total in the poorest African nations -- still struck in poverty, the Human Development Report 2010 said today, listing India at the 119th position on the Human Development Index." ( some more details, that may be startling to some, at  http://www.mydigitalfc.com/economy/indias-growth-fails-translate-poverty-alleviation-hdr-024 )
One may wonder how in this time of ICTs and instant news from all over the world, people seem to keep getting not too right a picture of where and how things really may be in India. Any comments on this?

Second thing about my backyard, I did share with the list a few weeks back, mobile companies are colonizing the mobile Internet in India by the day like nobody's business. Mobile Internet is facebook, google and yahoo, not the neutral and open Internet we seem to be thinking and talking about here. I have no doubt that, going this way, the Internet would soon turn into an instrument of increased dependency of the marginalised on outside forces and agents. Its potential for empowering local, community based processes is being increasingly compromised.

So, yes, I do look at my backyard, and my comments and my proposal are informed by it.

Parminder



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101106/a0c255bb/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From correia.rui at gmail.com  Sat Nov  6 10:51:11 2010
From: correia.rui at gmail.com (Rui Correia)
Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2010 16:51:11 +0200
Subject: [governance] OT: A light-hearted moment for those who identify
 with participation on lists
Message-ID: <AANLkTimbDmudKOCapwDas2=C2TpoxPNETeUF9gzyJdjo@mail.gmail.com>

Hope at least some of you will get a good chuckle out of it.

Rui

________________________________________________________

How Many List Members Does It Take To Change A Lightbulb?


One to change the light bulb and to post that the light bulb has been
changed.

Fourteen to share similar experiences of changing light bulbs and how the
light bulb could have been changed differently.

Seven to caution about the dangers of changing light bulbs.

Seven more to point out spelling/grammar errors in posts about changing
light bulbs.

Five to flame the spell checkers.

Three to correct spelling/grammar flames.

Six to argue over whether it's "lightbulb" or "light bulb" ...

Another six to condemn those six as stupid.

Fifteen to claim experience in the lighting industry and give the correct
spelling.

Nineteen to post that this group is not about light bulbs and to please take
this discussion to a lightbulb (or light bulb) forum.

Eleven to defend the posting to the group saying that we all use light bulbs
and therefore the posts are relevant to this group.

Thirty six to debate which method of changing light bulbs is superior, where
to buy the best light bulbs, what brand of light bulbs work best for this
technique and what brands are faulty.

Seven to post URLs where one can see examples of different light bulbs.

Four to post that the URLs were posted incorrectly and then post the
corrected URL.

Three to post about links they found from the URLs that are relevant to this
group which makes light bulbs relevant to this group.

Thirteen to link all posts to date, quote them in their entirety including
all headers and signatures, and add "Me too"

Five to post to the group that they will no longer post because they cannot
handle the light bulb controversy.

Four to say "didn't we go through this already a short time ago?"

Thirteen to say "do a Google search on light bulbs before posting questions
about light bulbs."

Three to tell a funny story about their cat and a light bulb.

AND

One group lurker to respond to the original post 6 months from now with
something unrelated they found at snopes.com and start it all over again!

-- 
_________________________

Rui Correia
Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant
Angola Liaison Consultant
2 Cutten St
Horison
Roodepoort-Johannesburg,
South Africa
Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336
Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838
_______________
àáâãçéêíóôõúç
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101106/6bee5801/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de  Sat Nov  6 10:55:14 2010
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=)
Date: Sat, 06 Nov 2010 15:55:14 +0100
Subject: [governance] FYI ICANN Accountability Studay
References: <70E573F5-00B4-4837-89B7-C05B9DA7E479@ciroap.org>
 <7.0.1.0.2.20101103021355.05d70e60@jefsey.com>
 <5B31379A-A914-4BE1-945B-EEF2478BA1DC@ciroap.org>
 <7.0.1.0.2.20101103094622.0651ee20@jefsey.com>
 <3FE17A9E-E507-44DA-8AE2-EC7EC56DD1D8@ciroap.org>
 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006DA4@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
 <4CD17823.8010108@itforchange.net>
 <AANLkTikONmgaa+4rO+uZkAv4YrPDfSV4aP9YKk_=Lgox@mail.gmail.com>
 <7.0.1.0.2.20101104103504.057fdc48@jefsey.com>
 <08B126B5-B3AB-4A91-B8BC-A90579C6EF5A@ciroap.org>
 <4CD4CF03.3000900@itforchange.net>
 <AANLkTi=gWOfhnaJd385OJ0XNjtbSjaCgEAOA-6KLsNEe@mail.gmail.com>
 <4CD555E8.2040707@itforchange.net>
 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC108D805@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID:  <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A073C4@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

http://www.icann.org/en/reviews/affirmation/atrt-review-berkman-final-report-20oct10-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 avri at psg.com  Sat Nov  6 10:58:32 2010
From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2010 10:58:32 -0400
Subject: [governance] Re: SECOND DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <4CD4E70D.8010807@itforchange.net>
References: <70E573F5-00B4-4837-89B7-C05B9DA7E479@ciroap.org> <7.0.1.0.2.20101103021355.05d70e60@jefsey.com> <5B31379A-A914-4BE1-945B-EEF2478BA1DC@ciroap.org> <7.0.1.0.2.20101103094622.0651ee20@jefsey.com> <3FE17A9E-E507-44DA-8AE2-EC7EC56DD1D8@ciroap.org> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006DA4@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4CD17823.8010108@itforchange.net> <AANLkTikONmgaa+4rO+uZkAv4YrPDfSV4aP9YKk_=Lgox@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20101104103504.057fdc48@jefsey.com> <08B126B5-B3AB-4A91-B8BC-A90579C6EF5A@ciroap.org> <4CD4CF03.3000900@itforchange.net> <D1E1B737-C8E1-4657-8A1A-FDB3E30DB92D@psg.com> <4CD4E70D.8010807@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <806E2BA2-1AE8-45DE-A870-5F90AF3C0032@psg.com>


On 6 Nov 2010, at 01:26, parminder wrote:

> 
> 
> On Saturday 06 November 2010 09:34 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> I think this proposal is horribly government centric and hope that it is does not become the consensus of the IGC.
>>   
>> 
> I took a lot of pains to state whom the proposal seeks to serve, and whom does a studied silence on enhanced cooperation issue serves.

I do not accept the premise that there is studied silence on Enhanced Cooperation.  Or a vacuum. 

I contend that we see progress in Enhanced cooperation.  The more I watch the changes in the groups doing Internet Governance, the more I see the participation of governments along side the other stakeholders.  And the more I see the opening for Civil society of all sorts to participate.  Yes, there is a ways to go, there will always be a ways to go.  And we should wok on the means of  furthering the progress we are making.

I look for proposals that serve all of the world's people, the marginalized included.  I do not, however, look for solutions that shift the marginalization from one set of players to another.


>> A civil society caucus should not become a government serving body.  
> Neither should it become a body in service of anarchic global elites, who in and through techno-fascination, seek to subvert our democratic polities, and willy nilly serve the interests of the already dominant (businesses, governments, classes). That is what a 'we dont know, and we dont care' response to the 'enhanced cooperation' consultation in effect means.
>> To voluntarily surrender full control of Internet governance to governments, except for a token 'other' presence strikes me as unthinkable.
>>   
>> 
> I may be wrong, but there seems to be here an underpinning of rejection/hatred of governments - as a social institution,  without any distinction between good ones and bad ones, and about that I will not be able to offer much argumentation here. 

You are wrong.  I see governments as fact of contemporary life and a necessary part of any solution.  

Both the good ones, which I define as those who live up to instruments such as the IBR (UDHR + ICCPR + ICESCR), Geneva conventions, .... and all the other agreements, conventions and treaties that mandate how people should be treated by governments, and the other ones, the ones you call the bad ones.

I contend that people by and large have the government that they can live with and thus, however poorly, it does represent them to some extent.  In some places there are occasional eruptions of revolutionary fervor that overturns a regime either peacefully or less so, but for the most part people seem to accept their government - because the fact of history have shown us that when the mass of the people do not accept their governments, that government is overturned.  So yes, I think the governments I think of as bad stiil, in some sense, do represent their people to some extent on some issues, e.g. the integrity of the geography they occupy and all that this entails.  I might wish for a world with less nationalistic identification, but I know I am in a very small minority that feels that way.  By the way I am avoiding the complexity of the 'right to protect' that many are beginning to argue internationaly vis a vis human rights in this simplistic analysis of people having the government they are willing to accept.

> (BTW, a true practice of this ideology should entail giving up of all government provided benefits and protection, for the purpose of which ,in the present circumstances, maybe taking up residence in Southern Afganistan will be the best exemplar. Such an experience may be quite insightful.)

Not my position, man. e.g.  I want a government led/regulated single payer health system in the US.  

But you do a good job of arguing ad absurdum.  Be careful though.  When one argues the ad absurdum, I have found, there is always someone you can convince with your absurd argument.  Just look at recent US elections, people can be convinced of anything at times.  But that's representational democracy. I digress.

>   
> Any system systematically developing and enforcing public policies is in effect a government. we can have a good - more inclusive, transparent, accountable, progressive etc - government or governance system, or a bad one. 

I disagree that governance is the province of governments. Any governance system can and should go beyond the governments.  First, all governments are just local affairs for some definition of local, with no world government either in existence or in the offing. Further, governments, the best of which have a strong representative democracy - and there are few that meet this criteria, are just touching the tip of what it means to be democratic.  True democracy builds its base on the representative 1 person 1 vote (though some are still just 1 man 1 vote, or just  1 landowner 1 vote ...) model, but goes far beyond that into participatory democracy.  Representative democracy may be the foundation of democracy, but it does not provide a full edifice for full democracy.

The multistakeholder model that I support is one way of attempting a modicum of participatory democracy while we figure out how that really can work on both the micro and macro democratic levels.  It may be just a start but indeed it is a start.  This model includes as one of it elements the representationally democratic participants from governments (as well as the governments which are less so), and participants representative all of the groups that either devote themselves to the function under governance or who are affected by the function under governance.  How these groups self organize is up to them, and one would hope that they find methods, as the IGC seems to do, that satisfy (or at least satisfice) the representational urgings of its members.  And in some cases, for example those who are truly marginalized (starving, homeless and without the knowledge that his Internet world of ours even exits) there are those who dedicate themselves to representing their interests before those people reach a state of being to represent themselves fully.  There are all sort of levels to be achieved and accommodated in participatory democracy - a phenomenon we do not yet fully understand and which has not yet been achieved anywhere that I know of - though some places, like Brazil seem to be a few steps ahead of the rest.

Note:  Intergovernmental organizations present a real problem for democracy because they are inherently non democratic with the participants in those being largely selected by the  bureaucrats of various governments.  And even when IGO reps are selected by elected officials, they have very little accountability to any of the voters anywhere.

And yes, I make it a practice to fight for accountability and transparency in any group I am involved in.  Do you?  I think that is as fundamental as representational democracy to full democracy.

> 
> So, can you, Avri, specifically state whether you are against the suggested governance model or against any system of effectively developing global public policies related to the Internet, and enforcing them.

Ouch, a gotcha question.  You are good!

I am against any model of governance that minimizes participation by some groups of people to the advantage of other groups; be they national groups, trans national groups, marginalized groups, the 'techno-fascinated' as you so generously put it, business groups, academic groups, civil society groups ...

I am against any governance system dominated by a single government, multilateral government, intergovernmental organizations, the business sector, the technical community or even by civil society. That is, I am against single stakeholder governance models.

I am against any governance model that enforces centralized governance.

I am against globally active or pro--active governance that tells others what to do from a top down perspective.

I favor governance models that include all of the stakeholders in a decentralized model.

I favor governance models that by and large allow operational groups to do what they do best with exception based multistakeholder oversight that only comes in when there is a problem or an appeal.

Specific enough?


> If not the latter, which I truely hope, then what is your suggested global model for global Internet related public policies - which is the subject matter and the primary concern of the Tunis Agenda, and to which the process of 'enhanced cooperation' relates. And how can your suggested model take care of all the aspects of political governance of the Internet, including what may be called as 'progressive' (i can discuss this term more if you want), beyond just some narrow technical matters, which are expressly excluded from the ambit of the enhanced cooperation as per the Tunis agenda.

While I can support various multistakeholder appointed groups that can review problems in enhanced cooperations and make recommendations, I do not support the GIO/GIC model of centralized active intrusive oversight you are proposing. Did not support it when I was on WGIG, and do not support it now.  I do support appeals teams and arbitration, sometimes binding sometimes not binding, at times.

When it comes to advisory bodies who watch and comment and have a bully pulpit and a connector function, I look for formulas that give all stakeholders equal participation.  I can think of various way of doing it.  Those participants appointed by governments should include a range of participations from their governments, their private sectors and their civil society.  The technical community, private sector and civil society ... participants should be geographically diverse with different skill sets and knowledge bases.  The fact that most people wear several hats and have a various stakeholder associations should be recognized and there should be a smattering of people who span several of the communities.  People should only serve on these for a few years and there should be very few Pooh-bahs who sit on every committee of every group - i.e there should be lots of turn over with very few professional committee members, but lots of diversity from many different stakeholder groups and geographies and ...

So to the question do we need a new global IG process, I would answer no.

Do we need more maturing and participation by all stakeholders in global IG processes we have? Yes.

Do we need some sort of soft governance to aid in furthering enhanced cooperation?  Yes, though I do think that the IGF, if it is allowed to continue and allowed to grow along its current trajectory, goes a long way in this regard.  Remember that cooperation is mutual and includes willingness - we are _not_ talking about Enforced Cooperation, but Enhanced Cooperation.  At least I hope we aren't.

And finally do we need some sort of appeals/arbitration mechanisms for when cooperation breaks down?  To this I would also answer yes.

a.

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

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

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

From parminder at itforchange.net  Sat Nov  6 11:08:57 2010
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Sat, 06 Nov 2010 20:38:57 +0530
Subject: [governance] Re: SECOND DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC108D805@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
References: <70E573F5-00B4-4837-89B7-C05B9DA7E479@ciroap.org> <7.0.1.0.2.20101103021355.05d70e60@jefsey.com> <5B31379A-A914-4BE1-945B-EEF2478BA1DC@ciroap.org> <7.0.1.0.2.20101103094622.0651ee20@jefsey.com> <3FE17A9E-E507-44DA-8AE2-EC7EC56DD1D8@ciroap.org> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006DA4@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4CD17823.8010108@itforchange.net> <AANLkTikONmgaa+4rO+uZkAv4YrPDfSV4aP9YKk_=Lgox@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20101104103504.057fdc48@jefsey.com> <08B126B5-B3AB-4A91-B8BC-A90579C6EF5A@ciroap.org> <4CD4CF03.3000900@itforchange.net> <AANLkTi=gWOfhnaJd385OJ0XNjtbSjaCgEAOA-6KLsNEe@mail.gmail.com> <4CD555E8.2040707@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC108D805@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <4CD56F89.3060506@itforchange.net>



On Saturday 06 November 2010 08:01 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>
> Parminder:
>
> A bit tendentious, as usual.
>

I am happy to return the compliment :). You pulled this graph from the 
wikipedia site, but did not give the link to the whole page where the 
picture is much more mixed. ( 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_India )
>
> While the overall number of poor in India is very large, as a 
> percentage of the total population it has halved since the 1970s and 
> the slope of the downward line seems to have increased since economic 
> liberalization.
>

Things have been improving no doubt slowly  over long periods. But it is 
hardly satisfactory. And absolute numbers do count, dont they? Some 
indicators like malnutritions and other health related statistics may 
even be stagnant. Indian incidently is called the hunger capital of the 
world with mal-nutrition stats worse then that of Sub Saharan africa.

 From the same wikipedia article you saw

    The World Bank <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Bank>, citing
    estimates made by the World Health Organization
    <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Health_Organization>, states
    "that about 49 per cent of the world's underweight children, 34 per
    cent of the world's stunted children and 46 per cent of the world's
    wasted children, live in India." The World Bank also noted that
    "[w]hile poverty is often the underlying cause of malnutrition in
    children, the superior economic growth experienced by South Asian
    countries compared to those in Sub-Saharan Africa, has not
    translated into superior nutritional status for the South Asian
    child."^[57]
    <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_India#cite_note-56> 


> Tell me if this statistical graph is incorrect: 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:BPL_Data_GOI.png
>
As mentioned above, If you read the same wikipedia entry  from where you 
took this graph you will see that the picture is much more complex and 
contested. To see more about these contestations about India's poverty 
statistics see http://www.prb.org/Articles/2010/indiapoverty.aspx .

I am not selling India's poverty, but the widespread notions about 
resurgent India breaking away all barriers need to be taken with some 
salt, as they say. And so is the IT revolution. There is this tendency 
to see everything IT automatically and neutrally useful to all, an 
argument used to keep political stuff away from this arena. It is in 
this regard that the India's poverty argument was originally made. This 
argument is to that extent very relevant to the present discussion 
whether we need appropriate global Internet related public policies or not.


> Most sources I see, admittedly second-hand, indicate that the 
> bureaucratic "license Raj" in India stifled growth after the 1950s and 
> that poverty has decreased since the 1980s liberalizing reforms.
>
Yes, 'license raj' had become bad, and liberalisation has been useful. 
But things are not black and white. The more recent plunges into 
wholesale neoliberalism are leading to very uneven growth, and very 
unsatisfactory situation vis a vis general human development levels (see 
the UNDP HDR report) . Parminder

> *From:* parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net]
> *Sent:* Saturday, November 06, 2010 9:20 AM
> *To:* McTim
> *Cc:* governance at lists.cpsr.org
> *Subject:* Re: [governance] Re: SECOND DRAFT statement on enhanced 
> cooperation
>
> McTim
>
> Rest of your responses to my proposal are a bit of a standard exchange 
> between us, and I may have not have much new to say, but I will like 
> to make a comment on the following.
>
> On Saturday 06 November 2010 01:26 PM, McTim wrote:
>
>     >  
>
>     >  And if we think there is a global vacuum vis a vis global IG policies, what
>
>     >  is our analysis about whose interests such a vacuum serves,
>
>          
>
> It seems to have served innovation quite well, built economies and
> eco-sytems.  Look at your own backyard to find the
>   
>    
>
> About my backyard, two things
>
> one, pl read this article about the recent 2010 UNDP HDR report, from 
> which I quote
>
> "India has failed to make any significant improvement in its poverty 
> figures,with over 400 million -- more than the total in the poorest 
> African nations -- still struck in poverty, the Human Development 
> Report 2010 said today, listing India at the 119th position on the 
> Human Development Index." ( some more details, that may be startling 
> to some, at 
> http://www.mydigitalfc.com/economy/indias-growth-fails-translate-poverty-alleviation-hdr-024 
> )
>
> One may wonder how in this time of ICTs and instant news from all over 
> the world, people seem to keep getting not too right a picture of 
> where and how things really may be in India. Any comments on this?
>
> Second thing about my backyard, I did share with the list a few weeks 
> back, mobile companies are colonizing the mobile Internet in India by 
> the day like nobody's business. Mobile Internet is facebook, google 
> and yahoo, not the neutral and open Internet we seem to be thinking 
> and talking about here. I have no doubt that, going this way, the 
> Internet would soon turn into an instrument of increased dependency of 
> the marginalised on outside forces and agents. Its potential for 
> empowering local, community based processes is being increasingly 
> compromised.
>
> So, yes, I do look at my backyard, and my comments and my proposal are 
> informed by it.
>
> Parminder
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101106/b3ba07e1/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From jeremy at ciroap.org  Sat Nov  6 11:37:55 2010
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2010 22:37:55 +0700
Subject: [governance] New CSTD questionnaire on the IGF
Message-ID: <DEA3517D-4B37-4612-8A60-57AAD92C138E@ciroap.org>

In addition to the existing CSTD questionnaire on WSIS outcomes, the second questionnaire on IGF improvements has just been released at http://www.unctad.org/cstd.  Meanwhile, we've been informed that "due to diverging opinions", the composition of the working group has not yet been decided and that consultations about this issue are still underway.

So until the CSTD's IGF working group is officially appointed, my suggestion is that the nominees that our nomcom put forward for that group should put their heads together and come up with a draft response to the questionnaire for us.  (In fact Izumi and I had discussed that they could do this for the earlier CSTD questionnaire too.)

If this is OK with everyone, I'll set up another new mailing list for that group, and add the nominated members to it.  We'll ask them to put together a draft response to the questionnaire, and to run it past the main mailing list not later than 12 November (a week before the deadline).

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

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

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101106/76a987fc/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101106/76a987fc/attachment.bin>

From katitza at eff.org  Sat Nov  6 11:49:22 2010
From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez)
Date: Sat, 06 Nov 2010 08:49:22 -0700
Subject: [governance] New CSTD questionnaire on the IGF
In-Reply-To: <DEA3517D-4B37-4612-8A60-57AAD92C138E@ciroap.org>
References: <DEA3517D-4B37-4612-8A60-57AAD92C138E@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <4CD57902.8030603@eff.org>

Thanks Jeremy. OK. I have one more additional comment. We should also 
encourage organizations on their own to submit their own comments, 
specially if there are so diverse points of view expressed on the list. 
????



On 11/6/10 8:37 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> In addition to the existing CSTD questionnaire on WSIS outcomes, the 
> second questionnaire on IGF improvements has just been released at 
> http://www.unctad.org/cstd.  Meanwhile, we've been informed that "due 
> to diverging opinions", the composition of the working group has not 
> yet been decided and that consultations about this issue are still 
> underway.
>
> So until the CSTD's IGF working group is officially appointed, my 
> suggestion is that the nominees that our nomcom put forward for that 
> group should put their heads together and come up with a draft 
> response to the questionnaire for us.  (In fact Izumi and I had 
> discussed that they could do this for the earlier CSTD questionnaire too.)
>
> If this is OK with everyone, I'll set up another new mailing list for 
> that group, and add the nominated members to it.  We'll ask them to 
> put together a draft response to the questionnaire, and to run it past 
> the main mailing list not later than 12 November (a week before the 
> deadline).
>
> -- 
>
> *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.
>


-- 
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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101106/80f929bd/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From jeremy at ciroap.org  Sat Nov  6 11:49:31 2010
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2010 22:49:31 +0700
Subject: [governance] New CSTD questionnaire on the IGF
Message-ID: <62F1E88A-AC83-4D93-A565-E07E98627479@ciroap.org>

In addition to the existing CSTD questionnaire on WSIS outcomes, the second questionnaire on IGF improvements has just been released at http://www.unctad.org/cstd.  Meanwhile, we've been informed that "due to diverging opinions", the composition of the working group has not yet been decided and that consultations about this issue are still underway.

So until the CSTD's IGF working group is officially appointed, my suggestion is that the nominees that our nomcom put forward for that group should put their heads together and come up with a draft response to the questionnaire for us.  (In fact Izumi and I had discussed that they could do this for the earlier CSTD questionnaire too.)

If this is OK with everyone, I'll set up another new mailing list for that group, and add the nominated members to it.  We'll ask them to put together a draft response to the questionnaire, and to run it past the main mailing list not later than 12 November (a week before the deadline).

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

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

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101106/6cf479b1/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101106/6cf479b1/attachment.bin>

From katitza at eff.org  Sat Nov  6 12:25:47 2010
From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez)
Date: Sat, 06 Nov 2010 09:25:47 -0700
Subject: [governance] New CSTD questionnaire on the IGF
In-Reply-To: <4CD57902.8030603@eff.org>
References: <DEA3517D-4B37-4612-8A60-57AAD92C138E@ciroap.org> <4CD57902.8030603@eff.org>
Message-ID: <4CD5818B.80201@eff.org>

Jeremy,

My concern is related to the lack of civil society organizations who are 
actively participating within the IGF - CSTD process but who are quite 
active in the IG field at the national level, regional level, within the 
OECD, WIPO, Council of Europe, European Commission, ASEAN, APEC, or 
other processes. A discussion on the future of the IGF pop up in the 
last ICCP meeting at the OECD.

This discussion touch several areas beyond CIR, like Access to Knowledge 
/ Digital Education (copyright cops copyright enforcement agenda), 
Cybersecurity (Privacy, Freedom of Expression, Association), Child 
Protection (Privacy, freedom of expression).  A decision about a global 
IG space to discuss global Internet Public Policy issues with binding 
agreements need to involved, not only those who are members of IGC and 
participate in their own personal capacity, but also those organizations 
who are also actually working on the field, and who are not involved in 
the politics of what is going on here. Yes, the Librarians, the A2K 
movement, the privacy advocate community, the actual FOE organizations.

A few thoughts for an early Saturday morning

Katitza


On 11/6/10 8:49 AM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote:
> Thanks Jeremy. OK. I have one more additional comment. We should also 
> encourage organizations on their own to submit their own comments, 
> specially if there are so diverse points of view expressed on the 
> list. ????
>
>
>
> On 11/6/10 8:37 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>> In addition to the existing CSTD questionnaire on WSIS outcomes, the 
>> second questionnaire on IGF improvements has just been released at 
>> http://www.unctad.org/cstd.  Meanwhile, we've been informed that "due 
>> to diverging opinions", the composition of the working group has not 
>> yet been decided and that consultations about this issue are still 
>> underway.
>>
>> So until the CSTD's IGF working group is officially appointed, my 
>> suggestion is that the nominees that our nomcom put forward for that 
>> group should put their heads together and come up with a draft 
>> response to the questionnaire for us.  (In fact Izumi and I had 
>> discussed that they could do this for the earlier CSTD questionnaire 
>> too.)
>>
>> If this is OK with everyone, I'll set up another new mailing list for 
>> that group, and add the nominated members to it.  We'll ask them to 
>> put together a draft response to the questionnaire, and to run it 
>> past the main mailing list not later than 12 November (a week before 
>> the deadline).
>>
>> -- 
>>
>> *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.
>>
>
>
> -- 
> 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


-- 
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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101106/eb49aadd/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From katitza at eff.org  Sat Nov  6 12:27:38 2010
From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez)
Date: Sat, 06 Nov 2010 09:27:38 -0700
Subject: [governance] New CSTD questionnaire on the IGF
In-Reply-To: <4CD5818B.80201@eff.org>
References: <DEA3517D-4B37-4612-8A60-57AAD92C138E@ciroap.org> <4CD57902.8030603@eff.org> <4CD5818B.80201@eff.org>
Message-ID: <4CD581FA.60509@eff.org>

My concern is related to the lack of civil society organizations who are 
NOT participating in the IGF - CSTD process

````````
Jeremy,

My concern is related to the lack of civil society organizations who are 
NOT participating in the IGF - CSTD process but who are quite active in 
the IG field at the national level, regional level, within the OECD, 
WIPO, Council of Europe, European Commission, ASEAN, APEC, or other 
processes. A discussion on the future of the IGF pop up in the last ICCP 
meeting at the OECD.

This discussion touch several areas beyond CIR, like Access to Knowledge 
/ Digital Education (copyright cops copyright enforcement agenda), 
Cybersecurity (Privacy, Freedom of Expression, Association), Child 
Protection (Privacy, freedom of expression).  A decision about a global 
IG space to discuss global Internet Public Policy issues with binding 
agreements need to involved, not only those who are members of IGC and 
participate in their own personal capacity, but also those organizations 
who are also actually working on the field, and who are not involved in 
the politics of what is going on here. Yes, the Librarians, the A2K 
movement, the privacy advocate community, the actual FOE organizations.

A few thoughts for an early Saturday morning

Katitza
>
>
>
> On 11/6/10 8:49 AM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote:
>> Thanks Jeremy. OK. I have one more additional comment. We should also 
>> encourage organizations on their own to submit their own comments, 
>> specially if there are so diverse points of view expressed on the 
>> list. ????
>>
>>
>>
>> On 11/6/10 8:37 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>>> In addition to the existing CSTD questionnaire on WSIS outcomes, the 
>>> second questionnaire on IGF improvements has just been released at 
>>> http://www.unctad.org/cstd.  Meanwhile, we've been informed that 
>>> "due to diverging opinions", the composition of the working group 
>>> has not yet been decided and that consultations about this issue are 
>>> still underway.
>>>
>>> So until the CSTD's IGF working group is officially appointed, my 
>>> suggestion is that the nominees that our nomcom put forward for that 
>>> group should put their heads together and come up with a draft 
>>> response to the questionnaire for us.  (In fact Izumi and I had 
>>> discussed that they could do this for the earlier CSTD questionnaire 
>>> too.)
>>>
>>> If this is OK with everyone, I'll set up another new mailing list 
>>> for that group, and add the nominated members to it.  We'll ask them 
>>> to put together a draft response to the questionnaire, and to run it 
>>> past the main mailing list not later than 12 November (a week before 
>>> the deadline).
>>>
>>> -- 
>>>
>>> *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.
>>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> 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
>
>
> -- 
> 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


-- 
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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101106/b7aac784/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From katitza at eff.org  Sat Nov  6 12:38:13 2010
From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez)
Date: Sat, 06 Nov 2010 09:38:13 -0700
Subject: [governance] New CSTD questionnaire on the IGF
In-Reply-To: <4CD581FA.60509@eff.org>
References: <DEA3517D-4B37-4612-8A60-57AAD92C138E@ciroap.org> <4CD57902.8030603@eff.org> <4CD5818B.80201@eff.org> <4CD581FA.60509@eff.org>
Message-ID: <4CD58475.90609@eff.org>

I do apologize for my previous emails. It is Saturday morning and I am 
jetlagged. Here is a better email that I hope shows my general 
brainstorming on the matter.

Greetings,

My concern is related to the lack of civil society organizations who are 
NOT participating in the IGF - CSTD process but who are quite active in 
the IG field at the national level, regional level, within the OECD, 
WIPO, Council of Europe, European Commission, ASEAN, APEC, or other 
processes. A discussion on the future of the IGF pop up in the last ICCP 
meeting at the OECD.

This discussion touch several areas beyond CIR, like Access to Knowledge 
/ Digital Education (copyright cops copyright enforcement agenda), 
Cybersecurity (Privacy, Freedom of Expression, Association), Child 
Protection (Privacy, freedom of expression).  A decision about weather 
or not a global IG space should be created to discuss global Internet 
Public Policy issues with binding agreements need to include, not only 
those who are members of IGC and participate in their own personal 
capacity, but also those organizations and individuals who are also 
working on the field, and who are not involved in the politics of what 
is going on here. Yes, the Librarians, the A2K movement, the privacy 
advocate community, the actual FOE organizations.

I also want to share with all of you that as of now, I can't grasp the 
overall politics beyond what IGC members said on the list, and what it 
has been published on the media. <1> While I can guess the position of 
different or some governments, I can't grasp the opinions of other 
governments, and other stakeholders. I want to know why and what was the 
reasoning behind the question about weather or not we were able to 
choose some technical representatives and the CSTD were not able to do 
so directly. Are there governments which are not ok with it?

<1> Controversy Over New IGF Mandate, UN Role In Internet Governance
http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2010/11/04/controversy-over-new-igf-mandate-un-role-in-internet-governance/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ip-watch+%28Intellectual+Property+Watch%29

A few thoughts for an early Saturday morning

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

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

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


From roland at internetpolicyagency.com  Sat Nov  6 13:04:03 2010
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2010 17:04:03 +0000
Subject: [governance] New CSTD questionnaire on the IGF
In-Reply-To: <4CD58475.90609@eff.org>
References: <DEA3517D-4B37-4612-8A60-57AAD92C138E@ciroap.org>
 <4CD57902.8030603@eff.org> <4CD5818B.80201@eff.org> <4CD581FA.60509@eff.org>
 <4CD58475.90609@eff.org>
Message-ID: <AxPboCyDqY1MFARq@internetpolicyagency.com>

In message <4CD58475.90609 at eff.org>, at 09:38:13 on Sat, 6 Nov 2010, 
Katitza Rodriguez <katitza at eff.org> writes
>I want to know why and what was the reasoning behind the question about 
>weather or not we were able to choose some technical representatives 
>and the CSTD were not able to do so directly. Are there governments 
>which are not ok with it?

I strongly recommend you watch the archived webcast of Frederic Riehl's 
the lunchtime consultation session in Vilnius. Many stakeholders 
(including Governments) spoke against the proposition that the CSTD 
committee should have a "WGIG style" composition of 20+10+10 
(government, private sector and civil society) on the grounds that the 
technical community had established itself as a separate stakeholder 
group as a result of the WSIS process.

We've seen one attempt at a compromise, but know from today's 
announcement that there are still "diverging opinions", and we can only 
assume those opinions are broadly in line with what was said in Vilnius.

(My only involvement in the process is what you've seen posted to this 
list.)
-- 
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 wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de  Sat Nov  6 13:19:02 2010
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=)
Date: Sat, 06 Nov 2010 18:19:02 +0100
Subject: AW: [governance] Re: SECOND DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
References: <70E573F5-00B4-4837-89B7-C05B9DA7E479@ciroap.org>
 <7.0.1.0.2.20101103021355.05d70e60@jefsey.com>
 <5B31379A-A914-4BE1-945B-EEF2478BA1DC@ciroap.org>
 <7.0.1.0.2.20101103094622.0651ee20@jefsey.com>
 <3FE17A9E-E507-44DA-8AE2-EC7EC56DD1D8@ciroap.org>
 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006DA4@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
 <4CD17823.8010108@itforchange.net>
 <AANLkTikONmgaa+4rO+uZkAv4YrPDfSV4aP9YKk_=Lgox@mail.gmail.com>
 <7.0.1.0.2.20101104103504.057fdc48@jefsey.com>
 <08B126B5-B3AB-4A91-B8BC-A90579C6EF5A@ciroap.org>
 <4CD4CF03.3000900@itforchange.net>
 <D1E1B737-C8E1-4657-8A1A-FDB3E30DB92D@psg.com>
 <4CD4E70D.8010807@itforchange.net>
 <806E2BA2-1AE8-45DE-A870-5F90AF3C0032@psg.com>
Message-ID:  <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A073C5@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

Hi all
 
It makes little sense to continue a theoretical discussion on "enhanced cooperation" when the practical process is moving forward and is creating new facts and opportunities. Do not underestimate the outcome of the ITU PP in Guadalajara with regard to "enhanced cooperation". In my eyes this is really a door opener and a breakthorugh towards a new more issue related "enhanced cooperation" among all players. The fact that the ITU calls in a resolution, adopted by all its 193 member states, for greater "collaboration and coordination" (remember our EC³ definition of enhanced cooperation from 2007) between the ITU on the one hand and ICANN, RIR, W3C, IETF and ISOC (on a reciprocity basis) on the other hand is very remarkable. If you take it seriously what Toure told Kieran Mc Carthy in his interview and look into Beckstroms letter to the ITU from June (published only recently) than you can see that "enhanced cooperation" is moving forward in the right way and gets substance.  
 
We did not discuss here the idea to create a network of formal arrangements, something like an "IG Web", among all these governmental and non-governmental players. UNESCO (an intergovernmental organisation) and ICANN (a private corporation) created an interesting model of a formalized IG oriented mutual bilateral relationship. The "Letter of Intent" (LOI), signed in Vilnjus, is a good source of inspiration, also for a formalization of the ICANN-ITU relationship. Will we see more of them, also with other players? Probably we will see the emergence of a network of fomalized bilatertal relationship in a very multilateral/multistakeholder environment. I called this previously the IG "Spaghetti Ball". So enhanced cooperation is moving foreward. 
 
Wolfgang
 
 
EC³ was defined - in an expert meeting during following the 2007 Summer School on Internet Governance as follows "Enhanced cooperation in Internet Governance is the enhanced communication, coordination and collaboration (EC³) among non-govenrmental and inter-governmental institutions and organisations in developing norms, principles, programmes and procedures for the governance of the Internet in an informal or, when and where needed, formalized way." 

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

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

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

From roland at internetpolicyagency.com  Sat Nov  6 13:21:54 2010
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2010 17:21:54 +0000
Subject: [governance] It's Time to Stop ICANN's Top-Level Domain (TLD)
In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC108D804@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
References: <AANLkTi=9FgeC19PF-O4exhW_kj+LXAj8u_PSQ-cmmRgX@mail.gmail.com>
 <C8FAB765.13310%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006DC9@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
 <wGDnl5Mw0Q1MFAUs@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC108D804@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <Hhzasdzy6Y1MFARd@internetpolicyagency.com>

In message 
<75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC108D804 at SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>, 
at 10:23:08 on Sat, 6 Nov 2010, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> 
writes
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Roland Perry [mailto:roland at internetpolicyagency.com]
>>
>> We should not forget the history - new gTLDs have been introduced
>> steadily over the last ten years; starting with .biz .info and .museum,
>> and finishing (I would say) with .post this year; and has always been a
>
>Not quite correct. The first round (in 2000), was considered an 
>"experiment" or "proof of concept". Only 7 were added.
>The second round was artificially restricted to so-called "sponsored 
>top level domains" although that restriction ended up being honored 
>more in the breach than in substance. Only 8 or so more were added.

Slowly and steadily added, and yes there were deliberate attempts to 
explore different models to see which worked best.

>What needs to happen, and is finally happening now, is to define a 
>standardized process to apply for and get new TLDs, so that this is a 
>routine part of ICANN's process and not considered some big exception 
>or massive privilege. As new linguistic groups and communities come on 
>to the internet there will always be a demand for new top level domains.

And this was always going to happen once the experimental phase was 
over.

>> But later on, a problem arose with the application for .xxx, in so far
>> as the decision-making process (to use Vint Cerf's words) "failed to
>> converge". Every time it came to a vote, the board seemed to be more
>
>This is not what happened, either. What happened is that the US 
>government intervened after the decision was made and threw the whole 
>process off the rails. This is well documented in the .xxx independent 
>review process. So well documented, that ICM Registry won.

I remember sitting in the room (at an ICANN meeting) when Vint gave the 
explanation I have recounted above. And I remember one of the split 
votes, with board members making additional statements about what had 
(or had not) influenced their decision either way.

>> He therefore resolved to create (and I simplify) a new "one size fits
>> all" approval process which would streamline the situation and remove as
>> much as possible of the subjective decision-making. Which is the DAG etc
>> that we see coming ever closer to delivery.
>
>False again. The decision to create an ongoing new TLD addition process 
>had nothing to do with the .xxx mess

Again, I recall Vint saying that .xxx was the last one where they wanted 
to use an individualised process, with no more applications under the 
"old schemes".

> - indeed, the preparation for a new TLD process preceded the .xxx 
>fiasco.

Starting the preparations for that transition as early as possible is a 
prudent activity.

>Developing an ongoing process is perfectly sensible

I agree. This wasn't supposed to be a posting about .xxx - more an 
introduction to the new gTLD regime as a logical development.

-- 
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 dogwallah at gmail.com  Sat Nov  6 13:36:58 2010
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2010 20:36:58 +0300
Subject: [governance] Re: SECOND DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <4CD5603F.50507@itforchange.net>
References: <70E573F5-00B4-4837-89B7-C05B9DA7E479@ciroap.org>
 <7.0.1.0.2.20101103021355.05d70e60@jefsey.com> <5B31379A-A914-4BE1-945B-EEF2478BA1DC@ciroap.org>
 <7.0.1.0.2.20101103094622.0651ee20@jefsey.com> <3FE17A9E-E507-44DA-8AE2-EC7EC56DD1D8@ciroap.org>
 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006DA4@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
 <4CD17823.8010108@itforchange.net> <AANLkTikONmgaa+4rO+uZkAv4YrPDfSV4aP9YKk_=Lgox@mail.gmail.com>
 <7.0.1.0.2.20101104103504.057fdc48@jefsey.com> <08B126B5-B3AB-4A91-B8BC-A90579C6EF5A@ciroap.org>
 <4CD4CF03.3000900@itforchange.net> <AANLkTi=gWOfhnaJd385OJ0XNjtbSjaCgEAOA-6KLsNEe@mail.gmail.com>
 <4CD555E8.2040707@itforchange.net> <4CD5603F.50507@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=VWbRZGiAZMkR7R5BYGFCDxyhYTKt5R28V+Mco@mail.gmail.com>

Continued poverty in India or uneven income distribution in the USA

On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 5:03 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
> McTim
>
> And if, in response to my cited figures about India, you may want to say
> that the real full impact of ICTs may be yet to come to India,

I don't know if I should respond to you anymore, since you seem to
want to tell me what i am about to say, even though it's miles off the
mark!

 you may be
> interested in the statistics of the 'front yard' , the US, where the new
> innovation based 'ecosystems' you speak of have had the longest play.


Continued poverty in India or uneven income distribution in the USA is
not a revelation.  It is undeniable however that ICTs have played a
large role in developing both economies.

I find your argument to be a red-herring, if you wish to address the
substance of my reply to you (I want less governmental interference in
Internet matters, while you seem to want more), then maybe we can have
further constructive discussion.

-- 
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 katitza at eff.org  Sat Nov  6 14:31:42 2010
From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez)
Date: Sat, 06 Nov 2010 11:31:42 -0700
Subject: [governance] Our strategy, work plan and outreach
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikgc=5J4TyJW3LJ+XnJ=dzC=+rUNsw-j2+CFKUY@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTinnXi7Vw_X6Ggtb+w8qPe6RBdK50jMxrFCiPFqM@mail.gmail.com> <4CCD917E.4090209@paque.net> <791103.54415.qm@web55201.mail.re4.yahoo.com> <AANLkTinskYBxr4HpkfHSqoWujwQtGwKGncXPg5Sa07_O@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTimvmRgi35sKohwr4ky7q_hP1M6V-vBp_cVr5i9=@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTikfrSHy3L=wrzO0D50DF8rASHQPTHu3B1N1xUyw@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTimby0ze1byeL3QkyEO3SOyBY1XjJpJ+R8E4qq+i@mail.gmail.com> <241F3D53-5A84-4E08-9494-C8E65DBD208A@ciroap.org> <AANLkTinK-M3VGXqLKtMSKUvVODBTsUtYcNm9Bav2xhrn@mail.gmail.com> <36496.3544.qm@web55207.mail.re4.yahoo.com> <4C8D158F-D320-49B4-96AE-C13B50B00681@ciroap.org> <AANLkTimYW3Rw_3b5oDK05-1xetV4=_skxYehEL3qJeq2@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTikE76yOr5Omn-ZpOVuVwkq=js5PztLOFzx-fiY1@mail.gmail.com> <423191.63019.qm@web33006.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <AANLkTikgc=5J4TyJW3LJ+XnJ=dzC=+rUNsw-j2+CFKUY@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4CD59F0E.6020502@eff.org>

Hi Rafik

EFF Senior Staff technologist, Peter Eckersley, is participating in this 
IAB meeting,

Best,

Katitza


On 11/3/10 2:20 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote:
> Hi Imran,
>
> it was just an example http://www.iab.org/about/workshops/privacy/ and 
> it is not related to IETF meeting which will be held in Beijing.
>
> Rafik

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

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

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


From kichango at gmail.com  Sat Nov  6 17:41:34 2010
From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango)
Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2010 17:41:34 -0400
Subject: [governance] Re: SECOND DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=VWbRZGiAZMkR7R5BYGFCDxyhYTKt5R28V+Mco@mail.gmail.com>
References: <70E573F5-00B4-4837-89B7-C05B9DA7E479@ciroap.org>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20101103021355.05d70e60@jefsey.com>
	<5B31379A-A914-4BE1-945B-EEF2478BA1DC@ciroap.org>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20101103094622.0651ee20@jefsey.com>
	<3FE17A9E-E507-44DA-8AE2-EC7EC56DD1D8@ciroap.org>
	<93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006DA4@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
	<4CD17823.8010108@itforchange.net>
	<AANLkTikONmgaa+4rO+uZkAv4YrPDfSV4aP9YKk_=Lgox@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20101104103504.057fdc48@jefsey.com>
	<08B126B5-B3AB-4A91-B8BC-A90579C6EF5A@ciroap.org>
	<4CD4CF03.3000900@itforchange.net>
	<AANLkTi=gWOfhnaJd385OJ0XNjtbSjaCgEAOA-6KLsNEe@mail.gmail.com>
	<4CD555E8.2040707@itforchange.net>
	<4CD5603F.50507@itforchange.net>
	<AANLkTi=VWbRZGiAZMkR7R5BYGFCDxyhYTKt5R28V+Mco@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTinkuij2jM=ZZpKBPC9q--Hy8joGVNmW96bQ2eKr@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

Wolfgang, so in those examples of progress on EC you gave, where is the CS?
Is the implication that in those formalizations of bilateral relationships
between organizations, ICANN carries the voice of CS? Or is something in the
works to bring the public party CS (ie, NGOs and their coalitions such as
IGC) into those arrangements?

McTim, I couldn't even believe that you went there when I read your quoting
of the Declaration of Independence of Cyberspace.
You certainly don't believe that it still decribes anything near the reality
of government role and capabilities vis-a-vis the cyberspace *today*, do
you?! If you don't, as I'm inclined to believe, then I'm trying to
understand what else is being communicated here. (See below my commentary
about the whole anti-government slogan.)

I read Parminder's "counter-proposal" (just to distinguish... or "alternate
proposal") as a possible detailing of the last option under paragraph 2 in
the "Second draft statement on enhanced cooperation" which started this
thread:

* establishing a new umbrella governance institution for Internet policy
development, with space for the participation of each stakeholder group in
its respective role.

Now some may prefer not to commit to a specific preference or set of
preferences (and it seems like that's what the proposed draft is doing,
limitting itself to the broad level description or to the listing of all
different types/models one can reasonably think of) - while some others may
want to indicate a specific preference or set of preferences with the most
likelihood to foster a progressive agenda.

I would rather support the latter.

That being said, Parminder has written either too much or too little :) By
that I mean I'm not sure whether it is necessary to get to the detail of the
exact composition/membership etc, in this statement. If that were to be the
case, then we would need to work a little more on that first rough
counter-draft as he himself has acknowledged. For example one major
reservation I would have is to avoid making it a government-led model (first
rows for governments, folding seats for the rest.) And this is less
dependent on the distribution of stakeholder representatives in the room
than the rules governing their interactions and processes.

***
Re. the anti-government/state utopia:

Now whether we like it or not, states are in our midst - they are IG
stakeholders and powerful ones. We still heavily depend on laws they make
and enforce. And gone are the days when we could think of the cyberspace as
an island completely isolated from the world where states rule - which
also happens to be the world where actual users and providers (outside the
screens and servers that give live to cyberspace) live and own the
proprieties involved in their subsistance. Now you can choose to keep on
believing in your Declaration which IMHO is based on the equivalent of the
"state of nature" of the cyberspace, or you can try and work out a "civil
state" that would guarantee as many as possible of the ideals included in
the initial Declaration based on a clearly defined and agreed upon regime of
rights and responsibilities. (Notes: 1) I do admire John Perry Barlow for
that inspiration; 2) as you must have noticed, I'm reasoning along the lines
of social contract theories, and the last two occurrences of the term
"state" here refer to a condition, not to state as in 'nation-state.')

This is like repeating the exact same flaw that you (McTim, implicitly at
least, but also Karl and a few others) were pointing to in the post about
getting rid of the ICANN's DNS). Here it goes: governments can do very bad
things, therefore let's get rid of governments (from the cyberspace... for
the time being, I guess.) Yes, governments can do very very bad things. But
they will do them anyway, behind the curtains and for the sake of their
particular interests of the moment. There is an African proverb that says
(roughly remembered and translated) something like: if you put the witch or
the malevolent in custody of a good, then they will be less likely to harm
that good... Gee! what a miserable transalation, which does nothing to help
the natural tendency that some may have to mock an attempt to resolve global
governance issues with an African proverb about witches, does it... but I'm
sure with a bit of benevolence, you'll get my drift. The wisdom is that
putting the potential source of evil under watch, in broad day light, where
it can be called out to account if something goes wrong with their
responsibilities might just be a more effective protection/defense.

Just in case the African proverb still does not do the trick, let's get even
heavier: Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarism, where she
critically analyzes the liberal political philosophy that shaped the peace
treaties between the two world wars, and reflects on their failure to
effectively protect minorities as they intended. She knows something
about the cost to *stateless* Jews of pretending that liberty and other
fundamental rights can empirically exist and survive without a state. On a
lighter note: watching the political news in the US, I'm always a bit
perplexed that so many organizations and people reportedly against the
government (or for small government) spend so much time and energy running
for office or huge amounts of money lobbying the government. Assuming they
really have nothing to gain from the government, I'm wonder: isntead of
being thrown into the processes of governing, maybe such amounts of money
would help more effectly shrink the government if they were invested for
empowering grassroots efforts for the development of communities (removing
all justification for government to grow with socio-economic welfare
programs.)

Maybe just a little more than my 2 cents.

Mawaki



On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 1:36 PM, McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:

> Continued poverty in India or uneven income distribution in the USA
>
> On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 5:03 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
> wrote:
> > McTim
> >
> > And if, in response to my cited figures about India, you may want to say
> > that the real full impact of ICTs may be yet to come to India,
>
> I don't know if I should respond to you anymore, since you seem to
> want to tell me what i am about to say, even though it's miles off the
> mark!
>
>  you may be
> > interested in the statistics of the 'front yard' , the US, where the new
> > innovation based 'ecosystems' you speak of have had the longest play.
>
>
> Continued poverty in India or uneven income distribution in the USA is
> not a revelation.  It is undeniable however that ICTs have played a
> large role in developing both economies.
>
> I find your argument to be a red-herring, if you wish to address the
> substance of my reply to you (I want less governmental interference in
> Internet matters, while you seem to want more), then maybe we can have
> further constructive discussion.
>
> --
> 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101106/bf7d5710/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From karl at cavebear.com  Sat Nov  6 18:42:10 2010
From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach)
Date: Sat, 06 Nov 2010 15:42:10 -0700
Subject: [governance] It's Time to Stop ICANN's Top-Level Domain (TLD)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=9FgeC19PF-O4exhW_kj+LXAj8u_PSQ-cmmRgX@mail.gmail.com>
References: <2E2C6ABC-E24E-46D9-B9FB-0054355881CF@psg.com> <C8FAADC9.13306%ian.peter@ianpeter.com> <AANLkTi=9FgeC19PF-O4exhW_kj+LXAj8u_PSQ-cmmRgX@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4CD5D9C2.4030607@cavebear.com>

On 11/05/2010 01:05 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote:

> you mentioned many times resource discovery, can you please clarify what
> you mean by it? I am not sure that everybody here share the same definition.

I also wonder at that claim.

For a few years a lot of people believed that DNS was some sort of 
authoritative directory system.

DNS is no such thing.

It is at best a hinting system - which means that one has to take the 
DNS records with a bit of skepticism.  Unfortunately there is a gap in 
the internet architecture; we don't have a clear layer for 
identification/authentication that can be used to turn those DNS hints 
into something more concrete.

Few of us would call 411 (directory services here in the US), tell the 
operator (usually an electronic person) "connect me to my doctor", and 
then once connected blurt out to the person who answers "I have X, Y, 
and Z diseases".  No, we'd listen to the person who answers and interact 
with him/her to get a sense that we've actually connected with the 
intended person.

But on the internet we do the dumb thing - we trust DNS to give us some 
sort of "authoritative" pointer and then engage in the most sensitive of 
communications without further adieu (or no more than a SSL [that could 
be spoofed by a man-in-the-middle] connection that we don't even bother 
to validate beyond very well.)

As for resource discover - that is a hard thing.

Consider a simple example "print this on the nearest printer".  We did 
that once - and it often turned out that the nearest printer was on the 
floor above or below - which in our building in San Francisco required a 
trip through the security gates between floors to fetch a printout.  The 
"correct" answer in that case of resource discovery would have to 
accommodate something other than raw physical distance.

I did a lot of work on resource proximity when I was part of the 
Advanced Internet Architectures Group at Cisco.  I developed the 
skeletons of a protocol to measure resource proximity taking into 
account the traffic burdens and requirements that would be engendered by 
use of a resource.  (The problem I was trying to solve at that time was 
the binding of video clients to video servers.)  Anyway, Cisco has given 
me permission to publish that internal partial work:  See 
http://www.cavebear.com/cbblog-archives/000151.html (which contains 
pointers to more details.)

(I've also worked a bit on an idea that maps the biological mechanism of 
pheromones onto somewhat randomly wafted packets, but that's for another 
day.)

Getting back to DNS - even if wrapped with DNSSEC and other kinds of 
security, DNS can never be considered perfectly correct - there is too 
much internal caching going on (with cache timeouts of sometimes several 
weeks) and we have expiring names being snapped up and reused, often 
intentionally to grab the lingering traffic.

There are more interesting approaches - like IF-MAP - that make more 
sense for resource discovery.

This hardly means that DNS is moribund.  Rather, DNS is an amazing 
system and ought to survive a very long time as long as its limitations 
are recognized.

My own sense is that DNS will eventually be submerged under a 
multiplicity of discovery and search systems and thus become an internal 
mechanism rarely seen by users.

		--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 nlevins at american.edu  Sat Nov  6 18:45:40 2010
From: nlevins at american.edu (Nanette Levinson)
Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2010 18:45:40 -0400
Subject: [governance] It's Time to Stop ICANN's Top-Level Domain (TLD)
In-Reply-To: <4CD5D9C2.4030607@cavebear.com>
References: <2E2C6ABC-E24E-46D9-B9FB-0054355881CF@psg.com> <C8FAADC9.13306%ian.peter@ianpeter.com> <AANLkTi=9FgeC19PF-O4exhW_kj+LXAj8u_PSQ-cmmRgX@mail.gmail.com>,
	<4CD5D9C2.4030607@cavebear.com>
Message-ID: <OF75768C8A.5954EFA2-ON852577D3.007D0827-852577D3.007D082A@american.edu>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101106/fee67e3e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From jefsey at jefsey.com  Sat Nov  6 18:53:21 2010
From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin)
Date: Sat, 06 Nov 2010 23:53:21 +0100
Subject: [governance] Re: It's Time to Stop ICANN's Top-Level
In-Reply-To: <20101105083752.GA5168@nic.fr>
References: <C8F899BB.131F6%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
 <20101105083752.GA5168@nic.fr>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20101106174943.06a1b8c0@jefsey.com>

At 09:37 05/11/2010, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
>The domain name system does not provide "mapping of names to Internet
>sites", this is very secondary and could be done by other means such
>as DHTs. Its main purpose is to provide stable and reliable
>identifiers. (This is where I would agree with Lauren Weinstein: UDRP
>is an abomination since it breaks this stability: your domain can be
>hijacked with an UDRP at any moment.)

Yes.

However, leasing them to people is worse. One does not rent one's 
name to one's government.

This is why the whole DN issue has to be entirely reshaped (and 
market). Up to now, it was logically advisable. It is now 
strategically urgent, now that IDNA2008 has architecturally triggered 
a separation between the unchanged and solidly confirmed Internet DNS 
function, and the open diversity of the Internet users' open use of 
domain names. "Function" means what everyone can technically do (load 
a running code, provide a nameserver, build db.files, etc.) and "use" 
what everyone can freely do (for exemple, decide as to when he/she 
enters "dumb.nuts" on his/her machine that he/she wants to use to 
reach the ICANN site).

For years people have considered DNs for internet mechanical 
identification only. They forgot that they are names which also 
belong to humans with two consequences:

- they relate to a meaning in a given domain, i.e. to a semantic notion.
- names are for identification (by authority), designation (by me), 
appellation (by us) and denomination (by them).

Both in the linguistic and human diversities context.

Now that the internetwork side of the DNS has stabilized in 
confirming the DNS RFCs in the multilingual context, it is up to the 
interuser side to be worked on. There are at least two major works ahead:

- to explore, design, and document an open use technology that is 
able to match the extension of the users' expectations.
- to test new adminance (long-term planning) schemes, as per ICANN 
ICP-3 document. As such, the testing need is not so much for the 
replication of the existing usage through a FAST TRACK-like legal 
exercise, but rather to support eTLD projects (experimental TLD, 
using a new economic, structural, political, philosophical, etc. scheme).

An example is  our Projet.FRA of a Francophone TLD for an open 
ontology in the French language of which the namespace is the 
taxonomy. This project had to overcome two practical major problems 
created by the "IESOCANNTF" current Internet leading enhanced cooperation:

- the IETF vision of Internet linguistic support, based upon 
Unicode's globalization support strategy (typographic 
internationalization of the media [Unicode/Internet unity], 
localization of the ends [Unicode CLDR project of locale file], 
filtering of the content [based on the Unicode initiated and 
controlled IETF/IANA langtags]).
- the cost, legal obligations, and technical conceptions of an ICANN TLD.

The langtag project was toughly faught and a consensus was found 
(against us) in asking for what we did not want :-). IDNA2008 led to 
some contentions, but the final consensus was found with us. However, 
IDNA2008 does not fully support what we need (for example, French 
"majuscules") or special keyboard signs that are however sold and 
supported by some major registrars). We reported tour solution to the 
IESG they qualified as  research. Wee will actively demand our 
experimental TLD to be entered in the root when we are ready and we 
will enter it in the experimental virtual root matrix as its general 
support and use develop.

IMHO, these are real civil society Internet issues that come prior to 
the MAG or UN, Simply because if they are not addressed, there will 
be no more Internet :-)

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  Sat Nov  6 19:02:05 2010
From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach)
Date: Sat, 06 Nov 2010 16:02:05 -0700
Subject: [governance] It's Time to Stop ICANN's Top-Level Domain (TLD)
In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC108D804@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
References: <AANLkTi=9FgeC19PF-O4exhW_kj+LXAj8u_PSQ-cmmRgX@mail.gmail.com> <C8FAB765.13310%ian.peter@ianpeter.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006DC9@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <wGDnl5Mw0Q1MFAUs@internetpolicyagency.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC108D804@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <4CD5DE6D.8040006@cavebear.com>


I am always surprised at how easily people buy into the belief that 
complex and intrusive inquiries are needed before a new TLD applicant 
can go into lawful business.

It is my feeling that the large bulk of the requirements being developed 
by ICANN derive from a highly paternalistic impulse on the part of 
ICANN, an impulse that we see in Lauren's initial posting that triggered 
this thread.

Paternalism is nice and all that, but it does treat people as children 
who ought not to be able to make their own choices within the scope of 
lawful activities.  As such I see ICANN more as a revival of 19th 
century top-down imperialist institutions than as an expression of 
modern popular governance.

Here's what I believe ought to be sufficient:  A simple promise to abide 
by national laws and printed, freely available, widely honored internet 
technical practices.

I drew up the application form for this back in 2007: 
http://www.cavebear.com/cbblog-archives/000324.html

I figured that it ought to cost less than $100 to file this.

Now, getting through that application would merely place the applicant 
into a pool from which applications would be picked and put into a root 
zone file.

How that latter mechanism I did not address, but it ought to contain a 
significant random-choice or first-come-first-serve component and ought 
not to cost more than a a couple of dollars to administer.

	--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 jlfullsack at orange.fr  Sat Nov  6 19:16:47 2010
From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK)
Date: Sun,  7 Nov 2010 00:16:47 +0100 (CET)
Subject: [governance] Re: SECOND DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
Message-ID: <9953186.115966.1289085407032.JavaMail.www@wwinf1d04>

Dear Parminder and members of the list

I appreciate the debate in progress with these informative and revealing references. Thank you, Parminder for having raised it. 

I'd also stress that the neoliberal thinking and indoctrination is perfectly reflected in the ITU and UNESCO Broadband Commission for Digital Development (sic) based on the dogma "Broadband will save the MDGs" and other rubbish like "+10% Brodband = +1,4 GDP" for making it short. 

This "top-level" Commission (see UNESCO and ITU portals) was launched with great pomp during the last WSIS Forum (I unfortunately couldn't attend it for major family reasons). Without any critical voices coming from civil society, at least as far as I could percieve the echoes through WSIS mailing lists.

The best critical analysis on this Commission I found recently is ... on our friend Michael Gurstein Community Informatics site : 
http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2010/09/27/investment-58--poverty-14 ...  That's why Michael is to be commended. 






> Message du 06/11/10 15:04
> De : "parminder" 
> A : governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Copie à : 
> Objet : Re: [governance] Re: SECOND DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
> 
> McTim
> 
> And if, in response to my cited figures about India, you may want to say that the real full impact of ICTs may be yet to come to India, you may be interested in the statistics of the 'front yard' , the US, where the new innovation based 'ecosystems' you speak of have had the longest play.
> 
> To quote from the academic paper at www.networkideas.org/ideasact/jan09/PDF/Fine.pdf 
> 
> "Over the period of neo-liberalism, from the mid-1970s, there have been dramatic and
> uniquely extreme reversals in the evolving patterns of income distribution in the United
> States. Whilst, without wishing to finesse the figures, the average income of 90% of the
> population has stagnated, the share of income of the top 1% has increased from well
> below 10% to around double that. "
> These figures, along with those below about India, may take some gloss off the supposedly big and neutrally (or equally for all) advantageous role that ICTs are touted to play in our socio-economic systems.
> 
> Parminder 
> 
> 
> 
> On Saturday 06 November 2010 06:49 PM, parminder wrote: McTim
> 
> Rest of your responses to my proposal are a bit of a standard exchange between us, and I may have not have much new to say, but I will like to make a comment on the following. 
> 
> On Saturday 06 November 2010 01:26 PM, McTim wrote: > > And if we think there is a global vacuum vis a vis global IG policies, what > is our analysis about whose interests such a vacuum serves, It seems to have served innovation quite well, built economies and eco-sytems. Look at your own backyard to find the About my backyard, two things
> 
> one, pl read this article about the recent 2010 UNDP HDR report, from which I quote 
> 
> "India has failed to make any significant improvement in its poverty figures,with over 400 million -- more than the total in the poorest African nations -- still struck in poverty, the Human Development Report 2010 said today, listing India at the 119th position on the Human Development Index." ( some more details, that may be startling to some, at  http://www.mydigitalfc.com/economy/indias-growth-fails-translate-poverty-alleviation-hdr-024 )
> 
> One may wonder how in this time of ICTs and instant news from all over the world, people seem to keep getting not too right a picture of where and how things really may be in India. Any comments on this?
> 
> Second thing about my backyard, I did share with the list a few weeks back, mobile companies are colonizing the mobile Internet in India by the day like nobody's business. Mobile Internet is facebook, google and yahoo, not the neutral and open Internet we seem to be thinking and talking about here. I have no doubt that, going this way, the Internet would soon turn into an instrument of increased dependency of the marginalised on outside forces and agents. Its potential for empowering local, community based processes is being increasingly compromised. 
> 
> So, yes, I do look at my backyard, and my comments and my proposal are informed by it.
> 
> Parminder 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>
> [ message-footer.txt (0.4 Ko) ]
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101107/6eb1c5ed/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From jlfullsack at orange.fr  Sat Nov  6 19:22:39 2010
From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK)
Date: Sun,  7 Nov 2010 00:22:39 +0100 (CET)
Subject: [governance] Re: SECOND DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
Message-ID: <20516675.116023.1289085759087.JavaMail.www@wwinf1d04>

Dear membrers of the list

I apologize for having sent this mail by mistake ; in fact it isn't complete 

Thank you for understanding 

Jean-Louis Fullsack  


Dear Parminder and members of the list

I appreciate the debate in progress with these informative and revealing references. Thank you, Parminder for having raised it. 

I'd also stress that the neoliberal thinking and indoctrination is perfectly reflected in the ITU and UNESCO Broadband Commission for Digital Development (sic) based on the dogma "Broadband will save the MDGs" and other rubbish like "+10% Brodband = +1,4 GDP" for making it short. 

(.....)


> Message du 06/11/10 15:04
> De : "parminder" 
> A : governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Copie à : 
> Objet : Re: [governance] Re: SECOND DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
> 
> McTim
> 
> And if, in response to my cited figures about India, you may want to say that the real full impact of ICTs may be yet to come to India, you may be interested in the statistics of the 'front yard' , the US, where the new innovation based 'ecosystems' you speak of have had the longest play.
> 
> To quote from the academic paper at www.networkideas.org/ideasact/jan09/PDF/Fine.pdf 
> 
> "Over the period of neo-liberalism, from the mid-1970s, there have been dramatic and
> uniquely extreme reversals in the evolving patterns of income distribution in the United
> States. Whilst, without wishing to finesse the figures, the average income of 90% of the
> population has stagnated, the share of income of the top 1% has increased from well
> below 10% to around double that. "
> These figures, along with those below about India, may take some gloss off the supposedly big and neutrally (or equally for all) advantageous role that ICTs are touted to play in our socio-economic systems.
> 
> Parminder 
> 
> 
> 
> On Saturday 06 November 2010 06:49 PM, parminder wrote: McTim
> 
> Rest of your responses to my proposal are a bit of a standard exchange between us, and I may have not have much new to say, but I will like to make a comment on the following. 
> 
> On Saturday 06 November 2010 01:26 PM, McTim wrote: > > And if we think there is a global vacuum vis a vis global IG policies, what > is our analysis about whose interests such a vacuum serves, It seems to have served innovation quite well, built economies and eco-sytems. Look at your own backyard to find the About my backyard, two things
> 
> one, pl read this article about the recent 2010 UNDP HDR report, from which I quote 
> 
> "India has failed to make any significant improvement in its poverty figures,with over 400 million -- more than the total in the poorest African nations -- still struck in poverty, the Human Development Report 2010 said today, listing India at the 119th position on the Human Development Index." ( some more details, that may be startling to some, at  http://www.mydigitalfc.com/economy/indias-growth-fails-translate-poverty-alleviation-hdr-024 )
> 
> One may wonder how in this time of ICTs and instant news from all over the world, people seem to keep getting not too right a picture of where and how things really may be in India. Any comments on this?
> 
> Second thing about my backyard, I did share with the list a few weeks back, mobile companies are colonizing the mobile Internet in India by the day like nobody's business. Mobile Internet is facebook, google and yahoo, not the neutral and open Internet we seem to be thinking and talking about here. I have no doubt that, going this way, the Internet would soon turn into an instrument of increased dependency of the marginalised on outside forces and agents. Its potential for empowering local, community based processes is being increasingly compromised. 
> 
> So, yes, I do look at my backyard, and my comments and my proposal are informed by it.
> 
> Parminder 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>
> [ message-footer.txt (0.4 Ko) ]
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101107/dc42b373/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From mariliamaciel at gmail.com  Sat Nov  6 19:38:26 2010
From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2010 21:38:26 -0200
Subject: [governance] New CSTD questionnaire on the IGF
In-Reply-To: <DEA3517D-4B37-4612-8A60-57AAD92C138E@ciroap.org>
References: <DEA3517D-4B37-4612-8A60-57AAD92C138E@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=_XvQnVKh9X1K+CCdax47OA89HKcBdgQZxy-jh@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Jeremy,

I agree with your proposal. The deadline is tight and we need to start
working immediatly.

Best,
Marilia

On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 1:37 PM, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:

> In addition to the existing CSTD questionnaire on WSIS outcomes, the second
> questionnaire on IGF improvements has just been released at
> http://www.unctad.org/cstd.  Meanwhile, we've been informed that "due to
> diverging opinions", the composition of the working group has not yet been
> decided and that consultations about this issue are still underway.
>
> So until the CSTD's IGF working group is officially appointed, my
> suggestion is that the nominees that our nomcom put forward for that group
> should put their heads together and come up with a draft response to the
> questionnaire for us.  (In fact Izumi and I had discussed that they could do
> this for the earlier CSTD questionnaire too.)
>
> If this is OK with everyone, I'll set up another new mailing list for that
> group, and add the nominated members to it.  We'll ask them to put together
> a draft response to the questionnaire, and to run it past the main mailing
> list not later than 12 November (a week before the deadline).
>
> --
>
> *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.
>
>
>


-- 
Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
FGV Direito Rio

Center for Technology and Society
Getulio Vargas Foundation
Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101106/c69ec760/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From karl at cavebear.com  Sat Nov  6 20:00:49 2010
From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach)
Date: Sat, 06 Nov 2010 17:00:49 -0700
Subject: [governance] Re: It's Time to Stop ICANN's Top-Level Domain
 (TLD)
In-Reply-To: <96032D64-28F5-4949-894C-AFAA14965232@marzouki.info>
References: <C8F899BB.131F6%ian.peter@ianpeter.com> <20101105083752.GA5168@nic.fr> <96032D64-28F5-4949-894C-AFAA14965232@marzouki.info>
Message-ID: <4CD5EC31.2000207@cavebear.com>

On 11/05/2010 03:39 AM, Meryem Marzouki wrote:

> I'm disappointed that Karl hasn't pointed to the source of all problems
> with current DNS scheme management: its unicity. In general, his booster
> shots on alternative DNS are most welcome -- by me at least;)))

Ah, I guess I have said it often enough that everyone is trained to 
expect it.

Which reminds me of an old joke: What is written on the sign on Pavlov's 
front door?  ...  "Knock, do not ring".

Now that I have you rolling on the floor with laughter (yeah, right, 
it's not that funny) ... there is a serious matter, which is that DNS 
names do not meet the requirements for stable identifiers.

A stable identifier needs certain kinds of stability:

    - Client stability (the name has the same meaning no matter who asks)

    - Location stability (the name has the same meaning no matter where 
the question of meaning is asked)

    - Temporal stability (if the name has meaning, then the meaning 
remains the same no matter when the question of meaning is asked)

DNS names most clearly fail on the third of these requirements - DNS 
names simply change too often.

But DNS names are increasingly failing on the client and location 
stability requirements.  For example "google.com" resolves differently 
depending where the client is.

We are all too familiar with the rot of email addresses and URL/URI's.

For long term purposes we either need DNS zones in which once a name and 
record is created it becomes immutable and permanent, or we need another 
naming system.

For cloud computing the issue gets a lot more complicated because we 
*do* want to resolve names based on things like proximity and legal home 
of the client and server.  And we need to accommodate locking a 
relationship (if only for a few minutes if not permanently) between a 
client to a particular instance of a cloud resource.

Archivists and historians of the future are going to curse us for the 
way we are using fragile and unstable names to identify what the 
internet is creating.

I have thought that perhaps I ought to start plopping a GUID/UUID string 
into everything I write.  That way there would be at least a stable name 
embedded into the content itself:

	ee1a7c75-19a0-44f3-8cb9-627c20af8298

		--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 jeremy at ciroap.org  Sat Nov  6 20:42:00 2010
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2010 07:42:00 +0700
Subject: [governance] THIRD DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
Message-ID: <226CD676-A9D1-4E62-8E62-4C9D5E18E8F4@ciroap.org>

It will be impossible to simultaneously satisfy people like Parminder and people like McTim, so here is my attempt at dissatisfying them equally.  The biggest changes are the substitution of a new preamble for the old one, and deletion of the "do nothing" bullet point under numbered-paragraph 2.  Let's continue to have your comments as we try and reach some common ground.

--- begins ---

The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (CS-IGC) regards the process towards enhanced cooperation as a vital step towards addressing the "many cross-cutting international public policy issues that require attention and are not adequately addressed by the current mechanisms" (Tunis Agenda para 68).

Despite an intergovernmental mandate from WSIS to address this governance deficit, much remains to be done.  It is imperative that this deficit continue to be addressed, where appropriate through new institutional developments that comply with the WSIS process criteria of being multilateral, transparent, democratic and inclusive.

We make three further points.  First, enhanced cooperation should encompass all Internet-related public policy issues; second, the existing arrangements of relevant organisations (including the Internet Governance Forum) do not fully implement enhanced cooperation, and thirdly whatever new arrangements may be put in place, civil society will play an integral part in them.

These points will be explained in turn:

1. Although much of the discussion of enhanced cooperation at WSIS turned around the narrow issue of internationalising the oversight of Internet naming and numbering functions, the Tunis Agenda expresses this principle far more broadly.  It also reminds us that the ultimate objective of our cooperation is to advance a people-centred, inclusive, development-oriented and non-discriminatory Information Society.

2. The IGF in its present form is a very important part of the enhanced cooperation process, in that ideally its multi-stakeholder process can help to shape decisions taken on Internet related public policy issues in other fora.  However the full realisation of enhanced cooperation will require a multi-stakeholder process to extend to other Internet governance organisations that do not already follow this model.

There are various options for enhancing multi-stakeholder cooperation within and amongst all relevant organisations.  These include:

* establishing a lightweight multi-stakeholder observatory process perhaps hosted under the auspices of the IGF (pursuant to its mandate in paragraph 72(i));

* utilising a virtual and voluntary global social community or "social grid", linking together all Internet governance organisations, in which all stakeholders would participate; or

* establishing a new umbrella governance institution for Internet policy development, with space for the participation of each stakeholder group in its respective role.

3. Paragraph 71 of the Tunis Agenda makes very clear that civil society is an integral participant in the development of any process towards enhanced cooperation.  Therefore the IGC, in our capacity as members of civil society, looks forward to contributing constructively in transparent, accountable and democratic multi-stakeholder consultations towards this end.

--- ends ---

PS. It's entirely possible I have missed some emails.  I'm in Laos with a terrible Internet connection.  I'll catch up and incorporate anything I missed into the fourth draft.

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

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

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101107/e22d813b/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101107/e22d813b/attachment.bin>

From lmcknigh at syr.edu  Sat Nov  6 20:58:20 2010
From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight)
Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2010 20:58:20 -0400
Subject: [governance] Re: SECOND DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A073C5@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <70E573F5-00B4-4837-89B7-C05B9DA7E479@ciroap.org>
 <7.0.1.0.2.20101103021355.05d70e60@jefsey.com>
 <5B31379A-A914-4BE1-945B-EEF2478BA1DC@ciroap.org>
 <7.0.1.0.2.20101103094622.0651ee20@jefsey.com>
 <3FE17A9E-E507-44DA-8AE2-EC7EC56DD1D8@ciroap.org>
 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006DA4@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
 <4CD17823.8010108@itforchange.net>
 <AANLkTikONmgaa+4rO+uZkAv4YrPDfSV4aP9YKk_=Lgox@mail.gmail.com>
 <7.0.1.0.2.20101104103504.057fdc48@jefsey.com>
 <08B126B5-B3AB-4A91-B8BC-A90579C6EF5A@ciroap.org>
 <4CD4CF03.3000900@itforchange.net>
 <D1E1B737-C8E1-4657-8A1A-FDB3E30DB92D@psg.com>
 <4CD4E70D.8010807@itforchange.net>
 <806E2BA2-1AE8-45DE-A870-5F90AF3C0032@psg.com>,<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A073C5@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006DCC@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>

Wolfgang,

Agreed the ITU PP is a step in the right direction. Though in practice ITU & IETF have been - practicing - enhanced cooperation for years as was discussed a while back on the list. 

Extending that more formally to a broader group of orgs is a good thing, but more of an incremental step than radical break with past practice. And it still leaves civil society in the cheap seats/as spectators at (most) ITU events, typically.

On another note - and no offense - but can we stop talking about at an 'IG Web' - that sounds so 1990s.  

IG Cloud would be trendier but even vaguer. 

I suppose IG Grid would be my preference, connoting simultaneous info and resource sharing across..the grid.

Lee


________________________________________
From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" [wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de]
Sent: Saturday, November 06, 2010 1:19 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Avri Doria; IGC
Subject: AW: [governance] Re: SECOND DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation

Hi all

It makes little sense to continue a theoretical discussion on "enhanced cooperation" when the practical process is moving forward and is creating new facts and opportunities. Do not underestimate the outcome of the ITU PP in Guadalajara with regard to "enhanced cooperation". In my eyes this is really a door opener and a breakthorugh towards a new more issue related "enhanced cooperation" among all players. The fact that the ITU calls in a resolution, adopted by all its 193 member states, for greater "collaboration and coordination" (remember our EC³ definition of enhanced cooperation from 2007) between the ITU on the one hand and ICANN, RIR, W3C, IETF and ISOC (on a reciprocity basis) on the other hand is very remarkable. If you take it seriously what Toure told Kieran Mc Carthy in his interview and look into Beckstroms letter to the ITU from June (published only recently) than you can see that "enhanced cooperation" is moving forward in the right way and gets substance.

We did not discuss here the idea to create a network of formal arrangements, something like an "IG Web", among all these governmental and non-governmental players. UNESCO (an intergovernmental organisation) and ICANN (a private corporation) created an interesting model of a formalized IG oriented mutual bilateral relationship. The "Letter of Intent" (LOI), signed in Vilnjus, is a good source of inspiration, also for a formalization of the ICANN-ITU relationship. Will we see more of them, also with other players? Probably we will see the emergence of a network of fomalized bilatertal relationship in a very multilateral/multistakeholder environment. I called this previously the IG "Spaghetti Ball". So enhanced cooperation is moving foreward.

Wolfgang


EC³ was defined - in an expert meeting during following the 2007 Summer School on Internet Governance as follows "Enhanced cooperation in Internet Governance is the enhanced communication, coordination and collaboration (EC³) among non-govenrmental and inter-governmental institutions and organisations in developing norms, principles, programmes and procedures for the governance of the Internet in an informal or, when and where needed, formalized way."


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

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

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

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

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

From mariliamaciel at gmail.com  Sat Nov  6 22:58:47 2010
From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2010 00:58:47 -0200
Subject: [governance] Re: SECOND DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006DCC@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
References: <70E573F5-00B4-4837-89B7-C05B9DA7E479@ciroap.org>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20101103021355.05d70e60@jefsey.com>
	<5B31379A-A914-4BE1-945B-EEF2478BA1DC@ciroap.org>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20101103094622.0651ee20@jefsey.com>
	<3FE17A9E-E507-44DA-8AE2-EC7EC56DD1D8@ciroap.org>
	<93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006DA4@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
	<4CD17823.8010108@itforchange.net>
	<AANLkTikONmgaa+4rO+uZkAv4YrPDfSV4aP9YKk_=Lgox@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20101104103504.057fdc48@jefsey.com>
	<08B126B5-B3AB-4A91-B8BC-A90579C6EF5A@ciroap.org>
	<4CD4CF03.3000900@itforchange.net>
	<D1E1B737-C8E1-4657-8A1A-FDB3E30DB92D@psg.com>
	<4CD4E70D.8010807@itforchange.net>
	<806E2BA2-1AE8-45DE-A870-5F90AF3C0032@psg.com>
	<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A073C5@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
	<93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006DCC@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=cj+g+RK6O04s4gq1BNGZUyj1Fb93KiQwT=5m+@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all,

Although I agree with the starting point of Parminder´s reflections (that
there is a vaccum and this vaccum leads to less democratic outcomes, or
mostly to paralysis) I would like to make a few observations based
Parminder´s suggestion and propose an alternative I have been thinking
about. Please excuse me for the length of the message.

*Observations based on Parminder´s proposal:*

- I don´t see where the IGF fits in it. I do believe that IGF is the best
forum to identify problems, shape agenda-issues and to start the discussion
of solutions. In any arrangement chosen, we should advocate to reinforce the
importance of this space. It should clearly be part of the decision-making
process that might emerge from enhanced cooperation.

- The MAG is not taken into account in this proposal either. Today, the MAG
is what we call a “white elephant”. A large multistakeholder elected group
that serves only to plan the next IGF. If elections were rendered more
transparent, the role of the MAG could be redesigned, to make it politically
relevant and part of the decision-making process.

- We need to seek support from governments who have shown sympathy to the
idea of multistakeholderism. Without their support, any proposal we make
have little chance to be approved. Having said that, I know that some
governments that have supported multistakeholderism would have problems with
the model proposed (3 governments per region would be part of this Global
Internet Council), because many governments would end up being left out.

- I assume that the participants of the body proposed by Parminder would
rotate. Would countries like US accept to be left out?

While I believe it is not our problem (and not our competence) to solve the
many issues of government representation, we need to propose a model that
would gather support or acceptance from key-players.

*Alternative way forward*

Obs: I would not like to call it a proposal, since I don’t feel it is
mature. But it is definitely another line of thinking and I believe deserves
to be explored.

*1) The role of the IGF*
The IGF is a great space of debate, as we all know, and needs to be
reinforced. In my opinion the IGF could be able to deliver several outcomes
that have been suggested here on the list: send notes or “send SMSs”, send
IGF messages, and even make recommendations AT the IGF. But it cannot make
policy, and we have reached a point where we need policy design and
regulatory coordination/harmonization (even if by soft law).

The IGF is a place of appointing problems, of agenda-shaping and of
suggesting some solutions. But it also a place of “parloteo” and the noise
needs to be filtered. How to do that?

Several ways have been suggested by IGC and its members such as:

a) Less workshop sessions
b) Close relation between workshops and main sessions
c) To have intermediary meetings between the workshops and the main
sessions, to send concrete issues/outcomes of the debate to the main session
d) To have closer links between the regional IGFs and the global IGF, so
they can send outcomes of regional discussions.
e) To have all these outcomes reflected in a final report of the IGF, more
objective and with issues more sharply defined.

The suggestions above are not new and I believe we are moving on this
direction. But what will be the destiny of this final outcome/report? Being
put online and almost no one reads it? Be printed out in the next IGF book?
I don’t believe this is enough. Despite being rough, I believe this would be
valuable *input for policy design*. And policy design should be done by a
multistakeholder body.

*2) The new role of the MAG*
It seems hard to understand that we disregard in our proposal the MAG,
multistakeholder body that already exists. Is it a black box? Then, let’s
advocate for its change, to make it transparent. Now is the right time to do
it, with the CSTD WG process.

If the legitimacy of the MAG is reinforced and true conditions for equal
participation among stakeholders is achieved, then the role of the MAG could
be changed and it could become a body whose main competence is to *propose
policies and regulation*, based on the input received from the IGF. This
group would be the leitmotiv of the decision-making process, such as the
European Commission, for instance.

This multistakeholder group would have a great power in its hands. While the
IGF would be the place to agenda-setting and issue-shaping, the group would
be the place to policy design. If any stakeholder group (a group of
developed countries, for instance) wants to propose a new policy, this group
would need to launch the idea at the IGF (valuing this space). If it gathers
support (after being put to the test of debate in the IGF), then it will
reach the multistakeholder group, where policy-drafting would take place.
Who controls the drafting of the policy, controls a key part of the process.
And the control will be multistakeholder.

The MAG would also be responsible to *foster coordination* with other
organizations on the IG constellation, also guided by the discussions in the
IGF.

*3) The creation of a government council*

This would be controversial. I am particular insecure about this part of the
proposal and I am happy to be able to discuss it here, in a friendly
environment. It is controversial, but I believe it is the feasible way to
go.

There is a reality we cannot ignore. Governments are the ones who bear the
financial and human resources needed to implement any policy or regulation
(CIR is a bit different, but as I understood enhanced cooperation is not
focused on CIR). They are the ones to guarantee execution/enforceability and
the ones who can be held liable (even juridically) if things are not
implemented the way that it was agreed. Therefore, I don’t believe that any
process for policy-making or regulation can be made real (at least not in
the international system we have today) without governments having the
conditions to say no.

It means that only governments would have voting powers in a such a council,
but their power to make changes to the policy drafted by the
multistakeholder group would be limited. They would be able to approve the
policy or not, and they would be able to adjust it slightly to their
realities, but any suggestion of substantial changes would lead to a re-exam
of the proposal by the multistakeholder group.

*4) Advisory groups  *
Since the membership of the multistakeholder group is limited in number, the
general group of stakeholders would be invited to give their opinion on the
proposal of policy/regulation before it is send to the government’s council.
It means that political statements or evaluation reports could be sent by
ICC, IGC, IETF, government A or B (that are not in the MAG). These
statements and reports would help to foster transparency and participatory
policy-making.

Well, that is pretty much it that I have been thinking. It is not a mature
proposal, but I hope it helps on the brainstorm and above all, that it helps
to introduce some concerns (such as the role of the IGF) in our
considerations.

I thank the patience of those who read the whole message :)

Best wishes,
Marilia


On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 10:58 PM, Lee W McKnight <lmcknigh at syr.edu> wrote:

> Wolfgang,
>
> Agreed the ITU PP is a step in the right direction. Though in practice ITU
> & IETF have been - practicing - enhanced cooperation for years as was
> discussed a while back on the list.
>
> Extending that more formally to a broader group of orgs is a good thing,
> but more of an incremental step than radical break with past practice. And
> it still leaves civil society in the cheap seats/as spectators at (most) ITU
> events, typically.
>
> On another note - and no offense - but can we stop talking about at an 'IG
> Web' - that sounds so 1990s.
>
> IG Cloud would be trendier but even vaguer.
>
> I suppose IG Grid would be my preference, connoting simultaneous info and
> resource sharing across..the grid.
>
> Lee
>
>
> ________________________________________
> From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" [
> wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de]
> Sent: Saturday, November 06, 2010 1:19 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Avri Doria; IGC
> Subject: AW: [governance] Re: SECOND DRAFT statement on enhanced
> cooperation
>
> Hi all
>
> It makes little sense to continue a theoretical discussion on "enhanced
> cooperation" when the practical process is moving forward and is creating
> new facts and opportunities. Do not underestimate the outcome of the ITU PP
> in Guadalajara with regard to "enhanced cooperation". In my eyes this is
> really a door opener and a breakthorugh towards a new more issue related
> "enhanced cooperation" among all players. The fact that the ITU calls in a
> resolution, adopted by all its 193 member states, for greater "collaboration
> and coordination" (remember our EC³ definition of enhanced cooperation from
> 2007) between the ITU on the one hand and ICANN, RIR, W3C, IETF and ISOC (on
> a reciprocity basis) on the other hand is very remarkable. If you take it
> seriously what Toure told Kieran Mc Carthy in his interview and look into
> Beckstroms letter to the ITU from June (published only recently) than you
> can see that "enhanced cooperation" is moving forward in the right way and
> gets substance.
>
> We did not discuss here the idea to create a network of formal
> arrangements, something like an "IG Web", among all these governmental and
> non-governmental players. UNESCO (an intergovernmental organisation) and
> ICANN (a private corporation) created an interesting model of a formalized
> IG oriented mutual bilateral relationship. The "Letter of Intent" (LOI),
> signed in Vilnjus, is a good source of inspiration, also for a formalization
> of the ICANN-ITU relationship. Will we see more of them, also with other
> players? Probably we will see the emergence of a network of fomalized
> bilatertal relationship in a very multilateral/multistakeholder environment.
> I called this previously the IG "Spaghetti Ball". So enhanced cooperation is
> moving foreward.
>
> Wolfgang
>
>
> EC³ was defined - in an expert meeting during following the 2007 Summer
> School on Internet Governance as follows "Enhanced cooperation in Internet
> Governance is the enhanced communication, coordination and collaboration
> (EC³) among non-govenrmental and inter-governmental institutions and
> organisations in developing norms, principles, programmes and procedures for
> the governance of the Internet in an informal or, when and where needed,
> formalized way."
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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
>



-- 
Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
FGV Direito Rio

Center for Technology and Society
Getulio Vargas Foundation
Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101107/a594e332/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From jeremy at ciroap.org  Sat Nov  6 23:27:35 2010
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2010 10:27:35 +0700
Subject: [governance] Re: SECOND DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=cj+g+RK6O04s4gq1BNGZUyj1Fb93KiQwT=5m+@mail.gmail.com>
References: <70E573F5-00B4-4837-89B7-C05B9DA7E479@ciroap.org> <7.0.1.0.2.20101103021355.05d70e60@jefsey.com> <5B31379A-A914-4BE1-945B-EEF2478BA1DC@ciroap.org> <7.0.1.0.2.20101103094622.0651ee20@jefsey.com> <3FE17A9E-E507-44DA-8AE2-EC7EC56DD1D8@ciroap.org> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006DA4@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4CD17823.8010108@itforchange.net> <AANLkTikONmgaa+4rO+uZkAv4YrPDfSV4aP9YKk_=Lgox@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20101104103504.057fdc48@jefsey.com> <08B126B5-B3AB-4A91-B8BC-A90579C6EF5A@ciroap.org> <4CD4CF03.3000900@itforchange.net> <D1E1B737-C8E1-4657-8A1A-FDB3E30DB92D@psg.com> <4CD4E70D.8010807@itforchange.net> <806E2BA2-1AE8-45DE-A870-5F90AF3C0032@psg.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A073C5@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006DCC@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <AANLkTi=cj+g+RK6O04s4gq1BNGZUyj1Fb93KiQwT=5m+@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <C84D9725-4182-4D47-BDDC-1CF5B6DFFFE0@ciroap.org>

On 07/11/2010, at 9:58 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote:

> 3) The creation of a government council
> ...
> It means that only governments would have voting powers in a such a council, but their power to make changes to the policy drafted by the multistakeholder group would be limited. They would be able to approve the policy or not, and they would be able to adjust it slightly to their realities, but any suggestion of substantial changes would lead to a re-exam of the proposal by the multistakeholder group.

It makes a lot of sense to me, even though it is, as you say, controversial.  A variant on this is what I proposed by way of a consociational bureau for the IGF: read pages 294 to 297, 466 to 467, and 471-474, and 478-482 of my book at http://books.google.com/books?id=G8ETBPD6jHIC.

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

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

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101107/07f2d2e5/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101107/07f2d2e5/attachment.bin>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Sat Nov  6 23:50:40 2010
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Sun, 07 Nov 2010 09:20:40 +0530
Subject: [governance] THIRD DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <226CD676-A9D1-4E62-8E62-4C9D5E18E8F4@ciroap.org>
References: <226CD676-A9D1-4E62-8E62-4C9D5E18E8F4@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <4CD62210.1030100@itforchange.net>

Jeremy

We said in our statements at Vilnius that the IGF and enhanced 
cooperation are two distinct though complementary processes. This is 
also stated in the recent CSTD/ ECOSOC resolution, which part 
incidentally comes from IT for Change's statement to the CSTD. I dont 
see how we can now go back on this, and say some kind of enhanced 
cooperation is taking place in the IGF. Enhanced cooperation as per TA 
was a specific process, even if its method unclear, to be initiated by 
the Secretary General to fill in the global public policy vacuum. I 
would not like to have the IGF at all mixed with or into the EC process, 
except to state its complementarity as we did at Vilnius.

I am unable to give a more detailed response at present. More tomorrow. 
Parminder

On Sunday 07 November 2010 06:12 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> It will be impossible to simultaneously satisfy people like Parminder 
> and people like McTim, so here is my attempt at dissatisfying them 
> equally.  The biggest changes are the substitution of a new preamble 
> for the old one, and deletion of the "do nothing" bullet point under 
> numbered-paragraph 2.  Let's continue to have your comments as we try 
> and reach some common ground.
>
> --- begins ---
>
> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (CS-IGC) regards the 
> process towards enhanced cooperation as a vital step towards 
> addressing the "many cross-cutting international public policy issues 
> that require attention and are not adequately addressed by the current 
> mechanisms" (Tunis Agenda para 68).
>
> Despite an intergovernmental mandate from WSIS to address this 
> governance deficit, much remains to be done.  It is imperative that 
> this deficit continue to be addressed, where appropriate through new 
> institutional developments that comply with the WSIS process 
> criteria of being multilateral, transparent, democratic and inclusive.
>
> We make three further points.  First, enhanced cooperation should 
> encompass all Internet-related public policy issues; second, the 
> existing arrangements of relevant organisations (including the 
> Internet Governance Forum) do not fully implement enhanced 
> cooperation, and thirdly whatever new arrangements may be put in 
> place, civil society will play an integral part in them.
>
> These points will be explained in turn:
>
> 1. Although much of the discussion of enhanced cooperation at WSIS 
> turned around the narrow issue of internationalising the oversight of 
> Internet naming and numbering functions, the Tunis Agenda expresses 
> this principle far more broadly.  It also reminds us that the ultimate 
> objective of our cooperation is to advance a 
> people-centred, inclusive, development-oriented and non-discriminatory 
> Information Society.
>
> 2. The IGF in its present form is a very important part of the 
> enhanced cooperation process, in that ideally its multi-stakeholder 
> process can help to shape decisions taken on Internet related public 
> policy issues in other fora.  However the full realisation of enhanced 
> cooperation will require a multi-stakeholder process to extend to 
> other Internet governance organisations that do not already follow 
> this model.
>
> There are various options for enhancing multi-stakeholder cooperation 
> within and amongst all relevant organisations.  These include:
>
> * establishing a lightweight multi-stakeholder observatory process 
> perhaps hosted under the auspices of the IGF (pursuant to its mandate 
> in paragraph 72(i));
>
> * utilising a virtual and voluntary global social community or "social 
> grid", linking together all Internet governance organisations, in 
> which all stakeholders would participate; or
>
> * establishing a new umbrella governance institution for Internet 
> policy development, with space for the participation of each 
> stakeholder group in its respective role.
>
> 3. Paragraph 71 of the Tunis Agenda makes very clear that civil 
> society is an integral participant in the development of any process 
> towards enhanced cooperation.  Therefore the IGC, in our capacity as 
> members of civil society, looks forward to contributing constructively 
> in transparent, accountable and democratic multi-stakeholder 
> consultations towards this end.
>
> --- ends ---
>
> PS. It's entirely possible I have missed some emails.  I'm in Laos 
> with a terrible Internet connection.  I'll catch up and incorporate 
> anything I missed into the fourth draft.
>
> -- 
>
> *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.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101107/73725feb/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From jeremy at ciroap.org  Sat Nov  6 23:59:32 2010
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2010 10:59:32 +0700
Subject: [governance] THIRD DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <4CD62210.1030100@itforchange.net>
References: <226CD676-A9D1-4E62-8E62-4C9D5E18E8F4@ciroap.org> <4CD62210.1030100@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <DAE5B08F-389A-42AA-BB76-D72161FA1E8E@ciroap.org>

On 07/11/2010, at 10:50 AM, parminder wrote:

> We said in our statements at Vilnius that the IGF and enhanced cooperation are two distinct though complementary processes. This is also stated in the recent CSTD/ ECOSOC resolution, which part incidentally comes from IT for Change's statement to the CSTD. I dont see how we can now go back on this, and say some kind of enhanced cooperation is taking place in the IGF.

In nothing from the statement that I gave did I intend to suggest that the IGF wasn't a part of the broader process of enhanced cooperation (and thereby complementary to that broader process).  It seems very clear to me from the Tunis Agenda that it is.  So I don't think that the IGC would be going back on any previous statement to talk about the IGF as a part of enhanced cooperation.

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

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

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101107/adb8a686/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101107/adb8a686/attachment.bin>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Sun Nov  7 00:33:20 2010
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Sun, 07 Nov 2010 10:03:20 +0530
Subject: [governance] THIRD DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <DAE5B08F-389A-42AA-BB76-D72161FA1E8E@ciroap.org>
References: <226CD676-A9D1-4E62-8E62-4C9D5E18E8F4@ciroap.org> <4CD62210.1030100@itforchange.net> <DAE5B08F-389A-42AA-BB76-D72161FA1E8E@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <4CD62C10.1080701@itforchange.net>



On Sunday 07 November 2010 09:29 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> On 07/11/2010, at 10:50 AM, parminder wrote:
>
>> We said in our statements at Vilnius that the IGF and enhanced 
>> cooperation are two distinct though complementary processes. This is 
>> also stated in the recent CSTD/ ECOSOC resolution, which part 
>> incidentally comes from IT for Change's statement to the CSTD. I dont 
>> see how we can now go back on this, and say some kind of enhanced 
>> cooperation is taking place in the IGF.
>
> In nothing from the statement that I gave did I intend to suggest that 
> the IGF wasn't a part of the broader process of enhanced cooperation 
> (and thereby complementary to that broader process).  It seems very 
> clear to me from the Tunis Agenda that it is.  So I don't think that 
> the IGC would be going back on any previous statement to talk about 
> the IGF as a part of enhanced cooperation.

Jeremy

Thanks for the clarification.

Accordingly, we must make the broader aspects of EC distinct from EC 
proper, as also done by TA, where the EC process to be initiated by the 
SG is different from the appeal to concerned organization to contribute 
to creating conditions for that EC process proper. I say so because, as 
you know, there is a well orchestrated campaign to show the 'creating 
conditions' process as the EC process itself, with an aim to subvert the 
main EC process for which the consultations are being held now. parminder



>
> -- 
>
> *Jeremy Malcolm
> Project Coordinator*
> Consumers International
> Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East
> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, 
> Malaysia
> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
>
> *CI is 50*
> Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement 
> in 2010.
> Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect 
> consumer rights around the world.
> _http://www.consumersinternational.org/50_
>
> Read our email confidentiality notice 
> <http://www.consumersinternational.org/Templates/Internal.asp?NodeID=100521&int1stParentNodeID=89765>. 
> Don't print this email unless necessary.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101107/0a86058f/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From dogwallah at gmail.com  Sun Nov  7 01:07:34 2010
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2010 09:07:34 +0300
Subject: [governance] Re: SECOND DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinkuij2jM=ZZpKBPC9q--Hy8joGVNmW96bQ2eKr@mail.gmail.com>
References: <70E573F5-00B4-4837-89B7-C05B9DA7E479@ciroap.org>
 <7.0.1.0.2.20101103021355.05d70e60@jefsey.com> <5B31379A-A914-4BE1-945B-EEF2478BA1DC@ciroap.org>
 <7.0.1.0.2.20101103094622.0651ee20@jefsey.com> <3FE17A9E-E507-44DA-8AE2-EC7EC56DD1D8@ciroap.org>
 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006DA4@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
 <4CD17823.8010108@itforchange.net> <AANLkTikONmgaa+4rO+uZkAv4YrPDfSV4aP9YKk_=Lgox@mail.gmail.com>
 <7.0.1.0.2.20101104103504.057fdc48@jefsey.com> <08B126B5-B3AB-4A91-B8BC-A90579C6EF5A@ciroap.org>
 <4CD4CF03.3000900@itforchange.net> <AANLkTi=gWOfhnaJd385OJ0XNjtbSjaCgEAOA-6KLsNEe@mail.gmail.com>
 <4CD555E8.2040707@itforchange.net> <4CD5603F.50507@itforchange.net>
 <AANLkTi=VWbRZGiAZMkR7R5BYGFCDxyhYTKt5R28V+Mco@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTinkuij2jM=ZZpKBPC9q--Hy8joGVNmW96bQ2eKr@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTinuf=eQZ9MiPj08pKDmvvk=_6YeWH80pJr6CqVU@mail.gmail.com>

Mawaki,

On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 12:41 AM, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Wolfgang, so in those examples of progress on EC you gave, where is the CS?
> Is the implication that in those formalizations of bilateral relationships
> between organizations, ICANN carries the voice of CS? Or is something in the
> works to bring the public party CS (ie, NGOs and their coalitions such as
> IGC) into those arrangements?

My answer to this is that there are hundreds of MS CS bodies currently
involved in actual IG work (not just ICANN), and it is in and amongst
those bodies which other CS groups must become involved.  The "web"
that Wolfie mentioned has been in existence for ~2 decades.  It is
becoming more formal (and larger) with every MoU signed.

Here are just two examples from the numbering world, with which I am
most familiar:

http://www.afrinic.net/corporate/MoU-AAU-AfriNIC_2009.pdf

http://www.apnic.net/__data/assets/pdf_file/0015/24351/isockolkata-apnic-mou-sept2010.pdf

>
> McTim, I couldn't even believe that you went there when I read your quoting
> of the Declaration of Independence of Cyberspace.
> You certainly don't believe that it still decribes anything near the reality
> of government role and capabilities vis-a-vis the cyberspace *today*, do
> you?! If you don't, as I'm inclined to believe, then I'm trying to
> understand what else is being communicated here. (See below my commentary
> about the whole anti-government slogan.)

No, governments have been claiming sovereignty over the Internet in
their geo-boundaries (and sometimes beyond) steadily for several
decades.

Here in Kenya for example, the gov owns significant stakes in the 2
largest telcos, licenses the IXP (I think the only place in the world
where an IXP is licensed), licenses and taxes the ISPs, has veto power
over decisions of the ccTLD,  Makes the submarine cable operators pay
to land here (and owns a significant stake in one of the sub cables),
regulates the Internet sector heavily and in general plays the part of
plaintiff, defendant, judge and jury in many disputes.  It is this
heavy handed gov't involvement that I find objectionable.  They would
also like, (at least it's the regulators position) to be in charge of
all CIRs within their borders.

My intent was to provide some historical context and point out how far
we have come from that idealised POV, which I believe empowered CS.

>
> I read Parminder's "counter-proposal" (just to distinguish... or "alternate
> proposal") as a possible detailing of the last option under paragraph 2 in
> the "Second draft statement on enhanced cooperation" which started this
> thread:
>
> * establishing a new umbrella governance institution for Internet policy
> development, with space for the participation of each stakeholder group in
> its respective role.

I think we saw during WSIS that creating a new institution is
difficult.  We have a new institution called the IGF, that was hard
enough to build.  I see no need for a new one, rather, let's work with
what we have, as there are many opportunities for CS involvement that
need to be realised.


>
> Now some may prefer not to commit to a specific preference or set of
> preferences (and it seems like that's what the proposed draft is doing,
> limitting itself to the broad level description or to the listing of all
> different types/models one can reasonably think of) - while some others may
> want to indicate a specific preference or set of preferences with the most
> likelihood to foster a progressive agenda.
>
> I would rather support the latter.

Do you think we can find consensus on which model?

>
> That being said, Parminder has written either too much or too little :) By
> that I mean I'm not sure whether it is necessary to get to the detail of the
> exact composition/membership etc, in this statement. If that were to be the
> case, then we would need to work a little more on that first rough
> counter-draft as he himself has acknowledged. For example one major
> reservation I would have is to avoid making it a government-led model (first
> rows for governments, folding seats for the rest.)

Agreed.

And this is less
> dependent on the distribution of stakeholder representatives in the room
> than the rules governing their interactions and processes.
>
> ***
> Re. the anti-government/state utopia:
>
> Now whether we like it or not, states are in our midst - they are IG
> stakeholders and powerful ones. We still heavily depend on laws they make
> and enforce. And gone are the days when we could think of the cyberspace as
> an island completely isolated from the world where states rule - which
> also happens to be the world where actual users and providers (outside the
> screens and servers that give live to cyberspace) live and own the
> proprieties involved in their subsistance. Now you can choose to keep on
> believing in your Declaration which IMHO is based on the equivalent of the
> "state of nature" of the cyberspace, or you can try and work out a "civil
> state" that would guarantee as many as possible of the ideals included in
> the initial Declaration based on a clearly defined and agreed upon regime of
> rights and responsibilities.


We already have such a "civil state".  Pretending that it doesn't
exist does this Caucus no good.  For example, look at the participants
for the next AfriNIC meeting.

http://meeting.afrinic.net/afrinic-13/index.php/registration-closed/participants-list

Even though it is in J'Burg, I see no APC folk in attendance!! Why is
that??  I know APC folk are interested in Internet numbering issues,
having commented on them at the IGF.

Instead we have folk such as International Foundation For African
Children (IFAC) and CIVICUS  (World Alliance for Citizen
Participation) coming, which is great and we need to encourage more CS
groups to come to the table.

Can you see all the gov't reps attending?  This is the result of the
outreach done by the RIRs and brings them to a CS built table.  At the
last ARIN meeting, gov't reps were (for the first time that I can
recall) putting their hands up (for or against) the various proposals,
not as individuals, but as gov't reps.

This is MSism in actual IG.  My concern is that we as a caucus do not
want to do actual IG, rather we want to just talk about it ad nauseum.


> This is like repeating the exact same flaw that you (McTim, implicitly at
> least, but also Karl and a few others) were pointing to in the post about
> getting rid of the ICANN's DNS).

Wasn't me.  IIRC, I simply pointed out in that thread that the time
has long since passed to oppose a massive expansion of gTLDs.

Here it goes: governments can do very bad
> things, therefore let's get rid of governments (from the cyberspace... for
> the time being, I guess.) Yes, governments can do very very bad things. But
> they will do them anyway, behind the curtains and for the sake of their
> particular interests of the moment. There is an African proverb that says
> (roughly remembered and translated) something like: if you put the witch or
> the malevolent in custody of a good, then they will be less likely to harm
> that good... Gee! what a miserable transalation, which does nothing to help
> the natural tendency that some may have to mock an attempt to resolve global
> governance issues with an African proverb about witches, does it... but I'm
> sure with a bit of benevolence, you'll get my drift. The wisdom is that
> putting the potential source of evil under watch, in broad day light, where
> it can be called out to account if something goes wrong with their
> responsibilities might just be a more effective protection/defense.

Many gov'ts already do terrible things vis a vis the Internet.  We saw
that first hand in Tunis, no? (The Tunisian gov't treatment of
protest).  We see it daily in censorship and persecution of bloggers
to give just one example.

Do you think that gov'ts will give up sovereignty (their ability to
act badly within their borders) to a Global Internet Council (or
something akin to it)?  I very much doubt that will be the case.

I can't believe that we as a CS group will actively encourage MORE
gov't involvement in IG, and not less!

-- 
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 dogwallah at gmail.com  Sun Nov  7 01:37:51 2010
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2010 09:37:51 +0300
Subject: [governance] THIRD DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <226CD676-A9D1-4E62-8E62-4C9D5E18E8F4@ciroap.org>
References: <226CD676-A9D1-4E62-8E62-4C9D5E18E8F4@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <AANLkTimwvSYOaLne5oKtqQvyRve0dKNaLc5raF8DxKir@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 3:42 AM, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:
> It will be impossible to simultaneously satisfy people like Parminder and
> people like McTim, so here is my attempt at dissatisfying them equally.  The
> biggest changes are the substitution of a new preamble for the old one, and
> deletion of the "do nothing" bullet point under numbered-paragraph 2.  Let's
> continue to have your comments as we try and reach some common ground.
> --- begins ---
> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (CS-IGC) regards the process
> towards enhanced cooperation as a vital step towards addressing the "many
> cross-cutting international public policy issues that require attention and
> are not adequately addressed by the current mechanisms" (Tunis Agenda para
> 68).
> Despite an intergovernmental mandate from WSIS to address this governance
> deficit, much remains to be done.  It is imperative that this deficit
> continue to be addressed, where appropriate through new institutional
> developments that comply with the WSIS process criteria of being
> multilateral, transparent, democratic and inclusive.

What does the above sentence mean?  Does it mean new institutions or
new developments within existing institutions?

If the latter, let's say that.  If the former, I would be opposed to this idea.


> We make three further points.  First, enhanced cooperation should encompass
> all Internet-related public policy issues; second, the existing arrangements
> of relevant organisations (including the Internet Governance Forum) do not
> fully implement enhanced cooperation,

Can we say "many of our members believe the existing arrangements of
relevant organisations...."


and thirdly whatever new arrangements
> may be put in place, civil society will play an integral part in them.

I would suggest Should/must/can instead of 'will".

>
> These points will be explained in turn:
>
> 1. Although much of the discussion of enhanced cooperation at WSIS turned
> around the narrow issue of internationalising the oversight of Internet
> naming and numbering functions, the Tunis Agenda expresses this principle
> far more broadly.  It also reminds us that the ultimate objective of our
> cooperation is to advance a people-centred, inclusive, development-oriented
> and non-discriminatory Information Society.
>
> 2. The IGF in its present form is a very important part of the enhanced
> cooperation process, in that ideally its multi-stakeholder process can help
> to shape decisions taken on Internet related public policy issues in other
> fora.  However the full realisation of enhanced cooperation will require a
> multi-stakeholder process to extend to other Internet governance
> organisations that do not already follow this model.

What does this mean?  What other IG institutions are not sufficiently MS?

>
> There are various options for enhancing multi-stakeholder cooperation within
> and amongst all relevant organisations.  These include:
>
> * establishing a lightweight multi-stakeholder observatory process perhaps
> hosted under the auspices of the IGF (pursuant to its mandate in paragraph
> 72(i));
>
> * utilising a virtual and voluntary global social community or "social
> grid", linking together all Internet governance organisations, in which all
> stakeholders would participate; or
>
> * establishing a new umbrella governance institution for Internet policy
> development, with space for the participation of each stakeholder group in
> its respective role.

If you are going to remove the "do nothing" option, because some folk
oppose it, then in fairness, I suggest you must remove the above
option as some oppose that as well.

Getting into options at all is a quagmire, i suggest that it might be
easier to reach consensus if we don't enumerate the options at all.

>
> 3. Paragraph 71 of the Tunis Agenda makes very clear that civil society is
> an integral participant in the development of any process towards enhanced
> cooperation.  Therefore the IGC, in our capacity as members of civil
> society, looks forward to contributing constructively in transparent,
> accountable and democratic multi-stakeholder consultations towards this end.

fine with that para.


> --- ends ---

-- 
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 rafik.dammak at gmail.com  Sun Nov  7 02:11:32 2010
From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2010 16:11:32 +0900
Subject: [governance] Our strategy, work plan and outreach
In-Reply-To: <4CD59F0E.6020502@eff.org>
References: <AANLkTinnXi7Vw_X6Ggtb+w8qPe6RBdK50jMxrFCiPFqM@mail.gmail.com>
 <4CCD917E.4090209@paque.net> <791103.54415.qm@web55201.mail.re4.yahoo.com>
 <AANLkTinskYBxr4HpkfHSqoWujwQtGwKGncXPg5Sa07_O@mail.gmail.com>
 <AANLkTimvmRgi35sKohwr4ky7q_hP1M6V-vBp_cVr5i9=@mail.gmail.com>
 <AANLkTikfrSHy3L=wrzO0D50DF8rASHQPTHu3B1N1xUyw@mail.gmail.com>
 <AANLkTimby0ze1byeL3QkyEO3SOyBY1XjJpJ+R8E4qq+i@mail.gmail.com>
 <241F3D53-5A84-4E08-9494-C8E65DBD208A@ciroap.org> <AANLkTinK-M3VGXqLKtMSKUvVODBTsUtYcNm9Bav2xhrn@mail.gmail.com>
 <36496.3544.qm@web55207.mail.re4.yahoo.com> <4C8D158F-D320-49B4-96AE-C13B50B00681@ciroap.org>
 <AANLkTimYW3Rw_3b5oDK05-1xetV4=_skxYehEL3qJeq2@mail.gmail.com>
 <AANLkTikE76yOr5Omn-ZpOVuVwkq=js5PztLOFzx-fiY1@mail.gmail.com>
 <423191.63019.qm@web33006.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <AANLkTikgc=5J4TyJW3LJ+XnJ=dzC=+rUNsw-j2+CFKUY@mail.gmail.com>
 <4CD59F0E.6020502@eff.org>
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=BBXVE2akk8bjq0hEjKj62ZyskvuzA1y321WDG@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Kati,

thanks, I think that will be great to have summary after that workshop.

Regards

Rafik

2010/11/7 Katitza Rodriguez <katitza at eff.org>

> Hi Rafik
>
> EFF Senior Staff technologist, Peter Eckersley, is participating in this
> IAB meeting,
>
> Best,
>
> Katitza
>
>
>
> On 11/3/10 2:20 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>
>> Hi Imran,
>>
>> it was just an example http://www.iab.org/about/workshops/privacy/ and it
>> is not related to IETF meeting which will be held in Beijing.
>>
>> Rafik
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101107/468a62a8/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de  Sun Nov  7 03:28:43 2010
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=)
Date: Sun, 07 Nov 2010 09:28:43 +0100
Subject: [governance] IGF & UNGA
References: <AANLkTinnXi7Vw_X6Ggtb+w8qPe6RBdK50jMxrFCiPFqM@mail.gmail.com>
 <4CCD917E.4090209@paque.net> <791103.54415.qm@web55201.mail.re4.yahoo.com>
 <AANLkTinskYBxr4HpkfHSqoWujwQtGwKGncXPg5Sa07_O@mail.gmail.com>
 <AANLkTimvmRgi35sKohwr4ky7q_hP1M6V-vBp_cVr5i9=@mail.gmail.com>
 <AANLkTikfrSHy3L=wrzO0D50DF8rASHQPTHu3B1N1xUyw@mail.gmail.com>
 <AANLkTimby0ze1byeL3QkyEO3SOyBY1XjJpJ+R8E4qq+i@mail.gmail.com>
 <241F3D53-5A84-4E08-9494-C8E65DBD208A@ciroap.org>
 <AANLkTinK-M3VGXqLKtMSKUvVODBTsUtYcNm9Bav2xhrn@mail.gmail.com>
 <36496.3544.qm@web55207.mail.re4.yahoo.com>
 <4C8D158F-D320-49B4-96AE-C13B50B00681@ciroap.org>
 <AANLkTimYW3Rw_3b5oDK05-1xetV4=_skxYehEL3qJeq2@mail.gmail.com>
 <AANLkTikE76yOr5Omn-ZpOVuVwkq=js5PztLOFzx-fiY1@mail.gmail.com>
 <423191.63019.qm@web33006.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
 <AANLkTikgc=5J4TyJW3LJ+XnJ=dzC=+rUNsw-j2+CFKUY@mail.gmail.com>
 <4CD59F0E.6020502@eff.org>
 <AANLkTi=BBXVE2akk8bjq0hEjKj62ZyskvuzA1y321WDG@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID:  <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A073CB@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

FYI
 
http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2010/11/04/controversy-over-new-igf-mandate-un-role-in-internet-governance/
 
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 wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de  Sun Nov  7 03:31:31 2010
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=)
Date: Sun, 07 Nov 2010 09:31:31 +0100
Subject: AW: [governance] Re: SECOND DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
References: <70E573F5-00B4-4837-89B7-C05B9DA7E479@ciroap.org>
 <7.0.1.0.2.20101103021355.05d70e60@jefsey.com>
 <5B31379A-A914-4BE1-945B-EEF2478BA1DC@ciroap.org>
 <7.0.1.0.2.20101103094622.0651ee20@jefsey.com>
 <3FE17A9E-E507-44DA-8AE2-EC7EC56DD1D8@ciroap.org>
 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006DA4@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
 <4CD17823.8010108@itforchange.net>
 <AANLkTikONmgaa+4rO+uZkAv4YrPDfSV4aP9YKk_=Lgox@mail.gmail.com>
 <7.0.1.0.2.20101104103504.057fdc48@jefsey.com>
 <08B126B5-B3AB-4A91-B8BC-A90579C6EF5A@ciroap.org>
 <4CD4CF03.3000900@itforchange.net>
 <D1E1B737-C8E1-4657-8A1A-FDB3E30DB92D@psg.com>
 <4CD4E70D.8010807@itforchange.net>
 <806E2BA2-1AE8-45DE-A870-5F90AF3C0032@psg.com>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A073C5@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006DCC@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID:  <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A073CD@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

Thanks Lee
 
very helpful. I will avoid IG Web and use IG Grid (with references to you). IT isd better indeed. Much more precise and closere to my "spaghetti ball" :-))))
 
And indeed ITU-IETF is probably the first example, but it is because IETF is a "ITU sector member" which is not the case for ICANN.
 
Furthermore, we should think about the option that also CS organisations propose LOIs to other institutions.  Any ideas here?
 
wolfgang  
 

________________________________

Von: Lee W McKnight [mailto:lmcknigh at syr.edu]
Gesendet: So 07.11.2010 01:58
An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Kleinwächter, Wolfgang; Avri Doria
Betreff: RE: [governance] Re: SECOND DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation



Wolfgang,

Agreed the ITU PP is a step in the right direction. Though in practice ITU & IETF have been - practicing - enhanced cooperation for years as was discussed a while back on the list.

Extending that more formally to a broader group of orgs is a good thing, but more of an incremental step than radical break with past practice. And it still leaves civil society in the cheap seats/as spectators at (most) ITU events, typically.

On another note - and no offense - but can we stop talking about at an 'IG Web' - that sounds so 1990s. 

IG Cloud would be trendier but even vaguer.

I suppose IG Grid would be my preference, connoting simultaneous info and resource sharing across..the grid.

Lee


________________________________________
From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" [wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de]
Sent: Saturday, November 06, 2010 1:19 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Avri Doria; IGC
Subject: AW: [governance] Re: SECOND DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation

Hi all

It makes little sense to continue a theoretical discussion on "enhanced cooperation" when the practical process is moving forward and is creating new facts and opportunities. Do not underestimate the outcome of the ITU PP in Guadalajara with regard to "enhanced cooperation". In my eyes this is really a door opener and a breakthorugh towards a new more issue related "enhanced cooperation" among all players. The fact that the ITU calls in a resolution, adopted by all its 193 member states, for greater "collaboration and coordination" (remember our EC³ definition of enhanced cooperation from 2007) between the ITU on the one hand and ICANN, RIR, W3C, IETF and ISOC (on a reciprocity basis) on the other hand is very remarkable. If you take it seriously what Toure told Kieran Mc Carthy in his interview and look into Beckstroms letter to the ITU from June (published only recently) than you can see that "enhanced cooperation" is moving forward in the right way and gets substance.

We did not discuss here the idea to create a network of formal arrangements, something like an "IG Web", among all these governmental and non-governmental players. UNESCO (an intergovernmental organisation) and ICANN (a private corporation) created an interesting model of a formalized IG oriented mutual bilateral relationship. The "Letter of Intent" (LOI), signed in Vilnjus, is a good source of inspiration, also for a formalization of the ICANN-ITU relationship. Will we see more of them, also with other players? Probably we will see the emergence of a network of fomalized bilatertal relationship in a very multilateral/multistakeholder environment. I called this previously the IG "Spaghetti Ball". So enhanced cooperation is moving foreward.

Wolfgang


EC³ was defined - in an expert meeting during following the 2007 Summer School on Internet Governance as follows "Enhanced cooperation in Internet Governance is the enhanced communication, coordination and collaboration (EC³) among non-govenrmental and inter-governmental institutions and organisations in developing norms, principles, programmes and procedures for the governance of the Internet in an informal or, when and where needed, formalized way."


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 Nov  7 04:10:19 2010
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2010 09:10:19 +0000
Subject: [governance] THIRD DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <226CD676-A9D1-4E62-8E62-4C9D5E18E8F4@ciroap.org>
References: <226CD676-A9D1-4E62-8E62-4C9D5E18E8F4@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <gGBjFlV7zm1MFAWr@internetpolicyagency.com>

In message <226CD676-A9D1-4E62-8E62-4C9D5E18E8F4 at ciroap.org>, at 
07:42:00 on Sun, 7 Nov 2010, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> writes

>* establishing a new umbrella governance institution for Internet 
>policy development, 

That's an ambitious concept, and perhaps exactly what the IGF is not 
(although if it became decision-making, could perhaps move in that 
direction - but I realise many would oppose this).

>with space for the participation of each stakeholder group in its 
>respective role

You have to be a bit careful with that soundbite - because some 
governments apparently believe that the "respective roles" referred to 
are: They decide what needs to be done, everyone else follows those 
orders.
-- 
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 parminder at itforchange.net  Sun Nov  7 05:34:15 2010
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Sun, 07 Nov 2010 16:04:15 +0530
Subject: [governance] Re: SECOND DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <806E2BA2-1AE8-45DE-A870-5F90AF3C0032@psg.com>
References: <70E573F5-00B4-4837-89B7-C05B9DA7E479@ciroap.org> <7.0.1.0.2.20101103021355.05d70e60@jefsey.com> <5B31379A-A914-4BE1-945B-EEF2478BA1DC@ciroap.org> <7.0.1.0.2.20101103094622.0651ee20@jefsey.com> <3FE17A9E-E507-44DA-8AE2-EC7EC56DD1D8@ciroap.org> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006DA4@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4CD17823.8010108@itforchange.net> <AANLkTikONmgaa+4rO+uZkAv4YrPDfSV4aP9YKk_=Lgox@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20101104103504.057fdc48@jefsey.com> <08B126B5-B3AB-4A91-B8BC-A90579C6EF5A@ciroap.org> <4CD4CF03.3000900@itforchange.net> <D1E1B737-C8E1-4657-8A1A-FDB3E30DB92D@psg.com> <4CD4E70D.8010807@itforchange.net> <806E2BA2-1AE8-45DE-A870-5F90AF3C0032@psg.com>
Message-ID: <4CD680A7.9000805@itforchange.net>

Avri,

Thanks for your detailed response. A few responses/ questions for the 
present.

On Saturday 06 November 2010 08:28 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
>> (BTW, a true practice of this ideology should entail giving up of all government provided benefits and protection, for the purpose of which ,in the present circumstances, maybe taking up residence in Southern Afganistan will be the best exemplar. Such an experience may be quite insightful.)
>>      
> Not my position, man. e.g.  I want a government led/regulated single payer health system in the US.
>    
I am happy to hear that. But do you have a particular reason why US's 
health policy should not be decided only in completely open forums , 
which are fully multistakeholder, only if we get complete consensus, 
also fully involving health insurance companies and drug companies who 
must completely agree too? I am of course picking up from, what appears 
to me, is your preference for such a model for global IG. If not so, can 
you please again explain how policies get made in your model.

I really do not understand it. Isnt US gov like all other govs based on 
an imperfect representational system, which we shd continuously try to 
improve, *but not an the expense of creating a policy making vacuum*.

Further, you  asked is your governance model 'specific enough'. Really, 
but I did not see any governance model for making global policies there. 
(CIRs is not what I am taking about.) I mean, can you tell me how I can 
have democratically negotiated cyber security treaties rather than done 
by the OECD and forced on others, same with Internet related issues 
included in ACTA, and much more is slated to come. All this will be 
pushed through FTAs on non OECD countries.  Many policies and 
preferences of the West just come through technology models - and we 
take it or leave it, such is the global might of the involved tech 
companies, who of course do much more carefully listen to US gov and 
stronger European countries.

You think we need health policies but not Internet policies? Again, any 
particular reason? parminder

> But you do a good job of arguing ad absurdum.  Be careful though.  When one argues the ad absurdum, I have found, there is always someone you can convince with your absurd argument.  Just look at recent US elections, people can be convinced of anything at times.  But that's representational democracy. I digress.
>
>    
>> >  
>> >  Any system systematically developing and enforcing public policies is in effect a government. we can have a good - more inclusive, transparent, accountable, progressive etc - government or governance system, or a bad one.
>>      
> I disagree that governance is the province of governments. Any governance system can and should go beyond the governments.  First, all governments are just local affairs for some definition of local, with no world government either in existence or in the offing. Further, governments, the best of which have a strong representative democracy - and there are few that meet this criteria, are just touching the tip of what it means to be democratic.  True democracy builds its base on the representative 1 person 1 vote (though some are still just 1 man 1 vote, or just  1 landowner 1 vote ...) model, but goes far beyond that into participatory democracy.  Representative democracy may be the foundation of democracy, but it does not provide a full edifice for full democracy.
>    
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101107/61163947/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From roland at internetpolicyagency.com  Sun Nov  7 06:52:58 2010
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2010 11:52:58 +0000
Subject: [governance] Re: SECOND DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <4CD680A7.9000805@itforchange.net>
References: <70E573F5-00B4-4837-89B7-C05B9DA7E479@ciroap.org>
 <7.0.1.0.2.20101103021355.05d70e60@jefsey.com>
 <5B31379A-A914-4BE1-945B-EEF2478BA1DC@ciroap.org>
 <7.0.1.0.2.20101103094622.0651ee20@jefsey.com>
 <3FE17A9E-E507-44DA-8AE2-EC7EC56DD1D8@ciroap.org>
 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006DA4@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
 <4CD17823.8010108@itforchange.net>
 <AANLkTikONmgaa+4rO+uZkAv4YrPDfSV4aP9YKk_=Lgox@mail.gmail.com>
 <7.0.1.0.2.20101104103504.057fdc48@jefsey.com>
 <08B126B5-B3AB-4A91-B8BC-A90579C6EF5A@ciroap.org>
 <4CD4CF03.3000900@itforchange.net>
 <D1E1B737-C8E1-4657-8A1A-FDB3E30DB92D@psg.com>
 <4CD4E70D.8010807@itforchange.net>
 <806E2BA2-1AE8-45DE-A870-5F90AF3C0032@psg.com>
 <4CD680A7.9000805@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <JVZZB$kaMp1MFACc@internetpolicyagency.com>

In message <4CD680A7.9000805 at itforchange.net>, at 16:04:15 on Sun, 7 Nov 
2010, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> writes
>can you tell me how I can have democratically negotiated cyber security 
>treaties rather than done by the OECD and forced on others,

Do you mean things like the Budapest Convention (which is Council of 
Europe rather than OECD). Not that I agree such things are "forced" on 
anyone. Where would the democracy kick in - during the initial drafting 
of what are fundamentally "Best Practice" documents, or as a referendum 
in every country thinking about adopting them?

(Apologies if we are drifting somewhat away from ECOSOC/CSTD matters).
-- 
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 psg.com  Sun Nov  7 08:08:41 2010
From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2010 08:08:41 -0500
Subject: [governance] Re: SECOND DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <4CD680A7.9000805@itforchange.net>
References: <70E573F5-00B4-4837-89B7-C05B9DA7E479@ciroap.org> <7.0.1.0.2.20101103021355.05d70e60@jefsey.com> <5B31379A-A914-4BE1-945B-EEF2478BA1DC@ciroap.org> <7.0.1.0.2.20101103094622.0651ee20@jefsey.com> <3FE17A9E-E507-44DA-8AE2-EC7EC56DD1D8@ciroap.org> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006DA4@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4CD17823.8010108@itforchange.net> <AANLkTikONmgaa+4rO+uZkAv4YrPDfSV4aP9YKk_=Lgox@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20101104103504.057fdc48@jefsey.com> <08B126B5-B3AB-4A91-B8BC-A90579C6EF5A@ciroap.org> <4CD4CF03.3000900@itforchange.net> <D1E1B737-C8E1-4657-8A1A-FDB3E30DB92D@psg.com> <4CD4E70D.8010807@itforchange.net> <806E2BA2-1AE8-45DE-A870-5F90AF3C0032@psg.com> <4CD680A7.9000805@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <5C431C4A-D6DE-4658-A032-A40E550F47D3@psg.com>

Hi,

The health care stmt was just an example to show, that personally I do support government action, especially on the local level.  I will avoid getting in to Off Topic details on what I think specifically on this topic.

Yes, I would like to see a multistakeholder process in the US on deciding all policy issues (including health care). In fact, again just as example, when I had the opportunity to discuss a particular state's (US definition of state) build out of broadband within that state, I proposed a specifically tailored multistakeholder model.  I see this model of policy making as the next step in democracy; multistakeholder model of policy creation is a form of representational democracy + participatory democracy.  And I see it as something we are still learning about.

Now you have added another topic, full consensus. I support idea of rough/near consensus, not full consensus.  But that would be another long topic on what that means and how that is achieved in a multistakeholder environment - another field in which we  are still growing in experience.

Sorry my model was not specific enough.  I propose a decentralized model that includes the groups that are already working on issues and avoids creating new centralized monoliths, though I do add the notion of appeals and arbitration mechanisms.  It is a model of step wise refinement, and model that includes the many things we see happening already in the 'IG grid' (i thought grids were an older model, but I don't mind the term, i like grids as long as they are not 2 dimensional).

I must note, that I was spoken to sternly, though privately, for wasting the group's time with theoretical discussions when real stuff was happening an real stuff needed to be decided.  So I will stop now.

a.


On 7 Nov 2010, at 05:34, parminder wrote:

> Avri, 
> 
> Thanks for your detailed response. A few responses/ questions for the present.
> 
> On Saturday 06 November 2010 08:28 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
>> 
>>> (BTW, a true practice of this ideology should entail giving up of all government provided benefits and protection, for the purpose of which ,in the present circumstances, maybe taking up residence in Southern Afganistan will be the best exemplar. Such an experience may be quite insightful.)
>>>     
>> Not my position, man. e.g.  I want a government led/regulated single payer health system in the US.  
>>   
> I am happy to hear that. But do you have a particular reason why US's health policy should not be decided only in completely open forums , which are fully multistakeholder, only if we get complete consensus, also fully involving health insurance companies and drug companies who must completely agree too? I am of course picking up from, what appears to me, is your preference for such a model for global IG. If not so, can you please again explain how policies get made in your model.
> 
> I really do not understand it. Isnt US gov like all other govs based on an imperfect representational system, which we shd continuously try to improve, *but not an the expense of creating a policy making vacuum*. 
> 
> Further, you  asked is your governance model 'specific enough'. Really, but I did not see any governance model for making global policies there. (CIRs is not what I am taking about.) I mean, can you tell me how I can have democratically negotiated cyber security treaties rather than done by the OECD and forced on others, same with Internet related issues included in ACTA, and much more is slated to come. All this will be pushed through FTAs on non OECD countries.  Many policies and preferences of the West just come through technology models - and we take it or leave it, such is the global might of the involved tech companies, who of course do much more carefully listen to US gov and stronger European countries. 
> 
> You think we need health policies but not Internet policies? Again, any particular reason? parminder 
> 
>> But you do a good job of arguing ad absurdum.  Be careful though.  When one argues the ad absurdum, I have found, there is always someone you can convince with your absurd argument.  Just look at recent US elections, people can be convinced of anything at times.  But that's representational democracy. I digress.
>> 
>>   
>>> >   
>>> > Any system systematically developing and enforcing public policies is in effect a government. we can have a good - more inclusive, transparent, accountable, progressive etc - government or governance system, or a bad one. 
>>>     
>> I disagree that governance is the province of governments. Any governance system can and should go beyond the governments.  First, all governments are just local affairs for some definition of local, with no world government either in existence or in the offing. Further, governments, the best of which have a strong representative democracy - and there are few that meet this criteria, are just touching the tip of what it means to be democratic.  True democracy builds its base on the representative 1 person 1 vote (though some are still just 1 man 1 vote, or just  1 landowner 1 vote ...) model, but goes far beyond that into participatory democracy.  Representative democracy may be the foundation of democracy, but it does not provide a full edifice for full democracy.
>>   
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 emerald_dust at hotmail.com  Sun Nov  7 08:56:39 2010
From: emerald_dust at hotmail.com (Marie Casey)
Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2010 13:56:39 +0000
Subject: [governance] OT: A light-hearted moment for those who identify
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimbDmudKOCapwDas2=C2TpoxPNETeUF9gzyJdjo@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTimbDmudKOCapwDas2=C2TpoxPNETeUF9gzyJdjo@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <SNT141-w391EB5BF2F139118B5928EF04E0@phx.gbl>


This was fantastic!!!
Marie, Ireland

Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2010 16:51:11 +0200
From: correia.rui at gmail.com
Subject: [governance] OT: A light-hearted moment for those who identify with participation on lists
To: 

Hope at least some of you will get a good chuckle out of it.

Rui

________________________________________________________ 

How Many List Members Does It Take To Change A Lightbulb?




One to change the light bulb and to post that the light bulb has been

changed.



Fourteen to share similar experiences of changing light bulbs and how the

light bulb could have been changed differently.



Seven to caution about the dangers of changing light bulbs.



Seven more to point out spelling/grammar errors in posts about changing

light bulbs.



Five to flame the spell checkers.



Three to correct spelling/grammar flames.



Six to argue over whether it's "lightbulb" or "light bulb" ...



Another six to condemn those six as stupid.



Fifteen to claim experience in the lighting industry and give the correct

spelling.



Nineteen to post that this group is not about light bulbs and to please take

this discussion to a lightbulb (or light bulb) forum.



Eleven to defend the posting to the group saying that we all use light bulbs

and therefore the posts are relevant to this group.



Thirty six to debate which method of changing light bulbs is superior, where

to buy the best light bulbs, what brand of light bulbs work best for this

technique and what brands are faulty.



Seven to post URLs where one can see examples of different light bulbs.



Four to post that the URLs were posted incorrectly and then post the

corrected URL.



Three to post about links they found from the URLs that are relevant to this

group which makes light bulbs relevant to this group.



Thirteen to link all posts to date, quote them in their entirety including

all headers and signatures, and add "Me too"



Five to post to the group that they will no longer post because they cannot

handle the light bulb controversy.



Four to say "didn't we go through this already a short time ago?"



Thirteen to say "do a Google search on light bulbs before posting questions

about light bulbs."



Three to tell a funny story about their cat and a light bulb.



AND



One group lurker to respond to the original post 6 months from now with

something unrelated they found at snopes.com and start it all over again!


-- 
_________________________

Rui Correia

Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant

Angola Liaison Consultant

2 Cutten St

Horison 

Roodepoort-Johannesburg, 

South Africa

Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336

Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838

_______________

àáâãçéêíóôõúç  
 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101107/b91a1402/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From miguel.alcaine at gmail.com  Sun Nov  7 09:10:19 2010
From: miguel.alcaine at gmail.com (Miguel Alcaine)
Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2010 15:10:19 +0100
Subject: [governance] THIRD DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <226CD676-A9D1-4E62-8E62-4C9D5E18E8F4@ciroap.org>
References: <226CD676-A9D1-4E62-8E62-4C9D5E18E8F4@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <AANLkTikzg3R2Uc2pDz6=yPXN8fumTgqqH2ch1T-xV_M6@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all,

I have made small suggestions with the intention to strengthen the
statement.

Additionally, If you had the opportunity to read what I wrote about
"Enhanced Cooperation" (EC) for the preparation of the XII CSTD meeting last
may in the website www.cstdn.org, you can see that I believe EC needs at
least 2 parts: 1) A favorable environment (organisations which offer a
democratic, transparent and multi-stakeholder environment. Democratic
meaning participation, accountability and review process on decisions) ; 2)
Institutional and personal capacity building, mainly for stakeholders in
developing countries. A third possible part is to increase awareness of IG
and IG4D, particularly in developing countries.

Do you think is worthwhile to include the ideas above?

Best,

Miguel Alcaine

On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 1:42 AM, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:

> It will be impossible to simultaneously satisfy people like Parminder and
> people like McTim, so here is my attempt at dissatisfying them equally.  The
> biggest changes are the substitution of a new preamble for the old one, and
> deletion of the "do nothing" bullet point under numbered-paragraph 2.  Let's
> continue to have your comments as we try and reach some common ground.
>
> --- begins ---
>
> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (CS-IGC) regards the process
> towards enhanced cooperation as a vital step towards addressing the "many
> cross-cutting international public policy issues that require attention and
> are not adequately addressed by the current mechanisms" (Tunis Agenda para
> 68).
>
> Despite an intergovernmental mandate from WSIS to address this governance
> deficit, much remains to be done.  It is imperative that this deficit
> continue to be addressed, where appropriate through new institutional
> developments that comply with the WSIS process criteria of being
> multilateral, transparent, democratic and inclusive.
>
> We make three further points.  First, enhanced cooperation should encompass
> all Internet-related public policy issues; second, the existing arrangements
> of relevant organisations (including the Internet Governance Forum) do not
> fully implement enhanced cooperation, and thirdly whatever new arrangements
> may be put in place, civil society will *must* play an integral part in
> them, *as one of the prerequisites for their legitimacy.*
>

*[COMMENT: Suggested ammendments here is a good place to make the link
between enhanced cooperation, multistakeholderism and legitimacy]
*

>
>
> These points will be explained in turn:
>
> 1. Although much of the discussion of enhanced cooperation at WSIS turned
> around the narrow issue of internationalising the oversight of Internet
> naming and numbering functions, the Tunis Agenda expresses this principle
> far more broadly.  It also reminds us that the ultimate objective of our
> cooperation is to advance a people-centred, inclusive, development-oriented
> and non-discriminatory Information Society.
>
> 2. The IGF in its present form is a very important part of the enhanced
> cooperation process and the *Internet Governance arrangements*, in that
> ideally its multi-stakeholder process can help to shape decisions taken on
> Internet related public policy issues in other fora.  However the full
> realisation of enhanced cooperation will require a multi-stakeholder process
> to extend to other Internet governance organisations that do not already
> follow this model.
>

*[COMMENT (deletion of ideally): the word ideally weakens the argument,
giving the opportunity for others to say that IGF does not take place in an
ideal world but in the real world. Therefore, IGF is not capable of helping
to shape decisions in other fora.]
*

>
> There are various*, which may complement each other,* options for
> enhancing multi-stakeholder cooperation within and amongst all relevant
> organisations.  These include:
>
> * establishing a lightweight multi-stakeholder observatory process perhaps
> hosted under the auspices of the IGF (pursuant to its mandate in paragraph
> 72(i));
>
> * utilising a virtual and voluntary global social community or "social
> grid", linking together all Internet governance organisations, in which all
> stakeholders would participate; or
>
> * establishing a new umbrella governance institution for Internet policy
> development, with space for the participation of each stakeholder group in
> its respective role.
>

*[COMMENT (reasons to suggest the insertion of the phrase about
complementarity in the chapeau): option 1 and 2 can be developed together. I
believe making the appropriate link between Enhanced Cooperation and IGF is
appropriate and convenient, i.e. option 1. To my knowledge, option 1 and 2
look to help to strenghten the democratic, transparent and
multistakeholderism features in the different organisations, while option 3
can be seen as more towards the equality among States, although as reflected
here, also look to ensure the corresponding participation of all
stakeholders.]
*

>
> 3. Paragraph 71 of the Tunis Agenda makes very clear that civil society is
> an integral participant in the development of any process towards enhanced
> cooperation.  Therefore the IGC, in our capacity as members of civil
> society, looks forward to contributing constructively in transparent,
> accountable and democratic multi-stakeholder consultations towards this end.
>
> --- ends ---
>
> PS. It's entirely possible I have missed some emails.  I'm in Laos with a
> terrible Internet connection.  I'll catch up and incorporate anything I
> missed into the fourth draft.
>
> --
>
> *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.
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101107/eaf76ba0/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From mariliamaciel at gmail.com  Sun Nov  7 11:35:53 2010
From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2010 14:35:53 -0200
Subject: [governance] Re: SECOND DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <C84D9725-4182-4D47-BDDC-1CF5B6DFFFE0@ciroap.org>
References: <70E573F5-00B4-4837-89B7-C05B9DA7E479@ciroap.org>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20101103021355.05d70e60@jefsey.com>
	<5B31379A-A914-4BE1-945B-EEF2478BA1DC@ciroap.org>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20101103094622.0651ee20@jefsey.com>
	<3FE17A9E-E507-44DA-8AE2-EC7EC56DD1D8@ciroap.org>
	<93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006DA4@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
	<4CD17823.8010108@itforchange.net>
	<AANLkTikONmgaa+4rO+uZkAv4YrPDfSV4aP9YKk_=Lgox@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20101104103504.057fdc48@jefsey.com>
	<08B126B5-B3AB-4A91-B8BC-A90579C6EF5A@ciroap.org>
	<4CD4CF03.3000900@itforchange.net>
	<D1E1B737-C8E1-4657-8A1A-FDB3E30DB92D@psg.com>
	<4CD4E70D.8010807@itforchange.net>
	<806E2BA2-1AE8-45DE-A870-5F90AF3C0032@psg.com>
	<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A073C5@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
	<93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006DCC@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
	<AANLkTi=cj+g+RK6O04s4gq1BNGZUyj1Fb93KiQwT=5m+@mail.gmail.com>
	<C84D9725-4182-4D47-BDDC-1CF5B6DFFFE0@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <AANLkTin+tkDL0SZYux_fT3ZwW-Ow4pZ3U-w-zLir4Znf@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Jeremy,

Thanks for the feedback. I have wanted to read your book for some time, and
now I will definately do it, so I will be able to establish a dialogue with
your ideas.
Best,
Marília


On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 1:27 AM, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:

> On 07/11/2010, at 9:58 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote:
>
> *3) The creation of a government council*
> ...
>
> It means that only governments would have voting powers in a such a
> council, but their power to make changes to the policy drafted by the
> multistakeholder group would be limited. They would be able to approve the
> policy or not, and they would be able to adjust it slightly to their
> realities, but any suggestion of substantial changes would lead to a re-exam
> of the proposal by the multistakeholder group.
>
>
> It makes a lot of sense to me, even though it is, as you say,
> controversial.  A variant on this is what I proposed by way of a
> consociational bureau for the IGF: read pages 294 to 297, 466 to 467, and
> 471-474, and 478-482 of my book at
> http://books.google.com/books?id=G8ETBPD6jHIC.
>
> --
>
> *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.
>
>
>


-- 
Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
FGV Direito Rio

Center for Technology and Society
Getulio Vargas Foundation
Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101107/c4f0a902/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From parminder at itforchange.net  Sun Nov  7 11:48:43 2010
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Sun, 07 Nov 2010 22:18:43 +0530
Subject: [governance] Re: SECOND DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <5C431C4A-D6DE-4658-A032-A40E550F47D3@psg.com>
References: <70E573F5-00B4-4837-89B7-C05B9DA7E479@ciroap.org> <7.0.1.0.2.20101103021355.05d70e60@jefsey.com> <5B31379A-A914-4BE1-945B-EEF2478BA1DC@ciroap.org> <7.0.1.0.2.20101103094622.0651ee20@jefsey.com> <3FE17A9E-E507-44DA-8AE2-EC7EC56DD1D8@ciroap.org> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006DA4@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4CD17823.8010108@itforchange.net> <AANLkTikONmgaa+4rO+uZkAv4YrPDfSV4aP9YKk_=Lgox@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20101104103504.057fdc48@jefsey.com> <08B126B5-B3AB-4A91-B8BC-A90579C6EF5A@ciroap.org> <4CD4CF03.3000900@itforchange.net> <D1E1B737-C8E1-4657-8A1A-FDB3E30DB92D@psg.com> <4CD4E70D.8010807@itforchange.net> <806E2BA2-1AE8-45DE-A870-5F90AF3C0032@psg.com> <4CD680A7.9000805@itforchange.net> <5C431C4A-D6DE-4658-A032-A40E550F47D3@psg.com>
Message-ID: <4CD6D86B.7030306@itforchange.net>



On Sunday 07 November 2010 06:38 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The health care stmt was just an example to show, that personally I do support government action, especially on the local level.  I will avoid getting in to Off Topic details on what I think specifically on this topic.
>    

Avri, I dont consider this off topic. I still have no response from you 
on how can US health insurance kind of policy that you root for ever be 
arrived at by a fully and only multistakeholder model of policy making, 
the kind you prescribe for global IG policies. A response to the 
question is at the heart of the matter in my opinion. I am ready to 
accept any policy making model in global IG which you can show can even 
theoretically arrive at a US health insurance kind of policy.

And if your non-answer means that while you are for policies with 
possible redistributive impact at national levels but not for such 
policies at global level i still need to know the rational for this. 
Especially from someone like you who is awovedly a globalist, and tend 
to see the whole globe as her home beyond national boundaries. In that 
case how can you disclaim any need for global substantive policies in IG 
(as in other arenas) beyond technical mangement ones in which I have 
little interest. Is the fear of the global redistributive possibilities 
of a global polity, which I can easily understand drives many developed 
country govs stance in this area, implied here. However I am unable to 
understand it coming from you.

Neither did you answer my question about what are my options for 
democratic participation in how OECD countries are right now writing 
global Internet policies among themselves, and then forcing it on 
others, while they have handed this toy of MS-ism for CS to keep itself 
occupied. That is the real distraction, not this particular discussion 
we are having which seeks, from my side, to put limits on this 
distraction that much of IG civil society is caught, away form real 
things and real decisions.

Also representational democracy plus participatory democracy has  a long 
history of both theory and practise - it is deepening democracy,  and 
not the MSism we see in IG spaces. This strange speak of IG grids and 
spaghetti balls as governance systems will get the goat of any 
grassroots practitioner of participatory democracy.

Parminder

> Yes, I would like to see a multistakeholder process in the US on deciding all policy issues (including health care). In fact, again just as example, when I had the opportunity to discuss a particular state's (US definition of state) build out of broadband within that state, I proposed a specifically tailored multistakeholder model.  I see this model of policy making as the next step in democracy; multistakeholder model of policy creation is a form of representational democracy + participatory democracy.  And I see it as something we are still learning about.
>
> Now you have added another topic, full consensus. I support idea of rough/near consensus, not full consensus.  But that would be another long topic on what that means and how that is achieved in a multistakeholder environment - another field in which we  are still growing in experience.
>
> Sorry my model was not specific enough.  I propose a decentralized model that includes the groups that are already working on issues and avoids creating new centralized monoliths, though I do add the notion of appeals and arbitration mechanisms.  It is a model of step wise refinement, and model that includes the many things we see happening already in the 'IG grid' (i thought grids were an older model, but I don't mind the term, i like grids as long as they are not 2 dimensional).
>
> I must note, that I was spoken to sternly, though privately, for wasting the group's time with theoretical discussions when real stuff was happening an real stuff needed to be decided.  So I will stop now.
>
> a.
>
>
> On 7 Nov 2010, at 05:34, parminder wrote:
>
>    
>> Avri,
>>
>> Thanks for your detailed response. A few responses/ questions for the present.
>>
>> On Saturday 06 November 2010 08:28 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
>>      
>>>        
>>>> (BTW, a true practice of this ideology should entail giving up of all government provided benefits and protection, for the purpose of which ,in the present circumstances, maybe taking up residence in Southern Afganistan will be the best exemplar. Such an experience may be quite insightful.)
>>>>
>>>>          
>>> Not my position, man. e.g.  I want a government led/regulated single payer health system in the US.
>>>
>>>        
>> I am happy to hear that. But do you have a particular reason why US's health policy should not be decided only in completely open forums , which are fully multistakeholder, only if we get complete consensus, also fully involving health insurance companies and drug companies who must completely agree too? I am of course picking up from, what appears to me, is your preference for such a model for global IG. If not so, can you please again explain how policies get made in your model.
>>
>> I really do not understand it. Isnt US gov like all other govs based on an imperfect representational system, which we shd continuously try to improve, *but not an the expense of creating a policy making vacuum*.
>>
>> Further, you  asked is your governance model 'specific enough'. Really, but I did not see any governance model for making global policies there. (CIRs is not what I am taking about.) I mean, can you tell me how I can have democratically negotiated cyber security treaties rather than done by the OECD and forced on others, same with Internet related issues included in ACTA, and much more is slated to come. All this will be pushed through FTAs on non OECD countries.  Many policies and preferences of the West just come through technology models - and we take it or leave it, such is the global might of the involved tech companies, who of course do much more carefully listen to US gov and stronger European countries.
>>
>> You think we need health policies but not Internet policies? Again, any particular reason? parminder
>>
>>      
>>> But you do a good job of arguing ad absurdum.  Be careful though.  When one argues the ad absurdum, I have found, there is always someone you can convince with your absurd argument.  Just look at recent US elections, people can be convinced of anything at times.  But that's representational democracy. I digress.
>>>
>>>
>>>        
>>>>>
>>>>> Any system systematically developing and enforcing public policies is in effect a government. we can have a good - more inclusive, transparent, accountable, progressive etc - government or governance system, or a bad one.
>>>>>            
>>>>
>>>>          
>>> I disagree that governance is the province of governments. Any governance system can and should go beyond the governments.  First, all governments are just local affairs for some definition of local, with no world government either in existence or in the offing. Further, governments, the best of which have a strong representative democracy - and there are few that meet this criteria, are just touching the tip of what it means to be democratic.  True democracy builds its base on the representative 1 person 1 vote (though some are still just 1 man 1 vote, or just  1 landowner 1 vote ...) model, but goes far beyond that into participatory democracy.  Representative democracy may be the foundation of democracy, but it does not provide a full edifice for full democracy.
>>>
>>>        
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>      
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>       governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>       governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>       http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>    
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101107/cf3aa17e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From parminder at itforchange.net  Sun Nov  7 11:56:07 2010
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Sun, 07 Nov 2010 22:26:07 +0530
Subject: [governance] Re: SECOND DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTin+tkDL0SZYux_fT3ZwW-Ow4pZ3U-w-zLir4Znf@mail.gmail.com>
References: <70E573F5-00B4-4837-89B7-C05B9DA7E479@ciroap.org>	<5B31379A-A914-4BE1-945B-EEF2478BA1DC@ciroap.org>	<7.0.1.0.2.20101103094622.0651ee20@jefsey.com>	<3FE17A9E-E507-44DA-8AE2-EC7EC56DD1D8@ciroap.org>	<93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006DA4@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>	<4CD17823.8010108@itforchange.net>	<AANLkTikONmgaa+4rO+uZkAv4YrPDfSV4aP9YKk_=Lgox@mail.gmail.com>	<7.0.1.0.2.20101104103504.057fdc48@jefsey.com>	<08B126B5-B3AB-4A91-B8BC-A90579C6EF5A@ciroap.org>	<4CD4CF03.3000900@itforchange.net>	<D1E1B737-C8E1-4657-8A1A-FDB3E30DB92D@psg.com>	<4CD4E70D.8010807@itforchange.net>	<806E2BA2-1AE8-45DE-A870-5F90AF3C0032@psg.com>	<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A073C5@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>	<93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006DCC@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>	<AANLkTi=cj+g+RK6O04s4gq1BNGZUyj1Fb93KiQwT=5m+@mail.gmail.com>	<C84D9725-4182-4D47-BDDC-1CF5B6DFFFE0@ciroap.org> <AANLkTin+tkDL0SZYux_fT3ZwW-Ow4pZ3U-w-zLir4Znf@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4CD6DA27.90803@itforchange.net>


>     On 07/11/2010, at 9:58 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote:
>
>>     *3) The creation of a government council*
>>     ...
>>
>>     It means that only governments would have voting powers in a such
>>     a council, but their power to make changes to the policy drafted
>>     by the multistakeholder group would be limited. They would be
>>     able to approve the policy or not, and they would be able to
>>     adjust it slightly to their realities, but any suggestion of
>>     substantial changes would lead to a re-exam of the proposal by
>>     the multistakeholder group.
>
Marilia,

Indeed, it is such kinds of imaginative possibilities of moving ahead 
from the present deadlock resulting in vacuum in global Internet policy 
making, which is exploited by powerful players, that we should be 
proposing and discussing.

On the other hand, staying stuck at impossible and often rather fluffy 
propositions of non models when asked for specific inputs on enhanced 
cooperation  is a rather round about way of saying thanks, but no, 
thanks, we are happy as things are and dont want them disturbed.

Parminder
>
>
>     It makes a lot of sense to me, even though it is, as you say,
>     controversial.  A variant on this is what I proposed by way of a
>     consociational bureau for the IGF: read pages 294 to 297, 466 to
>     467, and 471-474, and 478-482 of my book at
>     http://books.google.com/books?id=G8ETBPD6jHIC.
>
>     -- 
>
>     *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.
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
> FGV Direito Rio
>
> Center for Technology and Society
> Getulio Vargas Foundation
> Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101107/0ba929f5/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From avri at psg.com  Sun Nov  7 12:08:58 2010
From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2010 12:08:58 -0500
Subject: [governance] Re: SECOND DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <4CD6D86B.7030306@itforchange.net>
References: <70E573F5-00B4-4837-89B7-C05B9DA7E479@ciroap.org> <7.0.1.0.2.20101103021355.05d70e60@jefsey.com> <5B31379A-A914-4BE1-945B-EEF2478BA1DC@ciroap.org> <7.0.1.0.2.20101103094622.0651ee20@jefsey.com> <3FE17A9E-E507-44DA-8AE2-EC7EC56DD1D8@ciroap.org> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006DA4@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4CD17823.8010108@itforchange.net> <AANLkTikONmgaa+4rO+uZkAv4YrPDfSV4aP9YKk_=Lgox@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20101104103504.057fdc48@jefsey.com> <08B126B5-B3AB-4A91-B8BC-A90579C6EF5A@ciroap.org> <4CD4CF03.3000900@itforchange.net> <D1E1B737-C8E1-4657-8A1A-FDB3E30DB92D@psg.com> <4CD4E70D.8010807@itforchange.net> <806E2BA2-1AE8-45DE-A870-5F90AF3C0032@psg.com> <4CD680A7.9000805@itforchange.net> <5C431C4A-D6DE-4658-A032-A40E550F47D3@psg.com> <4CD6D86B.7030306@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <B3AA7CEF-6838-4E61-A5D1-7EB5F899CC9D@psg.com>

Hi,

Answering the questions I think are on topic, using a very restrictive definition of 'on topic'.

1. When I say I am against a centralized model, i am not saying i am against a globalized model. I favor globalized models, but think that there can be several overlapping globalized efforts without needing to centralize it under one Central Committee for Internet governance (CCIG).  I have no issue with globalized IG groups being formed, in so far as they don't already exists, to go into any and all of the issue in IG in the broader sense.  I just don't buy into a CCIG.

2. I think the multistakeholder model is a way toward greater democracy and people centered modalities, you think it is a distraction.  We might as well, as they say. 'agree to disagree'  I would say that I would endeavor not to distract you ever again, but I now that every time you call it a distraction, I will find it necessary to argue for its importance.  If we want to talk about how the multistakeholder model is being introduced as a way of 'deepening democracy' to use your term, and whether the multistakeholder model it could be done more effectively, I am ready to work with you.  But as long as you want to cast it into the dustbin of IG history, I will resist that call as I think that is dangerously regressive.

3. As for the OECD, i think introducing the multistakeholder model into the OECD is a step in the right direction.  But it has only be a year so I am not sure how far it as gotten - certainly would like to hear more from those who are involved in this effort.

a.

PS.  while I wish I was a globalized world citizen, as you know it is not possible for me to really be such.  as a somewhat a realist, i have come to the conclusion that for at least my life time, the national encapsulations are something that need to be accepted, and some things just need to be done within the encapsulation.  and in any case, thee will always be a local context to anything, for some defiintion of local.


On 7 Nov 2010, at 11:48, parminder wrote:

> 
> 
> On Sunday 07 November 2010 06:38 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> The health care stmt was just an example to show, that personally I do support government action, especially on the local level.  I will avoid getting in to Off Topic details on what I think specifically on this topic.
>>   
>> 
> 
> Avri, I dont consider this off topic. I still have no response from you on how can US health insurance kind of policy that you root for ever be arrived at by a fully and only multistakeholder model of policy making, the kind you prescribe for global IG policies. A response to the question is at the heart of the matter in my opinion. I am ready to accept any policy making model in global IG which you can show can even theoretically arrive at a US health insurance kind of policy.
> 
> And if your non-answer means that while you are for policies with possible redistributive impact at national levels but not for such policies at global level i still need to know the rational for this. Especially from someone like you who is awovedly a globalist, and tend to see the whole globe as her home beyond national boundaries. In that case how can you disclaim any need for global substantive policies in IG (as in other arenas) beyond technical mangement ones in which I have little interest. Is the fear of the global redistributive possibilities of a global polity, which I can easily understand drives many developed country govs stance in this area, implied here. However I am unable to understand it coming from you.
> 
> Neither did you answer my question about what are my options for democratic participation in how OECD countries are right now writing global Internet policies among themselves, and then forcing it on others, while they have handed this toy of MS-ism for CS to keep itself occupied. That is the real distraction, not this particular discussion we are having which seeks, from my side, to put limits on this distraction that much of IG civil society is caught, away form real things and real decisions.
> 
> Also representational democracy plus participatory democracy has  a long history of both theory and practise - it is deepening democracy,  and not the MSism we see in IG spaces. This strange speak of IG grids and spaghetti balls as governance systems will get the goat of any grassroots practitioner of participatory democracy.
> 
> Parminder 
> 
>> Yes, I would like to see a multistakeholder process in the US on deciding all policy issues (including health care). In fact, again just as example, when I had the opportunity to discuss a particular state's (US definition of state) build out of broadband within that state, I proposed a specifically tailored multistakeholder model.  I see this model of policy making as the next step in democracy; multistakeholder model of policy creation is a form of representational democracy + participatory democracy.  And I see it as something we are still learning about.
>> 
>> Now you have added another topic, full consensus. I support idea of rough/near consensus, not full consensus.  But that would be another long topic on what that means and how that is achieved in a multistakeholder environment - another field in which we  are still growing in experience.
>> 
>> Sorry my model was not specific enough.  I propose a decentralized model that includes the groups that are already working on issues and avoids creating new centralized monoliths, though I do add the notion of appeals and arbitration mechanisms.  It is a model of step wise refinement, and model that includes the many things we see happening already in the 'IG grid' (i thought grids were an older model, but I don't mind the term, i like grids as long as they are not 2 dimensional).
>> 
>> I must note, that I was spoken to sternly, though privately, for wasting the group's time with theoretical discussions when real stuff was happening an real stuff needed to be decided.  So I will stop now.
>> 
>> a.
>> 
>> 
>> On 7 Nov 2010, at 05:34, parminder wrote:
>> 
>>   
>> 
>>> Avri, 
>>> 
>>> Thanks for your detailed response. A few responses/ questions for the present.
>>> 
>>> On Saturday 06 November 2010 08:28 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
>>>     
>>> 
>>>>       
>>>>> (BTW, a true practice of this ideology should entail giving up of all government provided benefits and protection, for the purpose of which ,in the present circumstances, maybe taking up residence in Southern Afganistan will be the best exemplar. Such an experience may be quite insightful.)
>>>>>     
>>>>>         
>>>>> 
>>>> Not my position, man. e.g.  I want a government led/regulated single payer health system in the US.  
>>>>   
>>>>       
>>>> 
>>> I am happy to hear that. But do you have a particular reason why US's health policy should not be decided only in completely open forums , which are fully multistakeholder, only if we get complete consensus, also fully involving health insurance companies and drug companies who must completely agree too? I am of course picking up from, what appears to me, is your preference for such a model for global IG. If not so, can you please again explain how policies get made in your model.
>>> 
>>> I really do not understand it. Isnt US gov like all other govs based on an imperfect representational system, which we shd continuously try to improve, *but not an the expense of creating a policy making vacuum*. 
>>> 
>>> Further, you  asked is your governance model 'specific enough'. Really, but I did not see any governance model for making global policies there. (CIRs is not what I am taking about.) I mean, can you tell me how I can have democratically negotiated cyber security treaties rather than done by the OECD and forced on others, same with Internet related issues included in ACTA, and much more is slated to come. All this will be pushed through FTAs on non OECD countries.  Many policies and preferences of the West just come through technology models - and we take it or leave it, such is the global might of the involved tech companies, who of course do much more carefully listen to US gov and stronger European countries. 
>>> 
>>> You think we need health policies but not Internet policies? Again, any particular reason? parminder 
>>> 
>>>     
>>> 
>>>> But you do a good job of arguing ad absurdum.  Be careful though.  When one argues the ad absurdum, I have found, there is always someone you can convince with your absurd argument.  Just look at recent US elections, people can be convinced of anything at times.  But that's representational democracy. I digress.
>>>> 
>>>>   
>>>>       
>>>> 
>>>>>>   
>>>>>> Any system systematically developing and enforcing public policies is in effect a government. we can have a good - more inclusive, transparent, accountable, progressive etc - government or governance system, or a bad one. 
>>>>>>           
>>>>>> 
>>>>>     
>>>>>         
>>>>> 
>>>> I disagree that governance is the province of governments. Any governance system can and should go beyond the governments.  First, all governments are just local affairs for some definition of local, with no world government either in existence or in the offing. Further, governments, the best of which have a strong representative democracy - and there are few that meet this criteria, are just touching the tip of what it means to be democratic.  True democracy builds its base on the representative 1 person 1 vote (though some are still just 1 man 1 vote, or just  1 landowner 1 vote ...) model, but goes far beyond that into participatory democracy.  Representative democracy may be the foundation of democracy, but it does not provide a full edifice for full democracy.
>>>>   
>>>>       
>>>> 
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>     
>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>> 
>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>>     
>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 kichango at gmail.com  Sun Nov  7 12:18:17 2010
From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango)
Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2010 12:18:17 -0500
Subject: [governance] Re: SECOND DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinuf=eQZ9MiPj08pKDmvvk=_6YeWH80pJr6CqVU@mail.gmail.com>
References: <70E573F5-00B4-4837-89B7-C05B9DA7E479@ciroap.org>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20101103021355.05d70e60@jefsey.com>
	<5B31379A-A914-4BE1-945B-EEF2478BA1DC@ciroap.org>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20101103094622.0651ee20@jefsey.com>
	<3FE17A9E-E507-44DA-8AE2-EC7EC56DD1D8@ciroap.org>
	<93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006DA4@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
	<4CD17823.8010108@itforchange.net>
	<AANLkTikONmgaa+4rO+uZkAv4YrPDfSV4aP9YKk_=Lgox@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20101104103504.057fdc48@jefsey.com>
	<08B126B5-B3AB-4A91-B8BC-A90579C6EF5A@ciroap.org>
	<4CD4CF03.3000900@itforchange.net>
	<AANLkTi=gWOfhnaJd385OJ0XNjtbSjaCgEAOA-6KLsNEe@mail.gmail.com>
	<4CD555E8.2040707@itforchange.net>
	<4CD5603F.50507@itforchange.net>
	<AANLkTi=VWbRZGiAZMkR7R5BYGFCDxyhYTKt5R28V+Mco@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTinkuij2jM=ZZpKBPC9q--Hy8joGVNmW96bQ2eKr@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTinuf=eQZ9MiPj08pKDmvvk=_6YeWH80pJr6CqVU@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTimCqyFZ2d+CE9snkx6by3i6ET3yLfG1sHR3gxA8@mail.gmail.com>

McTim an all,

Thanks for gladly taking up the question I addressed to Wolfie ;) and for
the info you've provided in that regard.

I recognize those initiatives and I applaud them (I myself was lucky enough
to attend the AfriNIC meeting a few years ago while I was in Maputo, and
could see a vibrant community with a large range of participants at work,
including, eg, Minister Venancio Massingue then Vice-Rector...)

In this context though, the question is that of global governance
arrangements (as related to the draft on EC, the alternate proposal... even
the raison d'etre of this caucus.) I know you don't like those, but alas
they exist and make decisions that impact a lot of people, at least those
people who want to get involved at that global level are saying so. So they
try to organize and get involved at that level. I'd completely agree with
you if, say, ICANN was only a GIR (global internet registry), that is, the
global counterpart of RIRs, and was not doing much more than technical
coordination. But that unfortunately is not the case.

So I'm not religious about gov't participation, and am not advocating it for
the sake of it. The most important question for me is this: if, as a result
of your function, global policy is made which has far reaching implications
and impact beyond the members of your trade association, then it makes sense
that you are asked deliberately and consistently to take the legitimate
concerns of those other stakeholders into account. How best to achieve that,
is where I see differences, unless you disagree on the previous statement.
You (as well as many others) seem to think the status quo works fine, while
I (as well as many others) am not satisfied with it.

I certainly do not want gov'ts to dictate their traditional rules for IG,
let alone at global level. I concur with all the issues you've mentioned
about gov't management, and do not forget that before the mobile boom in
Africa waiting time for connection to fixed phone could last as long as a
decade. Who, in those conditions, would advocate for gov'ts being in charge
of management and operation? Not me. Instead, I'd like more African gov'ts,
just to take their example, converted to new norms. Many of them still don't
even seem to understand that in the world we're living, it is part of their
duty (and it should be in their interest) to enable local businesses to
grow, to seek more opportunities for them and even promote them overseas.
Instead they keep fighting the last battle, or the one before the last.
etc...
Problem is, I do not see how ICANN's reported $200K just to apply for a new
gTLD is any better for potential applicants in Africa (and in Latin America
and large parts of Asia, etc.) than the narrow-minded tax policies of their
government. The effect is the same: both are taking away business
opportunities, from the majority of the user populations, mind you, and
keeping them in the hands of a few. Neither is acceptable. I would like to
see flourish in Africa more entrepreneurs like yourself, McTim, I'd like the
playing field to make it possible if not easy for them to rise and become
regional and even global Internet domain name Registries, too. For that to
happen we need to work on both domestic and global policies.

So here we are, not simply with a GIR but a nongovernmental body that
nonetheless has the power to make that kind of over-reaching rules for
everyone else. Then, until the day I might be convinced by the decisions and
actions of those nongovernmental global governance arrangements that they
are heeding and responding to my concerns, meaning the concerns of people I
come from and those of other people like them (IMHO this is about fairness
more than anything else), I might find some sense in bringing gov'ts in. Not
because I want any one set of actors to dominate the process, but for each
one to keep the others in check, and to increase the diversity of
perspectives around the table. After all, if only they're willing to play
along (or to be smart) national govts are more likely to speak to their
domestic concerns than many of us here and more than a global body such
as ICANN. (So yes, some people may support the formal participation off
govts not because they're in love with the latter, but as a pragmatic move
to enable a more balanced outcome in their view.)

To finish, almost all govts around the world have signed the UDHR. I know
many still violate them. But there is an active global citizenship using a
number of mechanisms to call them out, along with democracies that may be
supporting them. At times in the past, that even led to sanctions and
embargo. In the case of the Internet, maybe except the US, not a single one
of the other countries has the keys to the whole (logical) infrastructure --
so Internet will be functioning whatever they do doesmtically. In that case,
wouldn't you think it'd be even easier to get them onboard of a common
framework and instrument (UDHR style) setting up norms designed

- precisely to curb the heavy-handed regulation that we are decrying at home
(partly by a process of acculturation to new norms, as they work together
and need to reach rough consensus with other players all over the world),
- to ensure delibarate and multistakeholder decision-making in these
matters, the outcoms if which they will all be subject to,
- demanding best efforts at all levels of decision-making towards a fair
hearing of all stakeholders while being more broadly civil
liberties-friendly?

Again, all that away from management and day to day operation issues - isn't
that possible?

For ma part I think on the one hand that chances of achieving the
above are reasonable enough, and on the other current nongovernmental
arrangements doing much more than technical coordination are frustrating
enough for even a pragmatic progressive like me to advocate for that third
path.

Best,

Mawaki

On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 1:07 AM, McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:

> Mawaki,
>
> On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 12:41 AM, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Wolfgang, so in those examples of progress on EC you gave, where is the
> CS?
> > Is the implication that in those formalizations of bilateral
> relationships
> > between organizations, ICANN carries the voice of CS? Or is something in
> the
> > works to bring the public party CS (ie, NGOs and their coalitions such as
> > IGC) into those arrangements?
>
> My answer to this is that there are hundreds of MS CS bodies currently
> involved in actual IG work (not just ICANN), and it is in and amongst
> those bodies which other CS groups must become involved.  The "web"
> that Wolfie mentioned has been in existence for ~2 decades.  It is
> becoming more formal (and larger) with every MoU signed.
>
> Here are just two examples from the numbering world, with which I am
> most familiar:
>
> http://www.afrinic.net/corporate/MoU-AAU-AfriNIC_2009.pdf
>
>
> http://www.apnic.net/__data/assets/pdf_file/0015/24351/isockolkata-apnic-mou-sept2010.pdf
>
> >
> > McTim, I couldn't even believe that you went there when I read your
> quoting
> > of the Declaration of Independence of Cyberspace.
> > You certainly don't believe that it still decribes anything near the
> reality
> > of government role and capabilities vis-a-vis the cyberspace *today*, do
> > you?! If you don't, as I'm inclined to believe, then I'm trying to
> > understand what else is being communicated here. (See below my commentary
> > about the whole anti-government slogan.)
>
> No, governments have been claiming sovereignty over the Internet in
> their geo-boundaries (and sometimes beyond) steadily for several
> decades.
>
> Here in Kenya for example, the gov owns significant stakes in the 2
> largest telcos, licenses the IXP (I think the only place in the world
> where an IXP is licensed), licenses and taxes the ISPs, has veto power
> over decisions of the ccTLD,  Makes the submarine cable operators pay
> to land here (and owns a significant stake in one of the sub cables),
> regulates the Internet sector heavily and in general plays the part of
> plaintiff, defendant, judge and jury in many disputes.  It is this
> heavy handed gov't involvement that I find objectionable.  They would
> also like, (at least it's the regulators position) to be in charge of
> all CIRs within their borders.
>
> My intent was to provide some historical context and point out how far
> we have come from that idealised POV, which I believe empowered CS.
>
> >
> > I read Parminder's "counter-proposal" (just to distinguish... or
> "alternate
> > proposal") as a possible detailing of the last option under paragraph 2
> in
> > the "Second draft statement on enhanced cooperation" which started this
> > thread:
> >
> > * establishing a new umbrella governance institution for Internet policy
> > development, with space for the participation of each stakeholder group
> in
> > its respective role.
>
> I think we saw during WSIS that creating a new institution is
> difficult.  We have a new institution called the IGF, that was hard
> enough to build.  I see no need for a new one, rather, let's work with
> what we have, as there are many opportunities for CS involvement that
> need to be realised.
>
>
> >
> > Now some may prefer not to commit to a specific preference or set of
> > preferences (and it seems like that's what the proposed draft is doing,
> > limitting itself to the broad level description or to the listing of all
> > different types/models one can reasonably think of) - while some others
> may
> > want to indicate a specific preference or set of preferences with the
> most
> > likelihood to foster a progressive agenda.
> >
> > I would rather support the latter.
>
> Do you think we can find consensus on which model?
>
> >
> > That being said, Parminder has written either too much or too little
> :) By
> > that I mean I'm not sure whether it is necessary to get to the detail of
> the
> > exact composition/membership etc, in this statement. If that were to be
> the
> > case, then we would need to work a little more on that first rough
> > counter-draft as he himself has acknowledged. For example one major
> > reservation I would have is to avoid making it a government-led model
> (first
> > rows for governments, folding seats for the rest.)
>
> Agreed.
>
> And this is less
> > dependent on the distribution of stakeholder representatives in the room
> > than the rules governing their interactions and processes.
> >
> > ***
> > Re. the anti-government/state utopia:
> >
> > Now whether we like it or not, states are in our midst - they are IG
> > stakeholders and powerful ones. We still heavily depend on laws they make
> > and enforce. And gone are the days when we could think of the cyberspace
> as
> > an island completely isolated from the world where states rule - which
> > also happens to be the world where actual users and providers (outside
> the
> > screens and servers that give live to cyberspace) live and own the
> > proprieties involved in their subsistance. Now you can choose to keep on
> > believing in your Declaration which IMHO is based on the equivalent of
> the
> > "state of nature" of the cyberspace, or you can try and work out a "civil
> > state" that would guarantee as many as possible of the ideals included in
> > the initial Declaration based on a clearly defined and agreed upon regime
> of
> > rights and responsibilities.
>
>
> We already have such a "civil state".  Pretending that it doesn't
> exist does this Caucus no good.  For example, look at the participants
> for the next AfriNIC meeting.
>
>
> http://meeting.afrinic.net/afrinic-13/index.php/registration-closed/participants-list
>
> Even though it is in J'Burg, I see no APC folk in attendance!! Why is
> that??  I know APC folk are interested in Internet numbering issues,
> having commented on them at the IGF.
>
> Instead we have folk such as International Foundation For African
> Children (IFAC) and CIVICUS  (World Alliance for Citizen
> Participation) coming, which is great and we need to encourage more CS
> groups to come to the table.
>
> Can you see all the gov't reps attending?  This is the result of the
> outreach done by the RIRs and brings them to a CS built table.  At the
> last ARIN meeting, gov't reps were (for the first time that I can
> recall) putting their hands up (for or against) the various proposals,
> not as individuals, but as gov't reps.
>
> This is MSism in actual IG.  My concern is that we as a caucus do not
> want to do actual IG, rather we want to just talk about it ad nauseum.
>
>
> > This is like repeating the exact same flaw that you (McTim, implicitly at
> > least, but also Karl and a few others) were pointing to in the post about
> > getting rid of the ICANN's DNS).
>
> Wasn't me.  IIRC, I simply pointed out in that thread that the time
> has long since passed to oppose a massive expansion of gTLDs.
>
> Here it goes: governments can do very bad
> > things, therefore let's get rid of governments (from the cyberspace...
> for
> > the time being, I guess.) Yes, governments can do very very bad things.
> But
> > they will do them anyway, behind the curtains and for the sake of their
> > particular interests of the moment. There is an African proverb that says
> > (roughly remembered and translated) something like: if you put the witch
> or
> > the malevolent in custody of a good, then they will be less likely to
> harm
> > that good... Gee! what a miserable transalation, which does nothing to
> help
> > the natural tendency that some may have to mock an attempt to resolve
> global
> > governance issues with an African proverb about witches, does it... but
> I'm
> > sure with a bit of benevolence, you'll get my drift. The wisdom is that
> > putting the potential source of evil under watch, in broad day light,
> where
> > it can be called out to account if something goes wrong with their
> > responsibilities might just be a more effective protection/defense.
>
> Many gov'ts already do terrible things vis a vis the Internet.  We saw
> that first hand in Tunis, no? (The Tunisian gov't treatment of
> protest).  We see it daily in censorship and persecution of bloggers
> to give just one example.
>
> Do you think that gov'ts will give up sovereignty (their ability to
> act badly within their borders) to a Global Internet Council (or
> something akin to it)?  I very much doubt that will be the case.
>
> I can't believe that we as a CS group will actively encourage MORE
> gov't involvement in IG, and not less!
>
> --
>  Cheers,
>
> McTim
> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
> route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101107/48b42518/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From roland at internetpolicyagency.com  Sun Nov  7 13:01:33 2010
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2010 18:01:33 +0000
Subject: [governance] Re: SECOND DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <B3AA7CEF-6838-4E61-A5D1-7EB5F899CC9D@psg.com>
References: <70E573F5-00B4-4837-89B7-C05B9DA7E479@ciroap.org>
 <7.0.1.0.2.20101103021355.05d70e60@jefsey.com>
 <5B31379A-A914-4BE1-945B-EEF2478BA1DC@ciroap.org>
 <7.0.1.0.2.20101103094622.0651ee20@jefsey.com>
 <3FE17A9E-E507-44DA-8AE2-EC7EC56DD1D8@ciroap.org>
 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006DA4@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
 <4CD17823.8010108@itforchange.net>
 <AANLkTikONmgaa+4rO+uZkAv4YrPDfSV4aP9YKk_=Lgox@mail.gmail.com>
 <7.0.1.0.2.20101104103504.057fdc48@jefsey.com>
 <08B126B5-B3AB-4A91-B8BC-A90579C6EF5A@ciroap.org>
 <4CD4CF03.3000900@itforchange.net>
 <D1E1B737-C8E1-4657-8A1A-FDB3E30DB92D@psg.com>
 <4CD4E70D.8010807@itforchange.net>
 <806E2BA2-1AE8-45DE-A870-5F90AF3C0032@psg.com>
 <4CD680A7.9000805@itforchange.net>
 <5C431C4A-D6DE-4658-A032-A40E550F47D3@psg.com>
 <4CD6D86B.7030306@itforchange.net>
 <B3AA7CEF-6838-4E61-A5D1-7EB5F899CC9D@psg.com>
Message-ID: <YpAdedL9lu1MFATg@internetpolicyagency.com>

In message <B3AA7CEF-6838-4E61-A5D1-7EB5F899CC9D at psg.com>, at 12:08:58 
on Sun, 7 Nov 2010, Avri Doria <avri at psg.com> writes

>3. As for the OECD,

As I hinted earlier, I think Parminder is maybe thinking of the CoE 
treaties, and separately "OECD countries" as a shorthand rather than a 
forum, but I'll let him clarify that.

>i think introducing the multistakeholder model into the OECD is a step 
>in the right direction.  But it has only be a year so I am not sure how 
>far it as gotten - certainly would like to hear more from those who are 
>involved in this effort.

Katitza and I have both been involved in that - maybe the three of us 
should chat offline.
-- 
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 mariliamaciel at gmail.com  Sun Nov  7 13:55:20 2010
From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2010 16:55:20 -0200
Subject: [governance] THIRD DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimwvSYOaLne5oKtqQvyRve0dKNaLc5raF8DxKir@mail.gmail.com>
References: <226CD676-A9D1-4E62-8E62-4C9D5E18E8F4@ciroap.org>
	<AANLkTimwvSYOaLne5oKtqQvyRve0dKNaLc5raF8DxKir@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTikdGSg2P3RdjmOQNLifRQchJ37xu5+=ba3scMsN@mail.gmail.com>

Some comments below


(…)


Despite an intergovernmental mandate from WSIS to address this governance
deficit, much remains to be done.  It is imperative that this deficit
continue to be addressed, where appropriate through new institutional
developments that comply with the WSIS process criteria of being
multilateral, transparent, democratic and inclusive.



If we want to reach compromise,  “institutional developments” is a good
choice, since it leaves room for different interpretations and for the many
proposals put forth on the list.



We make three further points.  First, enhanced cooperation should encompass
all Internet-related public policy issues; second, the existing arrangements
of relevant organisations (including the Internet Governance Forum) do not
fully implement enhanced cooperation, and thirdly whatever new arrangements
may be put in place, civil society will play an integral part in them.


In order to envision what EC should look like, we need to have in mind the
whole IG ecosystem, and the IGF is an important, vibrant part of it.
Therefore, I believe the IGF has to appear in our statement and its role
needs to be considered when drafting future arrangements.


These points will be explained in turn:



1. Although much of the discussion of enhanced cooperation at WSIS turned
around the narrow issue of internationalising the oversight of Internet
naming and numbering functions, the Tunis Agenda expresses this principle
far more broadly.  It also reminds us that the ultimate objective of our
cooperation is to advance a people-centred, inclusive, development-oriented
and non-discriminatory Information Society.



2. The IGF in its present form is a very important part of the enhanced
cooperation process, in that ideally its multi-stakeholder process can help
to shape decisions taken on Internet related public policy issues in other
fora.  However the full realisation of enhanced cooperation will require a
multi-stakeholder process to extend to other Internet governance
organisations that do not already follow this model.


I would rather say that “its multi-stakeholder process can provide input to
shape decisions (…)”. This indicates that there should be coherence in the
whole system.


When we say “related public policy issues in other fora” and “extend to
other Internet governance organizations that do not already follow this
model”  I have the impression that for IGC, EC means the closest
coordination between IGF, one the one side, and ITU, etc, on the other side.
Our main request is that these other organizations follow the example of the
IGF and become multistakeholder. It could be inferred that no new body needs
to be created and any redesign of existing ones would need to take place. I
don´t believe this is what we meant, but maybe a slight change in phrasing
would help? Something like “Extend to other existing or to be created
Internet governance organizations"


There are various options for enhancing multi-stakeholder cooperation within
and amongst all relevant organisations.  These include:


I agree with Parminder that we now have an opportunity to contribute to the
design of the future of the IG regime and we cannot waste it. If we don’t
have a clear proposal, but rather vague statements, others will make the
decisions for us. Maybe we cannot reach consensus for this statement, but we
should continue the discussion to try to reach consensus on how the IG
regime should look like in the future.

The ongoing discussion on the list would also feed our positions in the CSTD
WG.


(...)

On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 4:37 AM, McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 3:42 AM, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:
> > It will be impossible to simultaneously satisfy people like Parminder and
> > people like McTim, so here is my attempt at dissatisfying them equally.
>  The
> > biggest changes are the substitution of a new preamble for the old one,
> and
> > deletion of the "do nothing" bullet point under numbered-paragraph 2.
>  Let's
> > continue to have your comments as we try and reach some common ground.
> > --- begins ---
> > The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (CS-IGC) regards the process
> > towards enhanced cooperation as a vital step towards addressing the "many
> > cross-cutting international public policy issues that require attention
> and
> > are not adequately addressed by the current mechanisms" (Tunis Agenda
> para
> > 68).
> > Despite an intergovernmental mandate from WSIS to address this governance
> > deficit, much remains to be done.  It is imperative that this deficit
> > continue to be addressed, where appropriate through new institutional
> > developments that comply with the WSIS process criteria of being
> > multilateral, transparent, democratic and inclusive.
>
> What does the above sentence mean?  Does it mean new institutions or
> new developments within existing institutions?
>
> If the latter, let's say that.  If the former, I would be opposed to this
> idea.
>
>
> > We make three further points.  First, enhanced cooperation should
> encompass
> > all Internet-related public policy issues; second, the existing
> arrangements
> > of relevant organisations (including the Internet Governance Forum) do
> not
> > fully implement enhanced cooperation,
>
> Can we say "many of our members believe the existing arrangements of
> relevant organisations...."
>
>
> and thirdly whatever new arrangements
> > may be put in place, civil society will play an integral part in them.
>
> I would suggest Should/must/can instead of 'will".
>
> >
> > These points will be explained in turn:
> >
> > 1. Although much of the discussion of enhanced cooperation at WSIS turned
> > around the narrow issue of internationalising the oversight of Internet
> > naming and numbering functions, the Tunis Agenda expresses this principle
> > far more broadly.  It also reminds us that the ultimate objective of our
> > cooperation is to advance a people-centred, inclusive,
> development-oriented
> > and non-discriminatory Information Society.
> >
> > 2. The IGF in its present form is a very important part of the enhanced
> > cooperation process, in that ideally its multi-stakeholder process can
> help
> > to shape decisions taken on Internet related public policy issues in
> other
> > fora.  However the full realisation of enhanced cooperation will require
> a
> > multi-stakeholder process to extend to other Internet governance
> > organisations that do not already follow this model.
>
> What does this mean?  What other IG institutions are not sufficiently MS?
>
> >
> > There are various options for enhancing multi-stakeholder cooperation
> within
> > and amongst all relevant organisations.  These include:
> >
> > * establishing a lightweight multi-stakeholder observatory process
> perhaps
> > hosted under the auspices of the IGF (pursuant to its mandate in
> paragraph
> > 72(i));
> >
> > * utilising a virtual and voluntary global social community or "social
> > grid", linking together all Internet governance organisations, in which
> all
> > stakeholders would participate; or
> >
> > * establishing a new umbrella governance institution for Internet policy
> > development, with space for the participation of each stakeholder group
> in
> > its respective role.
>
> If you are going to remove the "do nothing" option, because some folk
> oppose it, then in fairness, I suggest you must remove the above
> option as some oppose that as well.
>
> Getting into options at all is a quagmire, i suggest that it might be
> easier to reach consensus if we don't enumerate the options at all.
>
> >
> > 3. Paragraph 71 of the Tunis Agenda makes very clear that civil society
> is
> > an integral participant in the development of any process towards
> enhanced
> > cooperation.  Therefore the IGC, in our capacity as members of civil
> > society, looks forward to contributing constructively in transparent,
> > accountable and democratic multi-stakeholder consultations towards this
> end.
>
> fine with that para.
>
>
> > --- ends ---
>
> --
> 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




-- 
Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
FGV Direito Rio

Center for Technology and Society
Getulio Vargas Foundation
Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101107/c1aaa806/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From gurstein at gmail.com  Sun Nov  7 18:12:34 2010
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2010 07:12:34 +0800
Subject: [governance] Re: SECOND DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <5C431C4A-D6DE-4658-A032-A40E550F47D3@psg.com>
Message-ID: <A0389291562949B8AAC7D06A7BCC8AB6@userPC>

A/the problem with a multistakeholder approach is that it is essentially
"interest based" i.e. it is based on reflecting/enabling those with specific
and direct "interests" in a policy issue to participate in the policy making
process; while ignoring/disabling the opportunity for those with more
diffused involvements/interests from direct participation.

The health care debate in the US is a very good example here as it has in
fact operated on an essentially multistakeholder platform. The medical
industry, unions, corporations, bigPharma, even the AARP (retired persons)
have all been involved in the discussion but who represented the 40 million
uninsured apart from a few ELECTED representatives/legislators?

The same has to be said about IG... It is fairly evident that those with
specific "interests" are well represented as stakeholders, and in this
instance even nation states have had a role (in the global sphere states
would appear to have accepted a role as "interested" but not determining
parties). But in the area of IG who is representing the broader public
interest (certainly not a very narrowly based and non-representative in any
sense, CS)--including for example, those with no or limited access; those
for whom access is unavailable or highly restricted because of geography,
disability or cost; or those with access but who are lacking in the
opportunity to make effective use of that access in support of better living
circumstances for themselves and their families and communities.

These questions are neither rhetorical nor theoretical but in fact go to the
very heart of our and IG activties overall.

Mike Gurstein

-----Original Message-----
From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com]
Sent: Sunday, November 07, 2010 9:09 PM
To: IGC
Subject: Re: [governance] Re: SECOND DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation


Hi,

The health care stmt was just an example to show, that personally I do
support government action, especially on the local level.  I will avoid
getting in to Off Topic details on what I think specifically on this topic.

Yes, I would like to see a multistakeholder process in the US on deciding
all policy issues (including health care). In fact, again just as example,
when I had the opportunity to discuss a particular state's (US definition of
state) build out of broadband within that state, I proposed a specifically
tailored multistakeholder model.  I see this model of policy making as the
next step in democracy; multistakeholder model of policy creation is a form
of representational democracy + participatory democracy.  And I see it as
something we are still learning about.

Now you have added another topic, full consensus. I support idea of
rough/near consensus, not full consensus.  But that would be another long
topic on what that means and how that is achieved in a multistakeholder
environment - another field in which we  are still growing in experience.

Sorry my model was not specific enough.  I propose a decentralized model
that includes the groups that are already working on issues and avoids
creating new centralized monoliths, though I do add the notion of appeals
and arbitration mechanisms.  It is a model of step wise refinement, and
model that includes the many things we see happening already in the 'IG
grid' (i thought grids were an older model, but I don't mind the term, i
like grids as long as they are not 2 dimensional).

I must note, that I was spoken to sternly, though privately, for wasting the
group's time with theoretical discussions when real stuff was happening an
real stuff needed to be decided.  So I will stop now.

a.


On 7 Nov 2010, at 05:34, parminder wrote:

> Avri,
> 
> Thanks for your detailed response. A few responses/ questions for the 
> present.
> 
> On Saturday 06 November 2010 08:28 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
>> 
>>> (BTW, a true practice of this ideology should entail giving up of 
>>> all government provided benefits and protection, for the purpose of
which ,in the present circumstances, maybe taking up residence in Southern
Afganistan will be the best exemplar. Such an experience may be quite
insightful.)
>>>     
>> Not my position, man. e.g.  I want a government led/regulated single 
>> payer health system in the US.
>>   
> I am happy to hear that. But do you have a particular reason why US's 
> health policy should not be decided only in completely open forums , 
> which are fully multistakeholder, only if we get complete consensus, 
> also fully involving health insurance companies and drug companies who 
> must completely agree too? I am of course picking up from, what 
> appears to me, is your preference for such a model for global IG. If 
> not so, can you please again explain how policies get made in your 
> model.
> 
> I really do not understand it. Isnt US gov like all other govs based 
> on an imperfect representational system, which we shd continuously try to
improve, *but not an the expense of creating a policy making vacuum*.
> 
> Further, you  asked is your governance model 'specific enough'. 
> Really, but I did not see any governance model for making global policies
there. (CIRs is not what I am taking about.) I mean, can you tell me how I
can have democratically negotiated cyber security treaties rather than done
by the OECD and forced on others, same with Internet related issues included
in ACTA, and much more is slated to come. All this will be pushed through
FTAs on non OECD countries.  Many policies and preferences of the West just
come through technology models - and we take it or leave it, such is the
global might of the involved tech companies, who of course do much more
carefully listen to US gov and stronger European countries.
> 
> You think we need health policies but not Internet policies? Again, 
> any particular reason? parminder
> 
>> But you do a good job of arguing ad absurdum.  Be careful though.  
>> When one argues the ad absurdum, I have found, there is always 
>> someone you can convince with your absurd argument.  Just look at 
>> recent US elections, people can be convinced of anything at times.  
>> But that's representational democracy. I digress.
>> 
>>   
>>> >   
>>> > Any system systematically developing and enforcing public policies 
>>> > is in effect a government. we can have a good - more inclusive,
transparent, accountable, progressive etc - government or governance system,
or a bad one.
>>>     
>> I disagree that governance is the province of governments. Any 
>> governance system can and should go beyond the governments.  First, all
governments are just local affairs for some definition of local, with no
world government either in existence or in the offing. Further, governments,
the best of which have a strong representative democracy - and there are few
that meet this criteria, are just touching the tip of what it means to be
democratic.  True democracy builds its base on the representative 1 person 1
vote (though some are still just 1 man 1 vote, or just  1 landowner 1 vote
...) model, but goes far beyond that into participatory democracy.
Representative democracy may be the foundation of democracy, but it does not
provide a full edifice for full democracy.
>>   
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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  Sun Nov  7 18:13:56 2010
From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight)
Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2010 18:13:56 -0500
Subject: [governance] THIRD DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikzg3R2Uc2pDz6=yPXN8fumTgqqH2ch1T-xV_M6@mail.gmail.com>
References: <226CD676-A9D1-4E62-8E62-4C9D5E18E8F4@ciroap.org>,<AANLkTikzg3R2Uc2pDz6=yPXN8fumTgqqH2ch1T-xV_M6@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006DCD@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>

Hi again,

Miguel's phrasing and emphases sound pretty good to me; while keeping the list of ideas previously enumerated in the draft.

On a related note,  McTim fears a quagmire if we make (several) suggestions; while I expect a quagmire or at best stagnation if we don't. 

So I am hoping we can reach rough consensus to throw some ideas out there, such as those listed in the Third draft, without at this stage seeking to reach 100% agreement with any one of them.

Lee
________________________________________
From: Miguel Alcaine [miguel.alcaine at gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, November 07, 2010 9:10 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeremy Malcolm
Subject: Re: [governance] THIRD DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation

Dear all,

I have made small suggestions with the intention to strengthen the statement.

Additionally, If you had the opportunity to read what I wrote about "Enhanced Cooperation" (EC) for the preparation of the XII CSTD meeting last may in the website www.cstdn.org<http://www.cstdn.org>, you can see that I believe EC needs at least 2 parts: 1) A favorable environment (organisations which offer a democratic, transparent and multi-stakeholder environment. Democratic meaning participation, accountability and review process on decisions) ; 2) Institutional and personal capacity building, mainly for stakeholders in developing countries. A third possible part is to increase awareness of IG and IG4D, particularly in developing countries.

Do you think is worthwhile to include the ideas above?

Best,

Miguel Alcaine

On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 1:42 AM, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org<mailto:jeremy at ciroap.org>> wrote:
It will be impossible to simultaneously satisfy people like Parminder and people like McTim, so here is my attempt at dissatisfying them equally.  The biggest changes are the substitution of a new preamble for the old one, and deletion of the "do nothing" bullet point under numbered-paragraph 2.  Let's continue to have your comments as we try and reach some common ground.

--- begins ---

The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (CS-IGC) regards the process towards enhanced cooperation as a vital step towards addressing the "many cross-cutting international public policy issues that require attention and are not adequately addressed by the current mechanisms" (Tunis Agenda para 68).

Despite an intergovernmental mandate from WSIS to address this governance deficit, much remains to be done.  It is imperative that this deficit continue to be addressed, where appropriate through new institutional developments that comply with the WSIS process criteria of being multilateral, transparent, democratic and inclusive.

We make three further points.  First, enhanced cooperation should encompass all Internet-related public policy issues; second, the existing arrangements of relevant organisations (including the Internet Governance Forum) do not fully implement enhanced cooperation, and thirdly whatever new arrangements may be put in place, civil society will must play an integral part in them, as one of the prerequisites for their legitimacy.

[COMMENT: Suggested ammendments here is a good place to make the link between enhanced cooperation, multistakeholderism and legitimacy]


These points will be explained in turn:

1. Although much of the discussion of enhanced cooperation at WSIS turned around the narrow issue of internationalising the oversight of Internet naming and numbering functions, the Tunis Agenda expresses this principle far more broadly.  It also reminds us that the ultimate objective of our cooperation is to advance a people-centred, inclusive, development-oriented and non-discriminatory Information Society.

2. The IGF in its present form is a very important part of the enhanced cooperation process and the Internet Governance arrangements, in that ideally its multi-stakeholder process can help to shape decisions taken on Internet related public policy issues in other fora.  However the full realisation of enhanced cooperation will require a multi-stakeholder process to extend to other Internet governance organisations that do not already follow this model.

[COMMENT (deletion of ideally): the word ideally weakens the argument, giving the opportunity for others to say that IGF does not take place in an ideal world but in the real world. Therefore, IGF is not capable of helping to shape decisions in other fora.]

There are various, which may complement each other, options for enhancing multi-stakeholder cooperation within and amongst all relevant organisations.  These include:

* establishing a lightweight multi-stakeholder observatory process perhaps hosted under the auspices of the IGF (pursuant to its mandate in paragraph 72(i));

* utilising a virtual and voluntary global social community or "social grid", linking together all Internet governance organisations, in which all stakeholders would participate; or

* establishing a new umbrella governance institution for Internet policy development, with space for the participation of each stakeholder group in its respective role.

[COMMENT (reasons to suggest the insertion of the phrase about complementarity in the chapeau): option 1 and 2 can be developed together. I believe making the appropriate link between Enhanced Cooperation and IGF is appropriate and convenient, i.e. option 1. To my knowledge, option 1 and 2 look to help to strenghten the democratic, transparent and multistakeholderism features in the different organisations, while option 3 can be seen as more towards the equality among States, although as reflected here, also look to ensure the corresponding participation of all stakeholders.]

3. Paragraph 71 of the Tunis Agenda makes very clear that civil society is an integral participant in the development of any process towards enhanced cooperation.  Therefore the IGC, in our capacity as members of civil society, looks forward to contributing constructively in transparent, accountable and democratic multi-stakeholder consultations towards this end.

--- ends ---

PS. It's entirely possible I have missed some emails.  I'm in Laos with a terrible Internet connection.  I'll catch up and incorporate anything I missed into the fourth draft.

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

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


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

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

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

From avri at psg.com  Sun Nov  7 18:29:33 2010
From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2010 18:29:33 -0500
Subject: [governance] Re: SECOND DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <A0389291562949B8AAC7D06A7BCC8AB6@userPC>
References: <A0389291562949B8AAC7D06A7BCC8AB6@userPC>
Message-ID: <9C1EF559-7423-4A6E-8F4A-862AF6C74328@psg.com>

Hi,

I actually do not thing the interests are as narrow and focused as you think.  Again with the proviso that there is a long way to go.  

Many of the participants have wider interests, consumer protection, sustainable development, human rights or many flavors, development,  etc., with IG just being one of the areas that they are engaged in.  Very few are internet types who are also concerned with IG.

Yes, the topic is focused, IG, but I believe that for many of the participants, even in this small corner of the debate, the actual interest is much wider, just that this space focuses on a single topic.

a.



On 7 Nov 2010, at 18:12, Michael Gurstein wrote:

> A/the problem with a multistakeholder approach is that it is essentially
> "interest based" i.e. it is based on reflecting/enabling those with specific
> and direct "interests" in a policy issue to participate in the policy making
> process; while ignoring/disabling the opportunity for those with more
> diffused involvements/interests from direct participation.
> 
> The health care debate in the US is a very good example here as it has in
> fact operated on an essentially multistakeholder platform. The medical
> industry, unions, corporations, bigPharma, even the AARP (retired persons)
> have all been involved in the discussion but who represented the 40 million
> uninsured apart from a few ELECTED representatives/legislators?
> 
> The same has to be said about IG... It is fairly evident that those with
> specific "interests" are well represented as stakeholders, and in this
> instance even nation states have had a role (in the global sphere states
> would appear to have accepted a role as "interested" but not determining
> parties). But in the area of IG who is representing the broader public
> interest (certainly not a very narrowly based and non-representative in any
> sense, CS)--including for example, those with no or limited access; those
> for whom access is unavailable or highly restricted because of geography,
> disability or cost; or those with access but who are lacking in the
> opportunity to make effective use of that access in support of better living
> circumstances for themselves and their families and communities.
> 
> These questions are neither rhetorical nor theoretical but in fact go to the
> very heart of our and IG activties overall.
> 
> Mike Gurstein
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com]
> Sent: Sunday, November 07, 2010 9:09 PM
> To: IGC
> Subject: Re: [governance] Re: SECOND DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> The health care stmt was just an example to show, that personally I do
> support government action, especially on the local level.  I will avoid
> getting in to Off Topic details on what I think specifically on this topic.
> 
> Yes, I would like to see a multistakeholder process in the US on deciding
> all policy issues (including health care). In fact, again just as example,
> when I had the opportunity to discuss a particular state's (US definition of
> state) build out of broadband within that state, I proposed a specifically
> tailored multistakeholder model.  I see this model of policy making as the
> next step in democracy; multistakeholder model of policy creation is a form
> of representational democracy + participatory democracy.  And I see it as
> something we are still learning about.
> 
> Now you have added another topic, full consensus. I support idea of
> rough/near consensus, not full consensus.  But that would be another long
> topic on what that means and how that is achieved in a multistakeholder
> environment - another field in which we  are still growing in experience.
> 
> Sorry my model was not specific enough.  I propose a decentralized model
> that includes the groups that are already working on issues and avoids
> creating new centralized monoliths, though I do add the notion of appeals
> and arbitration mechanisms.  It is a model of step wise refinement, and
> model that includes the many things we see happening already in the 'IG
> grid' (i thought grids were an older model, but I don't mind the term, i
> like grids as long as they are not 2 dimensional).
> 
> I must note, that I was spoken to sternly, though privately, for wasting the
> group's time with theoretical discussions when real stuff was happening an
> real stuff needed to be decided.  So I will stop now.
> 
> a.
> 
> 
> On 7 Nov 2010, at 05:34, parminder wrote:
> 
>> Avri,
>> 
>> Thanks for your detailed response. A few responses/ questions for the 
>> present.
>> 
>> On Saturday 06 November 2010 08:28 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
>>> 
>>>> (BTW, a true practice of this ideology should entail giving up of 
>>>> all government provided benefits and protection, for the purpose of
> which ,in the present circumstances, maybe taking up residence in Southern
> Afganistan will be the best exemplar. Such an experience may be quite
> insightful.)
>>>> 
>>> Not my position, man. e.g.  I want a government led/regulated single 
>>> payer health system in the US.
>>> 
>> I am happy to hear that. But do you have a particular reason why US's 
>> health policy should not be decided only in completely open forums , 
>> which are fully multistakeholder, only if we get complete consensus, 
>> also fully involving health insurance companies and drug companies who 
>> must completely agree too? I am of course picking up from, what 
>> appears to me, is your preference for such a model for global IG. If 
>> not so, can you please again explain how policies get made in your 
>> model.
>> 
>> I really do not understand it. Isnt US gov like all other govs based 
>> on an imperfect representational system, which we shd continuously try to
> improve, *but not an the expense of creating a policy making vacuum*.
>> 
>> Further, you  asked is your governance model 'specific enough'. 
>> Really, but I did not see any governance model for making global policies
> there. (CIRs is not what I am taking about.) I mean, can you tell me how I
> can have democratically negotiated cyber security treaties rather than done
> by the OECD and forced on others, same with Internet related issues included
> in ACTA, and much more is slated to come. All this will be pushed through
> FTAs on non OECD countries.  Many policies and preferences of the West just
> come through technology models - and we take it or leave it, such is the
> global might of the involved tech companies, who of course do much more
> carefully listen to US gov and stronger European countries.
>> 
>> You think we need health policies but not Internet policies? Again, 
>> any particular reason? parminder
>> 
>>> But you do a good job of arguing ad absurdum.  Be careful though.  
>>> When one argues the ad absurdum, I have found, there is always 
>>> someone you can convince with your absurd argument.  Just look at 
>>> recent US elections, people can be convinced of anything at times.  
>>> But that's representational democracy. I digress.
>>> 
>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Any system systematically developing and enforcing public policies 
>>>>> is in effect a government. we can have a good - more inclusive,
> transparent, accountable, progressive etc - government or governance system,
> or a bad one.
>>>> 
>>> I disagree that governance is the province of governments. Any 
>>> governance system can and should go beyond the governments.  First, all
> governments are just local affairs for some definition of local, with no
> world government either in existence or in the offing. Further, governments,
> the best of which have a strong representative democracy - and there are few
> that meet this criteria, are just touching the tip of what it means to be
> democratic.  True democracy builds its base on the representative 1 person 1
> vote (though some are still just 1 man 1 vote, or just  1 landowner 1 vote
> ...) model, but goes far beyond that into participatory democracy.
> Representative democracy may be the foundation of democracy, but it does not
> provide a full edifice for full democracy.
>>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 gurstein at gmail.com  Sun Nov  7 18:51:17 2010
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2010 07:51:17 +0800
Subject: [governance] Re: SECOND DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <9C1EF559-7423-4A6E-8F4A-862AF6C74328@psg.com>
Message-ID: <BBDC94E54AAD45F987789F8659CFECB8@userPC>

Avri,

I wasn't talking about the stakeholders themselves but rather about the
multistakeholder process where adherence/participation in the process is a
result of a fairly specific "interest" in the outcome. I'm sure that various
of the stakeholders have other interests as well but it isn't clear to me
how or if these are being/to be articulated as the policy process moves
forward.

But the key question in my note which I would appreciate an answer to from
yourself or any of the others who are advocating for multistakeholderism
remains

> who is representing the 
> broader public interest (certainly not a very narrowly based and 
> non-representative in any sense, CS)--including for example, those 
> with no or limited access; those for whom access is unavailable or 
> highly restricted because of geography, disability or cost; or those 
> with access but who are lacking in the opportunity to make effective 
> use of that access in support of better living circumstances for 
> themselves and their families and communities.

Tks,

M

-----Original Message-----
From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] 
Sent: Monday, November 08, 2010 7:30 AM
To: IGC
Subject: Re: [governance] Re: SECOND DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation


Hi,

I actually do not thing the interests are as narrow and focused as you
think.  Again with the proviso that there is a long way to go.  

Many of the participants have wider interests, consumer protection,
sustainable development, human rights or many flavors, development,  etc.,
with IG just being one of the areas that they are engaged in.  Very few are
internet types who are also concerned with IG.

Yes, the topic is focused, IG, but I believe that for many of the
participants, even in this small corner of the debate, the actual interest
is much wider, just that this space focuses on a single topic.

a.



On 7 Nov 2010, at 18:12, Michael Gurstein wrote:

> A/the problem with a multistakeholder approach is that it is 
> essentially "interest based" i.e. it is based on reflecting/enabling 
> those with specific and direct "interests" in a policy issue to 
> participate in the policy making process; while ignoring/disabling the 
> opportunity for those with more diffused involvements/interests from 
> direct participation.
> 
> The health care debate in the US is a very good example here as it has 
> in fact operated on an essentially multistakeholder platform. The 
> medical industry, unions, corporations, bigPharma, even the AARP 
> (retired persons) have all been involved in the discussion but who 
> represented the 40 million uninsured apart from a few ELECTED 
> representatives/legislators?
> 
> The same has to be said about IG... It is fairly evident that those 
> with specific "interests" are well represented as stakeholders, and in 
> this instance even nation states have had a role (in the global sphere 
> states would appear to have accepted a role as "interested" but not 
> determining parties). But in the area of IG who is representing the 
> broader public interest (certainly not a very narrowly based and 
> non-representative in any sense, CS)--including for example, those 
> with no or limited access; those for whom access is unavailable or 
> highly restricted because of geography, disability or cost; or those 
> with access but who are lacking in the opportunity to make effective 
> use of that access in support of better living circumstances for 
> themselves and their families and communities.
> 
> These questions are neither rhetorical nor theoretical but in fact go 
> to the very heart of our and IG activties overall.
> 
> Mike Gurstein
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com]
> Sent: Sunday, November 07, 2010 9:09 PM
> To: IGC
> Subject: Re: [governance] Re: SECOND DRAFT statement on enhanced 
> cooperation
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> The health care stmt was just an example to show, that personally I do 
> support government action, especially on the local level.  I will 
> avoid getting in to Off Topic details on what I think specifically on 
> this topic.
> 
> Yes, I would like to see a multistakeholder process in the US on 
> deciding all policy issues (including health care). In fact, again 
> just as example, when I had the opportunity to discuss a particular 
> state's (US definition of
> state) build out of broadband within that state, I proposed a specifically
> tailored multistakeholder model.  I see this model of policy making as the
> next step in democracy; multistakeholder model of policy creation is a
form
> of representational democracy + participatory democracy.  And I see it as
> something we are still learning about.
> 
> Now you have added another topic, full consensus. I support idea of 
> rough/near consensus, not full consensus.  But that would be another 
> long topic on what that means and how that is achieved in a 
> multistakeholder environment - another field in which we  are still 
> growing in experience.
> 
> Sorry my model was not specific enough.  I propose a decentralized 
> model that includes the groups that are already working on issues and 
> avoids creating new centralized monoliths, though I do add the notion 
> of appeals and arbitration mechanisms.  It is a model of step wise 
> refinement, and model that includes the many things we see happening 
> already in the 'IG grid' (i thought grids were an older model, but I 
> don't mind the term, i like grids as long as they are not 2 
> dimensional).
> 
> I must note, that I was spoken to sternly, though privately, for 
> wasting the group's time with theoretical discussions when real stuff 
> was happening an real stuff needed to be decided.  So I will stop now.
> 
> a.
> 
> 
> On 7 Nov 2010, at 05:34, parminder wrote:
> 
>> Avri,
>> 
>> Thanks for your detailed response. A few responses/ questions for the
>> present.
>> 
>> On Saturday 06 November 2010 08:28 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
>>> 
>>>> (BTW, a true practice of this ideology should entail giving up of
>>>> all government provided benefits and protection, for the purpose of
> which ,in the present circumstances, maybe taking up residence in 
> Southern Afganistan will be the best exemplar. Such an experience may 
> be quite
> insightful.)
>>>> 
>>> Not my position, man. e.g.  I want a government led/regulated single
>>> payer health system in the US.
>>> 
>> I am happy to hear that. But do you have a particular reason why US's
>> health policy should not be decided only in completely open forums , 
>> which are fully multistakeholder, only if we get complete consensus, 
>> also fully involving health insurance companies and drug companies who 
>> must completely agree too? I am of course picking up from, what 
>> appears to me, is your preference for such a model for global IG. If 
>> not so, can you please again explain how policies get made in your 
>> model.
>> 
>> I really do not understand it. Isnt US gov like all other govs based
>> on an imperfect representational system, which we shd continuously try to
> improve, *but not an the expense of creating a policy making vacuum*.
>> 
>> Further, you  asked is your governance model 'specific enough'.
>> Really, but I did not see any governance model for making global policies
> there. (CIRs is not what I am taking about.) I mean, can you tell me 
> how I can have democratically negotiated cyber security treaties 
> rather than done by the OECD and forced on others, same with Internet 
> related issues included in ACTA, and much more is slated to come. All 
> this will be pushed through FTAs on non OECD countries.  Many policies 
> and preferences of the West just come through technology models - and 
> we take it or leave it, such is the global might of the involved tech 
> companies, who of course do much more carefully listen to US gov and 
> stronger European countries.
>> 
>> You think we need health policies but not Internet policies? Again,
>> any particular reason? parminder
>> 
>>> But you do a good job of arguing ad absurdum.  Be careful though.
>>> When one argues the ad absurdum, I have found, there is always 
>>> someone you can convince with your absurd argument.  Just look at 
>>> recent US elections, people can be convinced of anything at times.  
>>> But that's representational democracy. I digress.
>>> 
>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Any system systematically developing and enforcing public policies
>>>>> is in effect a government. we can have a good - more inclusive,
> transparent, accountable, progressive etc - government or governance 
> system, or a bad one.
>>>> 
>>> I disagree that governance is the province of governments. Any
>>> governance system can and should go beyond the governments.  First, all
> governments are just local affairs for some definition of local, with 
> no world government either in existence or in the offing. Further, 
> governments, the best of which have a strong representative democracy 
> - and there are few that meet this criteria, are just touching the tip 
> of what it means to be democratic.  True democracy builds its base on 
> the representative 1 person 1 vote (though some are still just 1 man 1 
> vote, or just  1 landowner 1 vote
> ...) model, but goes far beyond that into participatory democracy.
> Representative democracy may be the foundation of democracy, but it does
not
> provide a full edifice for full democracy.
>>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>> 
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> 
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t=
> 

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

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

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

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

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

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

From lmcknigh at syr.edu  Sun Nov  7 19:17:14 2010
From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight)
Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2010 19:17:14 -0500
Subject: [governance] Re: SECOND DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A073CD@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <70E573F5-00B4-4837-89B7-C05B9DA7E479@ciroap.org>
 <7.0.1.0.2.20101103021355.05d70e60@jefsey.com>
 <5B31379A-A914-4BE1-945B-EEF2478BA1DC@ciroap.org>
 <7.0.1.0.2.20101103094622.0651ee20@jefsey.com>
 <3FE17A9E-E507-44DA-8AE2-EC7EC56DD1D8@ciroap.org>
 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006DA4@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
 <4CD17823.8010108@itforchange.net>
 <AANLkTikONmgaa+4rO+uZkAv4YrPDfSV4aP9YKk_=Lgox@mail.gmail.com>
 <7.0.1.0.2.20101104103504.057fdc48@jefsey.com>
 <08B126B5-B3AB-4A91-B8BC-A90579C6EF5A@ciroap.org>
 <4CD4CF03.3000900@itforchange.net>
 <D1E1B737-C8E1-4657-8A1A-FDB3E30DB92D@psg.com>
 <4CD4E70D.8010807@itforchange.net>
 <806E2BA2-1AE8-45DE-A870-5F90AF3C0032@psg.com>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A073C5@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006DCC@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>,<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A073CD@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006DCF@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>

Hey Wolfgang,

Re LOIs,  I agree they can be very lightweight and yet have significant effect in formalizing a still flexible and loose relationship between parties.  

Basically, we just need to be able to reach agreement on say 2 bullet points for a 1 page LOI.

But note the key caveat is both parties need to want to agree. 

So in case of ITU given the sector membership & dues issue, if say some foundation wanted to pay $ for IGC - or other civil society group - to join as sector member of ITU, that ITU could agree on probably. And an LOI could be helpful in specifying how cs is not quite your typical sector member.

But ITU will not want to agree on blanket free passes for cs folks, since as we all know from another vantage point say a hypothetical college prof looks like just another private sector/startup wannabe. 

On that note, I'm working on getting us all some cool new 'free' tools to play with to strengthen the IG Grid - ok maybe we will need another 1 page LOI ; ). Seriously, whether or not  we can get big E Enhanced Cooperation pushed ahead through UN processses, noone can stop us from - enhancing cooperation. 

Lee
________________________________________
From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" [wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de]
Sent: Sunday, November 07, 2010 3:31 AM
To: Lee W McKnight; governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: AW: [governance] Re: SECOND DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation

Thanks Lee

very helpful. I will avoid IG Web and use IG Grid (with references to you). IT isd better indeed. Much more precise and closere to my "spaghetti ball" :-))))

And indeed ITU-IETF is probably the first example, but it is because IETF is a "ITU sector member" which is not the case for ICANN.

Furthermore, we should think about the option that also CS organisations propose LOIs to other institutions.  Any ideas here?

wolfgang


________________________________

Von: Lee W McKnight [mailto:lmcknigh at syr.edu]
Gesendet: So 07.11.2010 01:58
An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Kleinwächter, Wolfgang; Avri Doria
Betreff: RE: [governance] Re: SECOND DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation



Wolfgang,

Agreed the ITU PP is a step in the right direction. Though in practice ITU & IETF have been - practicing - enhanced cooperation for years as was discussed a while back on the list.

Extending that more formally to a broader group of orgs is a good thing, but more of an incremental step than radical break with past practice. And it still leaves civil society in the cheap seats/as spectators at (most) ITU events, typically.

On another note - and no offense - but can we stop talking about at an 'IG Web' - that sounds so 1990s.

IG Cloud would be trendier but even vaguer.

I suppose IG Grid would be my preference, connoting simultaneous info and resource sharing across..the grid.

Lee


________________________________________
From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" [wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de]
Sent: Saturday, November 06, 2010 1:19 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Avri Doria; IGC
Subject: AW: [governance] Re: SECOND DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation

Hi all

It makes little sense to continue a theoretical discussion on "enhanced cooperation" when the practical process is moving forward and is creating new facts and opportunities. Do not underestimate the outcome of the ITU PP in Guadalajara with regard to "enhanced cooperation". In my eyes this is really a door opener and a breakthorugh towards a new more issue related "enhanced cooperation" among all players. The fact that the ITU calls in a resolution, adopted by all its 193 member states, for greater "collaboration and coordination" (remember our EC³ definition of enhanced cooperation from 2007) between the ITU on the one hand and ICANN, RIR, W3C, IETF and ISOC (on a reciprocity basis) on the other hand is very remarkable. If you take it seriously what Toure told Kieran Mc Carthy in his interview and look into Beckstroms letter to the ITU from June (published only recently) than you can see that "enhanced cooperation" is moving forward in the right way and gets substance.

We did not discuss here the idea to create a network of formal arrangements, something like an "IG Web", among all these governmental and non-governmental players. UNESCO (an intergovernmental organisation) and ICANN (a private corporation) created an interesting model of a formalized IG oriented mutual bilateral relationship. The "Letter of Intent" (LOI), signed in Vilnjus, is a good source of inspiration, also for a formalization of the ICANN-ITU relationship. Will we see more of them, also with other players? Probably we will see the emergence of a network of fomalized bilatertal relationship in a very multilateral/multistakeholder environment. I called this previously the IG "Spaghetti Ball". So enhanced cooperation is moving foreward.

Wolfgang


EC³ was defined - in an expert meeting during following the 2007 Summer School on Internet Governance as follows "Enhanced cooperation in Internet Governance is the enhanced communication, coordination and collaboration (EC³) among non-govenrmental and inter-governmental institutions and organisations in developing norms, principles, programmes and procedures for the governance of the Internet in an informal or, when and where needed, formalized way."


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 gurstein at gmail.com  Mon Nov  8 03:29:03 2010
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2010 16:29:03 +0800
Subject: [governance] Re: SECOND DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <9C1EF559-7423-4A6E-8F4A-862AF6C74328@psg.com>
Message-ID: <07E439CC72EB460884DA3CD206F8FE4B@userPC>

Avri,

I wasn't talking about the stakeholders themselves but rather about the
multistakeholder process where adherence/participation in the process is a
result of a fairly specific "interest" in the outcome. I'm sure that various
of the stakeholders have other interests as well but it isn't clear to me
how or if these are being/to be articulated as the policy process moves
forward.

But the key question in my note which I would appreciate an answer to from
yourself or any of the others who are advocating for multistakeholderism
remains

> who is representing the 
> broader public interest (certainly not a very narrowly based and 
> non-representative in any sense, CS)--including for example, those 
> with no or limited access; those for whom access is unavailable or 
> highly restricted because of geography, disability or cost; or those 
> with access but who are lacking in the opportunity to make effective 
> use of that access in support of better living circumstances for 
> themselves and their families and communities.

Tks,

M

-----Original Message-----
From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] 
Sent: Monday, November 08, 2010 7:30 AM
To: IGC
Subject: Re: [governance] Re: SECOND DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation


Hi,

I actually do not thing the interests are as narrow and focused as you
think.  Again with the proviso that there is a long way to go.  

Many of the participants have wider interests, consumer protection,
sustainable development, human rights or many flavors, development,  etc.,
with IG just being one of the areas that they are engaged in.  Very few are
internet types who are also concerned with IG.

Yes, the topic is focused, IG, but I believe that for many of the
participants, even in this small corner of the debate, the actual interest
is much wider, just that this space focuses on a single topic.

a.



On 7 Nov 2010, at 18:12, Michael Gurstein wrote:

> A/the problem with a multistakeholder approach is that it is 
> essentially "interest based" i.e. it is based on reflecting/enabling 
> those with specific and direct "interests" in a policy issue to 
> participate in the policy making process; while ignoring/disabling the 
> opportunity for those with more diffused involvements/interests from 
> direct participation.
> 
> The health care debate in the US is a very good example here as it has 
> in fact operated on an essentially multistakeholder platform. The 
> medical industry, unions, corporations, bigPharma, even the AARP 
> (retired persons) have all been involved in the discussion but who 
> represented the 40 million uninsured apart from a few ELECTED 
> representatives/legislators?
> 
> The same has to be said about IG... It is fairly evident that those 
> with specific "interests" are well represented as stakeholders, and in 
> this instance even nation states have had a role (in the global sphere 
> states would appear to have accepted a role as "interested" but not 
> determining parties). But in the area of IG who is representing the 
> broader public interest (certainly not a very narrowly based and 
> non-representative in any sense, CS)--including for example, those 
> with no or limited access; those for whom access is unavailable or 
> highly restricted because of geography, disability or cost; or those 
> with access but who are lacking in the opportunity to make effective 
> use of that access in support of better living circumstances for 
> themselves and their families and communities.
> 
> These questions are neither rhetorical nor theoretical but in fact go 
> to the very heart of our and IG activties overall.
> 
> Mike Gurstein
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com]
> Sent: Sunday, November 07, 2010 9:09 PM
> To: IGC
> Subject: Re: [governance] Re: SECOND DRAFT statement on enhanced 
> cooperation
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> The health care stmt was just an example to show, that personally I do 
> support government action, especially on the local level.  I will 
> avoid getting in to Off Topic details on what I think specifically on 
> this topic.
> 
> Yes, I would like to see a multistakeholder process in the US on 
> deciding all policy issues (including health care). In fact, again 
> just as example, when I had the opportunity to discuss a particular 
> state's (US definition of
> state) build out of broadband within that state, I proposed a specifically
> tailored multistakeholder model.  I see this model of policy making as the
> next step in democracy; multistakeholder model of policy creation is a
form
> of representational democracy + participatory democracy.  And I see it as
> something we are still learning about.
> 
> Now you have added another topic, full consensus. I support idea of 
> rough/near consensus, not full consensus.  But that would be another 
> long topic on what that means and how that is achieved in a 
> multistakeholder environment - another field in which we  are still 
> growing in experience.
> 
> Sorry my model was not specific enough.  I propose a decentralized 
> model that includes the groups that are already working on issues and 
> avoids creating new centralized monoliths, though I do add the notion 
> of appeals and arbitration mechanisms.  It is a model of step wise 
> refinement, and model that includes the many things we see happening 
> already in the 'IG grid' (i thought grids were an older model, but I 
> don't mind the term, i like grids as long as they are not 2 
> dimensional).
> 
> I must note, that I was spoken to sternly, though privately, for 
> wasting the group's time with theoretical discussions when real stuff 
> was happening an real stuff needed to be decided.  So I will stop now.
> 
> a.
> 
> 
> On 7 Nov 2010, at 05:34, parminder wrote:
> 
>> Avri,
>> 
>> Thanks for your detailed response. A few responses/ questions for the
>> present.
>> 
>> On Saturday 06 November 2010 08:28 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
>>> 
>>>> (BTW, a true practice of this ideology should entail giving up of
>>>> all government provided benefits and protection, for the purpose of
> which ,in the present circumstances, maybe taking up residence in 
> Southern Afganistan will be the best exemplar. Such an experience may 
> be quite
> insightful.)
>>>> 
>>> Not my position, man. e.g.  I want a government led/regulated single
>>> payer health system in the US.
>>> 
>> I am happy to hear that. But do you have a particular reason why US's
>> health policy should not be decided only in completely open forums , 
>> which are fully multistakeholder, only if we get complete consensus, 
>> also fully involving health insurance companies and drug companies who 
>> must completely agree too? I am of course picking up from, what 
>> appears to me, is your preference for such a model for global IG. If 
>> not so, can you please again explain how policies get made in your 
>> model.
>> 
>> I really do not understand it. Isnt US gov like all other govs based
>> on an imperfect representational system, which we shd continuously try to
> improve, *but not an the expense of creating a policy making vacuum*.
>> 
>> Further, you  asked is your governance model 'specific enough'.
>> Really, but I did not see any governance model for making global policies
> there. (CIRs is not what I am taking about.) I mean, can you tell me 
> how I can have democratically negotiated cyber security treaties 
> rather than done by the OECD and forced on others, same with Internet 
> related issues included in ACTA, and much more is slated to come. All 
> this will be pushed through FTAs on non OECD countries.  Many policies 
> and preferences of the West just come through technology models - and 
> we take it or leave it, such is the global might of the involved tech 
> companies, who of course do much more carefully listen to US gov and 
> stronger European countries.
>> 
>> You think we need health policies but not Internet policies? Again,
>> any particular reason? parminder
>> 
>>> But you do a good job of arguing ad absurdum.  Be careful though.
>>> When one argues the ad absurdum, I have found, there is always 
>>> someone you can convince with your absurd argument.  Just look at 
>>> recent US elections, people can be convinced of anything at times.  
>>> But that's representational democracy. I digress.
>>> 
>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Any system systematically developing and enforcing public policies
>>>>> is in effect a government. we can have a good - more inclusive,
> transparent, accountable, progressive etc - government or governance 
> system, or a bad one.
>>>> 
>>> I disagree that governance is the province of governments. Any
>>> governance system can and should go beyond the governments.  First, all
> governments are just local affairs for some definition of local, with 
> no world government either in existence or in the offing. Further, 
> governments, the best of which have a strong representative democracy 
> - and there are few that meet this criteria, are just touching the tip 
> of what it means to be democratic.  True democracy builds its base on 
> the representative 1 person 1 vote (though some are still just 1 man 1 
> vote, or just  1 landowner 1 vote
> ...) model, but goes far beyond that into participatory democracy.
> Representative democracy may be the foundation of democracy, but it does
not
> provide a full edifice for full democracy.
>>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 b.schombe at gmail.com  Mon Nov  8 04:13:25 2010
From: b.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin SCHOMBE)
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2010 10:13:25 +0100
Subject: [governance] Nov 22/23/24 Consultation Meetings - who are
 coming?
In-Reply-To: <4CD41E0E.60206@paque.net>
References: <AANLkTinBpCdBOvyyoRhSYUfYLPr=4wUj_kZsyOdeN1mi@mail.gmail.com>
 <4CD3D715.6010708@nic.br> <AANLkTik9iVFkNcOUjSiGF33MN-+a_n=XFZeA_EEsS=G6@mail.gmail.com>
 <4CD41E0E.60206@paque.net>
Message-ID: <AANLkTikvw-He_rfB-6GGeNCN35-SZkskwhrO6r4yw7Ot@mail.gmail.com>

hello all,

I agree with Ginger, can you  facilitate remote participation?

SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN
*COORDONNATEUR DU CENTRE AFRICAIN D'ECHANGE CULTUREL (CAFEC)
 ACADEMIE DES TIC
*COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC
*MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE
*NCUC/GNSO MEMBER (ICANN)

Téléphone mobile: +243998983491/+243811980914
email:                   b.schombe at gmail.com
blog:                     http://akimambo.unblog.fr



2010/11/5 Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com>

>  An advantage to the Diplo office is that it is within a few blocks of
> Cornavin. Unfortunately, I will not be able to be present. Please follow
> this up, as Diplo is a willing support partner.
>
> Can we form a Skype group for remote chat conversations? I always found
> that to be very helpful during the meetings, both planning meeting, and the
> OC itself.
>
> gp
>
>
>
> On 11/5/2010 10:34 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote:
>
> Yes, I have contacted DiploFoundation if we can use their office and
> in general they said
> yes. I need to know how many of us will come to Geneva, say on Sunday,
> if we are to convene, and also on Tuesday when we cannot enter into
> the MAG closed meeting.
>
> izumi
>
>
>
> 2010/11/5 Hartmut Glaser <glaser at nic.br> <glaser at nic.br>:
>
>  Hi,
>
> -----------------
> On 04/11/10 12:56, Izumi AIZU wrote:
>
> Dear list,
> IGF will have Taking stock of the Vilnius Meeting as follows, and the
> registration
> is now open and will be CLOSED by Nov. 18:
>  http://info.intgovforum.org/regnov.php
>
>     * 22 November: Open Consultations.
>     * 23 November: MAG meeting.
>  (Both meetings will be held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva.)
> There will also be CSTD Open Consultation meeting on 22 Nov, back-to-back.
>
> I just sent an email to CSTD secretariat asking for any practical
> information
> on CSTD open consultation meeting scheduled on Nov 24.
>
> I like to know who will be attending these meetings from our Caucus, and
> also ask you if we can have any preparatory meeting in advance, I mean
> on Nov 21, Sunday.
>
> I will arrive around 1 pm at Geneva. If possible, let's have a meeting from,
> say 3 or 4 pm. We like to have some kind of work plan how to get involved,
> and also how to report/share with the caucus.
>
> Do you have a proposal for this meeting venue?
>
>
>
> --
>
> *
> **Ginger (Virginia) Paque
> *IGCBP Online Coordinator
> DiploFoundation
> www.diplomacy.edu/ig
>
> *The latest from Diplo...*
> http://igbook.diplomacy.edu is the online companion to *An Introduction to
> Internet Governance, *Diplo's publication on IG. Download the book, read
> the blogs and post your comments.
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101108/c32c5dd5/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From jeanette at wzb.eu  Mon Nov  8 04:20:01 2010
From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2010 10:20:01 +0100
Subject: [governance] Re: SECOND DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <07E439CC72EB460884DA3CD206F8FE4B@userPC>
References: <07E439CC72EB460884DA3CD206F8FE4B@userPC>
Message-ID: <4CD7C0C1.1010704@wzb.eu>

Hi Michael,

I think your understanding of interests is too static. "the
broader public interest" you are referring to is not a clearly 
demarcated concern. As I understand it, it is a composite of many 
concerns many of which are moving and transforming all the time. The 
same is true for the orientation of stakeholders. They don't represent 
one specific interest, stakeholders have various interests some of them 
are even contradicting each other.

Stakeholder representation is one, currently fashionable way of dealing 
with this problem of nailing jello to the wall. Unless you have 
something significantly better to propose I suggest we work on improving 
the stakeholder approach.

jeanette

On 08.11.2010 09:29, Michael Gurstein wrote:
> Avri,
>
> I wasn't talking about the stakeholders themselves but rather about the
> multistakeholder process where adherence/participation in the process is a
> result of a fairly specific "interest" in the outcome. I'm sure that various
> of the stakeholders have other interests as well but it isn't clear to me
> how or if these are being/to be articulated as the policy process moves
> forward.
>
> But the key question in my note which I would appreciate an answer to from
> yourself or any of the others who are advocating for multistakeholderism
> remains
>
>> who is representing the
>> broader public interest (certainly not a very narrowly based and
>> non-representative in any sense, CS)--including for example, those
>> with no or limited access; those for whom access is unavailable or
>> highly restricted because of geography, disability or cost; or those
>> with access but who are lacking in the opportunity to make effective
>> use of that access in support of better living circumstances for
>> themselves and their families and communities.
>
> Tks,
>
> M
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com]
> Sent: Monday, November 08, 2010 7:30 AM
> To: IGC
> Subject: Re: [governance] Re: SECOND DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
>
>
> Hi,
>
> I actually do not thing the interests are as narrow and focused as you
> think.  Again with the proviso that there is a long way to go.
>
> Many of the participants have wider interests, consumer protection,
> sustainable development, human rights or many flavors, development,  etc.,
> with IG just being one of the areas that they are engaged in.  Very few are
> internet types who are also concerned with IG.
>
> Yes, the topic is focused, IG, but I believe that for many of the
> participants, even in this small corner of the debate, the actual interest
> is much wider, just that this space focuses on a single topic.
>
> a.
>
>
>
> On 7 Nov 2010, at 18:12, Michael Gurstein wrote:
>
>> A/the problem with a multistakeholder approach is that it is
>> essentially "interest based" i.e. it is based on reflecting/enabling
>> those with specific and direct "interests" in a policy issue to
>> participate in the policy making process; while ignoring/disabling the
>> opportunity for those with more diffused involvements/interests from
>> direct participation.
>>
>> The health care debate in the US is a very good example here as it has
>> in fact operated on an essentially multistakeholder platform. The
>> medical industry, unions, corporations, bigPharma, even the AARP
>> (retired persons) have all been involved in the discussion but who
>> represented the 40 million uninsured apart from a few ELECTED
>> representatives/legislators?
>>
>> The same has to be said about IG... It is fairly evident that those
>> with specific "interests" are well represented as stakeholders, and in
>> this instance even nation states have had a role (in the global sphere
>> states would appear to have accepted a role as "interested" but not
>> determining parties). But in the area of IG who is representing the
>> broader public interest (certainly not a very narrowly based and
>> non-representative in any sense, CS)--including for example, those
>> with no or limited access; those for whom access is unavailable or
>> highly restricted because of geography, disability or cost; or those
>> with access but who are lacking in the opportunity to make effective
>> use of that access in support of better living circumstances for
>> themselves and their families and communities.
>>
>> These questions are neither rhetorical nor theoretical but in fact go
>> to the very heart of our and IG activties overall.
>>
>> Mike Gurstein
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com]
>> Sent: Sunday, November 07, 2010 9:09 PM
>> To: IGC
>> Subject: Re: [governance] Re: SECOND DRAFT statement on enhanced
>> cooperation
>>
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> The health care stmt was just an example to show, that personally I do
>> support government action, especially on the local level.  I will
>> avoid getting in to Off Topic details on what I think specifically on
>> this topic.
>>
>> Yes, I would like to see a multistakeholder process in the US on
>> deciding all policy issues (including health care). In fact, again
>> just as example, when I had the opportunity to discuss a particular
>> state's (US definition of
>> state) build out of broadband within that state, I proposed a specifically
>> tailored multistakeholder model.  I see this model of policy making as the
>> next step in democracy; multistakeholder model of policy creation is a
> form
>> of representational democracy + participatory democracy.  And I see it as
>> something we are still learning about.
>>
>> Now you have added another topic, full consensus. I support idea of
>> rough/near consensus, not full consensus.  But that would be another
>> long topic on what that means and how that is achieved in a
>> multistakeholder environment - another field in which we  are still
>> growing in experience.
>>
>> Sorry my model was not specific enough.  I propose a decentralized
>> model that includes the groups that are already working on issues and
>> avoids creating new centralized monoliths, though I do add the notion
>> of appeals and arbitration mechanisms.  It is a model of step wise
>> refinement, and model that includes the many things we see happening
>> already in the 'IG grid' (i thought grids were an older model, but I
>> don't mind the term, i like grids as long as they are not 2
>> dimensional).
>>
>> I must note, that I was spoken to sternly, though privately, for
>> wasting the group's time with theoretical discussions when real stuff
>> was happening an real stuff needed to be decided.  So I will stop now.
>>
>> a.
>>
>>
>> On 7 Nov 2010, at 05:34, parminder wrote:
>>
>>> Avri,
>>>
>>> Thanks for your detailed response. A few responses/ questions for the
>>> present.
>>>
>>> On Saturday 06 November 2010 08:28 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> (BTW, a true practice of this ideology should entail giving up of
>>>>> all government provided benefits and protection, for the purpose of
>> which ,in the present circumstances, maybe taking up residence in
>> Southern Afganistan will be the best exemplar. Such an experience may
>> be quite
>> insightful.)
>>>>>
>>>> Not my position, man. e.g.  I want a government led/regulated single
>>>> payer health system in the US.
>>>>
>>> I am happy to hear that. But do you have a particular reason why US's
>>> health policy should not be decided only in completely open forums ,
>>> which are fully multistakeholder, only if we get complete consensus,
>>> also fully involving health insurance companies and drug companies who
>>> must completely agree too? I am of course picking up from, what
>>> appears to me, is your preference for such a model for global IG. If
>>> not so, can you please again explain how policies get made in your
>>> model.
>>>
>>> I really do not understand it. Isnt US gov like all other govs based
>>> on an imperfect representational system, which we shd continuously try to
>> improve, *but not an the expense of creating a policy making vacuum*.
>>>
>>> Further, you  asked is your governance model 'specific enough'.
>>> Really, but I did not see any governance model for making global policies
>> there. (CIRs is not what I am taking about.) I mean, can you tell me
>> how I can have democratically negotiated cyber security treaties
>> rather than done by the OECD and forced on others, same with Internet
>> related issues included in ACTA, and much more is slated to come. All
>> this will be pushed through FTAs on non OECD countries.  Many policies
>> and preferences of the West just come through technology models - and
>> we take it or leave it, such is the global might of the involved tech
>> companies, who of course do much more carefully listen to US gov and
>> stronger European countries.
>>>
>>> You think we need health policies but not Internet policies? Again,
>>> any particular reason? parminder
>>>
>>>> But you do a good job of arguing ad absurdum.  Be careful though.
>>>> When one argues the ad absurdum, I have found, there is always
>>>> someone you can convince with your absurd argument.  Just look at
>>>> recent US elections, people can be convinced of anything at times.
>>>> But that's representational democracy. I digress.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Any system systematically developing and enforcing public policies
>>>>>> is in effect a government. we can have a good - more inclusive,
>> transparent, accountable, progressive etc - government or governance
>> system, or a bad one.
>>>>>
>>>> I disagree that governance is the province of governments. Any
>>>> governance system can and should go beyond the governments.  First, all
>> governments are just local affairs for some definition of local, with
>> no world government either in existence or in the offing. Further,
>> governments, the best of which have a strong representative democracy
>> - and there are few that meet this criteria, are just touching the tip
>> of what it means to be democratic.  True democracy builds its base on
>> the representative 1 person 1 vote (though some are still just 1 man 1
>> vote, or just  1 landowner 1 vote
>> ...) model, but goes far beyond that into participatory democracy.
>> Representative democracy may be the foundation of democracy, but it does
> not
>> provide a full edifice for full democracy.
>>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>>
>>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>>
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t=
>>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>       governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>       governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>       http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t=
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>       governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>       governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>       http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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


From jlfullsack at orange.fr  Mon Nov  8 06:07:30 2010
From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK)
Date: Mon,  8 Nov 2010 12:07:30 +0100 (CET)
Subject: [governance] Re: SECOND DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
Message-ID: <16575653.27390.1289214449991.JavaMail.www@wwinf1j04>

Thank you, Michael, for having recentered the focus on real issues and demystifieed the MSP as a universal model of international and national governance.
We, the grass-root orgs of CS are practically excluded from the majority of the main themes addressed here or at least we are far from the ideology a certain number of the listmembers tend to impose to all (e.g. no or at best only weak governement interference in "our affairs") 
Recurrent and dominant academic and theoretical discourse of our distinguished members. Even suspect orientations, some mails sounding like Tea Party echoes, as if we were in the US. 
Fortunately there are some members (Parminder, Michael, i.a.) who try to "compensate" this neoconsevative dominant discourse, but not without risking to be agressed (cf McTims or A. Doria's mails) instead of being considered as valuable alternatives, at least for building hypotheses or drafts.  

Our regretted friend Francis Muguet (it was just a year he was buried in Paris) used to call these kind of members " the Commintern" : How was he right with his vision ! 

Moreover, don't forget : this list is a language restricted forum ! Therefore its outreach isn't "universal" as many/most of the members pretend. Only well English speaking/writing people are concerned/allowed/able to express their opinions here ! 
Where, by the hell, is "cultural and linguistic diversity" that CS WSIS Declarations revendicate as being high in its agendas and actions ? Who out of the tenors or so considered writers are aware of this and open to listen and understand as relevant the positions and opinions expressed in another (e.g. UN official) language, i.e. are ready to spend more time (and dictionnary use ...) for that ? 
So, please don't feel as being THE CS opinion but only a part of it.

BTW : Depending on our level of English language knowledge, we ought to spend a lot of time for writing our mail and in many cases we are discouraged to contribute because it requires a more or less long time (I need constatntly my dictionnary when writing a mail or reply to another ...).  

Sincerely
Jean-Louis Fullsack
CSDPTT

> Message du 08/11/10 00:14
> De : "Michael Gurstein" 
> A : governance at lists.cpsr.org, "'Avri Doria'" 
> Copie à : 
> Objet : RE: [governance] Re: SECOND DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
> 
> 
> A/the problem with a multistakeholder approach is that it is essentially
> "interest based" i.e. it is based on reflecting/enabling those with specific
> and direct "interests" in a policy issue to participate in the policy making
> process; while ignoring/disabling the opportunity for those with more
> diffused involvements/interests from direct participation.
> 
> The health care debate in the US is a very good example here as it has in
> fact operated on an essentially multistakeholder platform. The medical
> industry, unions, corporations, bigPharma, even the AARP (retired persons)
> have all been involved in the discussion but who represented the 40 million
> uninsured apart from a few ELECTED representatives/legislators?
> 
> The same has to be said about IG... It is fairly evident that those with
> specific "interests" are well represented as stakeholders, and in this
> instance even nation states have had a role (in the global sphere states
> would appear to have accepted a role as "interested" but not determining
> parties). But in the area of IG who is representing the broader public
> interest (certainly not a very narrowly based and non-representative in any
> sense, CS)--including for example, those with no or limited access; those
> for whom access is unavailable or highly restricted because of geography,
> disability or cost; or those with access but who are lacking in the
> opportunity to make effective use of that access in support of better living
> circumstances for themselves and their families and communities.
> 
> These questions are neither rhetorical nor theoretical but in fact go to the
> very heart of our and IG activties overall.
> 
> Mike Gurstein
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com]
> Sent: Sunday, November 07, 2010 9:09 PM
> To: IGC
> Subject: Re: [governance] Re: SECOND DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> The health care stmt was just an example to show, that personally I do
> support government action, especially on the local level. I will avoid
> getting in to Off Topic details on what I think specifically on this topic.
> 
> Yes, I would like to see a multistakeholder process in the US on deciding
> all policy issues (including health care). In fact, again just as example,
> when I had the opportunity to discuss a particular state's (US definition of
> state) build out of broadband within that state, I proposed a specifically
> tailored multistakeholder model. I see this model of policy making as the
> next step in democracy; multistakeholder model of policy creation is a form
> of representational democracy + participatory democracy. And I see it as
> something we are still learning about.
> 
> Now you have added another topic, full consensus. I support idea of
> rough/near consensus, not full consensus. But that would be another long
> topic on what that means and how that is achieved in a multistakeholder
> environment - another field in which we are still growing in experience.
> 
> Sorry my model was not specific enough. I propose a decentralized model
> that includes the groups that are already working on issues and avoids
> creating new centralized monoliths, though I do add the notion of appeals
> and arbitration mechanisms. It is a model of step wise refinement, and
> model that includes the many things we see happening already in the 'IG
> grid' (i thought grids were an older model, but I don't mind the term, i
> like grids as long as they are not 2 dimensional).
> 
> I must note, that I was spoken to sternly, though privately, for wasting the
> group's time with theoretical discussions when real stuff was happening an
> real stuff needed to be decided. So I will stop now.
> 
> a.
> 
> 
> On 7 Nov 2010, at 05:34, parminder wrote:
> 
> > Avri,
> > 
> > Thanks for your detailed response. A few responses/ questions for the 
> > present.
> > 
> > On Saturday 06 November 2010 08:28 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
> >> 
> >>> (BTW, a true practice of this ideology should entail giving up of 
> >>> all government provided benefits and protection, for the purpose of
> which ,in the present circumstances, maybe taking up residence in Southern
> Afganistan will be the best exemplar. Such an experience may be quite
> insightful.)
> >>> 
> >> Not my position, man. e.g. I want a government led/regulated single 
> >> payer health system in the US.
> >> 
> > I am happy to hear that. But do you have a particular reason why US's 
> > health policy should not be decided only in completely open forums , 
> > which are fully multistakeholder, only if we get complete consensus, 
> > also fully involving health insurance companies and drug companies who 
> > must completely agree too? I am of course picking up from, what 
> > appears to me, is your preference for such a model for global IG. If 
> > not so, can you please again explain how policies get made in your 
> > model.
> > 
> > I really do not understand it. Isnt US gov like all other govs based 
> > on an imperfect representational system, which we shd continuously try to
> improve, *but not an the expense of creating a policy making vacuum*.
> > 
> > Further, you asked is your governance model 'specific enough'. 
> > Really, but I did not see any governance model for making global policies
> there. (CIRs is not what I am taking about.) I mean, can you tell me how I
> can have democratically negotiated cyber security treaties rather than done
> by the OECD and forced on others, same with Internet related issues included
> in ACTA, and much more is slated to come. All this will be pushed through
> FTAs on non OECD countries. Many policies and preferences of the West just
> come through technology models - and we take it or leave it, such is the
> global might of the involved tech companies, who of course do much more
> carefully listen to US gov and stronger European countries.
> > 
> > You think we need health policies but not Internet policies? Again, 
> > any particular reason? parminder
> > 
> >> But you do a good job of arguing ad absurdum. Be careful though. 
> >> When one argues the ad absurdum, I have found, there is always 
> >> someone you can convince with your absurd argument. Just look at 
> >> recent US elections, people can be convinced of anything at times. 
> >> But that's representational democracy. I digress.
> >> 
> >> 
> >>> > 
> >>> > Any system systematically developing and enforcing public policies 
> >>> > is in effect a government. we can have a good - more inclusive,
> transparent, accountable, progressive etc - government or governance system,
> or a bad one.
> >>> 
> >> I disagree that governance is the province of governments. Any 
> >> governance system can and should go beyond the governments. First, all
> governments are just local affairs for some definition of local, with no
> world government either in existence or in the offing. Further, governments,
> the best of which have a strong representative democracy - and there are few
> that meet this criteria, are just touching the tip of what it means to be
> democratic. True democracy builds its base on the representative 1 person 1
> vote (though some are still just 1 man 1 vote, or just 1 landowner 1 vote
> ...) model, but goes far beyond that into participatory democracy.
> Representative democracy may be the foundation of democracy, but it does not
> provide a full edifice for full democracy.
> >> 
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> > governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> > 
> > For all list information and functions, see:
> > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> > 
> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t=
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101108/9e0bda4d/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From iza at anr.org  Mon Nov  8 06:14:13 2010
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2010 20:14:13 +0900
Subject: [governance] Nov 22/23/24 Consultation Meetings - who are
 coming?
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikvw-He_rfB-6GGeNCN35-SZkskwhrO6r4yw7Ot@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTinBpCdBOvyyoRhSYUfYLPr=4wUj_kZsyOdeN1mi@mail.gmail.com>
 <4CD3D715.6010708@nic.br> <AANLkTik9iVFkNcOUjSiGF33MN-+a_n=XFZeA_EEsS=G6@mail.gmail.com>
 <4CD41E0E.60206@paque.net> <AANLkTikvw-He_rfB-6GGeNCN35-SZkskwhrO6r4yw7Ot@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTin_p=pEBBZKC+yKPSUM96vvLrn66kFc9nM7W_tA@mail.gmail.com>

Sure, will try, perhaps mainly using the Skype Group, IGF10,
is that OK?

We can also try twitter, if people support that, but that tends to
become more spontaneous, and hard to follow the substance.

What do you think?

izumi

2010/11/8 Baudouin SCHOMBE <b.schombe at gmail.com>:
> hello all,
>
> I agree with Ginger, can you  facilitate remote participation?
>
> SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN
> *COORDONNATEUR DU CENTRE AFRICAIN D'ECHANGE CULTUREL (CAFEC)
>  ACADEMIE DES TIC
> *COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC
> *MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE
> *NCUC/GNSO MEMBER (ICANN)
>
> Téléphone mobile: +243998983491/+243811980914
> email:                   b.schombe at gmail.com
> blog:                     http://akimambo.unblog.fr
>
>
>
> 2010/11/5 Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com>
>>
>> An advantage to the Diplo office is that it is within a few blocks of
>> Cornavin. Unfortunately, I will not be able to be present. Please follow
>> this up, as Diplo is a willing support partner.
>>
>> Can we form a Skype group for remote chat conversations? I always found
>> that to be very helpful during the meetings, both planning meeting, and the
>> OC itself.
>>
>> gp
>>
>>
>>
>> On 11/5/2010 10:34 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote:
>>
>> Yes, I have contacted DiploFoundation if we can use their office and
>> in general they said
>> yes. I need to know how many of us will come to Geneva, say on Sunday,
>> if we are to convene, and also on Tuesday when we cannot enter into
>> the MAG closed meeting.
>>
>> izumi
>>
>>
>>
>> 2010/11/5 Hartmut Glaser <glaser at nic.br>:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> -----------------
>> On 04/11/10 12:56, Izumi AIZU wrote:
>>
>> Dear list,
>> IGF will have Taking stock of the Vilnius Meeting as follows, and the
>> registration
>> is now open and will be CLOSED by Nov. 18:
>>  http://info.intgovforum.org/regnov.php
>>
>>     * 22 November: Open Consultations.
>>     * 23 November: MAG meeting.
>>  (Both meetings will be held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva.)
>> There will also be CSTD Open Consultation meeting on 22 Nov, back-to-back.
>>
>> I just sent an email to CSTD secretariat asking for any practical
>> information
>> on CSTD open consultation meeting scheduled on Nov 24.
>>
>> I like to know who will be attending these meetings from our Caucus, and
>> also ask you if we can have any preparatory meeting in advance, I mean
>> on Nov 21, Sunday.
>>
>> I will arrive around 1 pm at Geneva. If possible, let's have a meeting
>> from,
>> say 3 or 4 pm. We like to have some kind of work plan how to get involved,
>> and also how to report/share with the caucus.
>>
>> Do you have a proposal for this meeting venue?
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Ginger (Virginia) Paque
>> IGCBP Online Coordinator
>> DiploFoundation
>> www.diplomacy.edu/ig
>>
>> The latest from Diplo...
>> http://igbook.diplomacy.edu is the online companion to An Introduction to
>> Internet Governance, Diplo's publication on IG. Download the book, read the
>> blogs and post your comments.
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>



-- 
                        >> Izumi Aizu <<

          Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo

           Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,
                                  Japan
                                 * * * * *
           << Writing the Future of the History >>
                                www.anr.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 gpaque at gmail.com  Mon Nov  8 06:52:41 2010
From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque)
Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2010 07:22:41 -0430
Subject: [governance] Nov 22/23/24 Consultation Meetings - who are
 coming?
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTin_p=pEBBZKC+yKPSUM96vvLrn66kFc9nM7W_tA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTinBpCdBOvyyoRhSYUfYLPr=4wUj_kZsyOdeN1mi@mail.gmail.com> <4CD3D715.6010708@nic.br> <AANLkTik9iVFkNcOUjSiGF33MN-+a_n=XFZeA_EEsS=G6@mail.gmail.com> <4CD41E0E.60206@paque.net> <AANLkTikvw-He_rfB-6GGeNCN35-SZkskwhrO6r4yw7Ot@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTin_p=pEBBZKC+yKPSUM96vvLrn66kFc9nM7W_tA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4CD7E489.4060303@gmail.com>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101108/2c6d8413/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From iza at anr.org  Mon Nov  8 06:59:06 2010
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2010 20:59:06 +0900
Subject: [governance] Nov 22/23/24 Consultation Meetings - who are
 coming?
In-Reply-To: <4CD7E489.4060303@gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTinBpCdBOvyyoRhSYUfYLPr=4wUj_kZsyOdeN1mi@mail.gmail.com>
 <4CD3D715.6010708@nic.br> <AANLkTik9iVFkNcOUjSiGF33MN-+a_n=XFZeA_EEsS=G6@mail.gmail.com>
 <4CD41E0E.60206@paque.net> <AANLkTikvw-He_rfB-6GGeNCN35-SZkskwhrO6r4yw7Ot@mail.gmail.com>
 <AANLkTin_p=pEBBZKC+yKPSUM96vvLrn66kFc9nM7W_tA@mail.gmail.com> <4CD7E489.4060303@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=VhQuYb5oPvUKJTkP66WTE7wtvHANbq+LBSXa4@mail.gmail.com>

Yes, there are some 6 or 7 people still connected with
IGF10 Skype group chat.

I will try to sort of coordinate our remote moderation, though
it may not be that easy when the debate there gets intense.

izumi




2010/11/8 Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com>:
> I agree with Izumi, let's use the Skype group. Twitter is fine for news
> updates, but Skype is better for conversations.
>
> If anyone wants to be added to the group, just let Izumi or me know.
>
> Thanks! Best, Ginger
>
> Ginger (Virginia) Paque
> IGCBP Online Coordinator
> DiploFoundation
> www.diplomacy.edu/ig
>
> The latest from Diplo...
> http://igbook.diplomacy.edu is the online companion to An Introduction to
> Internet Governance, Diplo's publication on IG. Download the book, read the
> blogs and post your comments.
>
> On 11/8/2010 6:44 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote:
>
> Sure, will try, perhaps mainly using the Skype Group, IGF10,
> is that OK?
>
> We can also try twitter, if people support that, but that tends to
> become more spontaneous, and hard to follow the substance.
>
> What do you think?
>
> izumi
>
> 2010/11/8 Baudouin SCHOMBE <b.schombe at gmail.com>:
>
> hello all,
>
> I agree with Ginger, can you  facilitate remote participation?
>
> SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN
> *COORDONNATEUR DU CENTRE AFRICAIN D'ECHANGE CULTUREL (CAFEC)
>  ACADEMIE DES TIC
> *COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC
> *MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE
> *NCUC/GNSO MEMBER (ICANN)
>
> Téléphone mobile: +243998983491/+243811980914
> email:                   b.schombe at gmail.com
> blog:                     http://akimambo.unblog.fr
>
>
>
> 2010/11/5 Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com>
>
> An advantage to the Diplo office is that it is within a few blocks of
> Cornavin. Unfortunately, I will not be able to be present. Please follow
> this up, as Diplo is a willing support partner.
>
> Can we form a Skype group for remote chat conversations? I always found
> that to be very helpful during the meetings, both planning meeting, and the
> OC itself.
>
> gp
>
>
>
> On 11/5/2010 10:34 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote:
>
> Yes, I have contacted DiploFoundation if we can use their office and
> in general they said
> yes. I need to know how many of us will come to Geneva, say on Sunday,
> if we are to convene, and also on Tuesday when we cannot enter into
> the MAG closed meeting.
>
> izumi
>
>
>
> 2010/11/5 Hartmut Glaser <glaser at nic.br>:
>
> Hi,
>
> -----------------
> On 04/11/10 12:56, Izumi AIZU wrote:
>
> Dear list,
> IGF will have Taking stock of the Vilnius Meeting as follows, and the
> registration
> is now open and will be CLOSED by Nov. 18:
>  http://info.intgovforum.org/regnov.php
>
>     * 22 November: Open Consultations.
>     * 23 November: MAG meeting.
>  (Both meetings will be held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva.)
> There will also be CSTD Open Consultation meeting on 22 Nov, back-to-back.
>
> I just sent an email to CSTD secretariat asking for any practical
> information
> on CSTD open consultation meeting scheduled on Nov 24.
>
> I like to know who will be attending these meetings from our Caucus, and
> also ask you if we can have any preparatory meeting in advance, I mean
> on Nov 21, Sunday.
>
> I will arrive around 1 pm at Geneva. If possible, let's have a meeting
> from,
> say 3 or 4 pm. We like to have some kind of work plan how to get involved,
> and also how to report/share with the caucus.
>
> Do you have a proposal for this meeting venue?
>
>
> --
>
> Ginger (Virginia) Paque
> IGCBP Online Coordinator
> DiploFoundation
> www.diplomacy.edu/ig
>
> The latest from Diplo...
> http://igbook.diplomacy.edu is the online companion to An Introduction to
> Internet Governance, Diplo's publication on IG. Download the book, read the
> blogs and post your comments.
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>
>



-- 
                        >> Izumi Aizu <<

          Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo

           Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,
                                  Japan
                                 * * * * *
           << Writing the Future of the History >>
                                www.anr.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 iza at anr.org  Mon Nov  8 07:04:34 2010
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2010 21:04:34 +0900
Subject: [governance] Nov 22/23/24 Consultation Meetings - who are
 coming?
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=VhQuYb5oPvUKJTkP66WTE7wtvHANbq+LBSXa4@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTinBpCdBOvyyoRhSYUfYLPr=4wUj_kZsyOdeN1mi@mail.gmail.com>
 <4CD3D715.6010708@nic.br> <AANLkTik9iVFkNcOUjSiGF33MN-+a_n=XFZeA_EEsS=G6@mail.gmail.com>
 <4CD41E0E.60206@paque.net> <AANLkTikvw-He_rfB-6GGeNCN35-SZkskwhrO6r4yw7Ot@mail.gmail.com>
 <AANLkTin_p=pEBBZKC+yKPSUM96vvLrn66kFc9nM7W_tA@mail.gmail.com>
 <4CD7E489.4060303@gmail.com> <AANLkTi=VhQuYb5oPvUKJTkP66WTE7wtvHANbq+LBSXa4@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=OY1uBcGUBv60oMLJ_O0D0F5oXODJkdHUTFtBG@mail.gmail.com>

I got confirmation from Jovan, that we can use DiploFoundation
office during our stay in Geneva.

I like to propose to have the first meeting on Sunday, Nov 21,
at 3 pm at Diplo office:

56, Rue de Lausanne
CH-1202 Geneva
Phone: +41 22 741 0420
Fax:     +41 22 731 1663

We like to discuss our plan - how to engage with these
consultation meetings and also, if time permits, some
more discussion on our future work - especially how to
deal with IGF continuation debate for coming weeks,
December CSTD WG consultation meeting and, in case,
UN GA etc.

Any other suggestion is very much welcome.

And, please let us know who else will be in Geneva if
not yet posted here.

thanks,

izumi


2010/11/8 Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org>:
> Yes, there are some 6 or 7 people still connected with
> IGF10 Skype group chat.
>
> I will try to sort of coordinate our remote moderation, though
> it may not be that easy when the debate there gets intense.
>
> izumi
>
>
>
>
> 2010/11/8 Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com>:
>> I agree with Izumi, let's use the Skype group. Twitter is fine for news
>> updates, but Skype is better for conversations.
>>
>> If anyone wants to be added to the group, just let Izumi or me know.
>>
>> Thanks! Best, Ginger
>>
>> Ginger (Virginia) Paque
>> IGCBP Online Coordinator
>> DiploFoundation
>> www.diplomacy.edu/ig
>>
>> The latest from Diplo...
>> http://igbook.diplomacy.edu is the online companion to An Introduction to
>> Internet Governance, Diplo's publication on IG. Download the book, read the
>> blogs and post your comments.
>>
>> On 11/8/2010 6:44 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote:
>>
>> Sure, will try, perhaps mainly using the Skype Group, IGF10,
>> is that OK?
>>
>> We can also try twitter, if people support that, but that tends to
>> become more spontaneous, and hard to follow the substance.
>>
>> What do you think?
>>
>> izumi
>>
>> 2010/11/8 Baudouin SCHOMBE <b.schombe at gmail.com>:
>>
>> hello all,
>>
>> I agree with Ginger, can you  facilitate remote participation?
>>
>> SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN
>> *COORDONNATEUR DU CENTRE AFRICAIN D'ECHANGE CULTUREL (CAFEC)
>>  ACADEMIE DES TIC
>> *COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC
>> *MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE
>> *NCUC/GNSO MEMBER (ICANN)
>>
>> Téléphone mobile: +243998983491/+243811980914
>> email:                   b.schombe at gmail.com
>> blog:                     http://akimambo.unblog.fr
>>
>>
>>
>> 2010/11/5 Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com>
>>
>> An advantage to the Diplo office is that it is within a few blocks of
>> Cornavin. Unfortunately, I will not be able to be present. Please follow
>> this up, as Diplo is a willing support partner.
>>
>> Can we form a Skype group for remote chat conversations? I always found
>> that to be very helpful during the meetings, both planning meeting, and the
>> OC itself.
>>
>> gp
>>
>>
>>
>> On 11/5/2010 10:34 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote:
>>
>> Yes, I have contacted DiploFoundation if we can use their office and
>> in general they said
>> yes. I need to know how many of us will come to Geneva, say on Sunday,
>> if we are to convene, and also on Tuesday when we cannot enter into
>> the MAG closed meeting.
>>
>> izumi
>>
>>
>>
>> 2010/11/5 Hartmut Glaser <glaser at nic.br>:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> -----------------
>> On 04/11/10 12:56, Izumi AIZU wrote:
>>
>> Dear list,
>> IGF will have Taking stock of the Vilnius Meeting as follows, and the
>> registration
>> is now open and will be CLOSED by Nov. 18:
>>  http://info.intgovforum.org/regnov.php
>>
>>     * 22 November: Open Consultations.
>>     * 23 November: MAG meeting.
>>  (Both meetings will be held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva.)
>> There will also be CSTD Open Consultation meeting on 22 Nov, back-to-back.
>>
>> I just sent an email to CSTD secretariat asking for any practical
>> information
>> on CSTD open consultation meeting scheduled on Nov 24.
>>
>> I like to know who will be attending these meetings from our Caucus, and
>> also ask you if we can have any preparatory meeting in advance, I mean
>> on Nov 21, Sunday.
>>
>> I will arrive around 1 pm at Geneva. If possible, let's have a meeting
>> from,
>> say 3 or 4 pm. We like to have some kind of work plan how to get involved,
>> and also how to report/share with the caucus.
>>
>> Do you have a proposal for this meeting venue?
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Ginger (Virginia) Paque
>> IGCBP Online Coordinator
>> DiploFoundation
>> www.diplomacy.edu/ig
>>
>> The latest from Diplo...
>> http://igbook.diplomacy.edu is the online companion to An Introduction to
>> Internet Governance, Diplo's publication on IG. Download the book, read the
>> blogs and post your comments.
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
>                         >> Izumi Aizu <<
>
>           Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo
>
>            Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,
>                                   Japan
>                                  * * * * *
>            << Writing the Future of the History >>
>                                 www.anr.org
>



-- 
                        >> Izumi Aizu <<

          Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo

           Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,
                                  Japan
                                 * * * * *
           << Writing the Future of the History >>
                                www.anr.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 parminder at itforchange.net  Mon Nov  8 07:59:57 2010
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2010 18:29:57 +0530
Subject: [governance] Re: SECOND DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <16575653.27390.1289214449991.JavaMail.www@wwinf1j04>
References: <16575653.27390.1289214449991.JavaMail.www@wwinf1j04>
Message-ID: <4CD7F44D.6010605@itforchange.net>


Dear Jeremy and All

To make progress on a EC statement, it is my impression that we separate 
important areas and implications of EC and discuss and comment on them 
separately.

  About one separation I have already commented. The EC process proper 
and the broader processes of preparing conditions for it. These two 
consist of different processes and different roles for different actors. 
Our comments can deal with this issue accordingly in two parts.

The second seperation, I see becoming key to taking an EC discussion 
forward is between IG arena relating to CIR management and that relating 
to other more substantive and socio-political areas like IP, cyber 
security, content realted issues, socio-political issues about Internet 
architecture, social networking, other key global digital applications 
etc. Let me just for sake of distinction call these as 'substantive 
areas' ( Am happy to use another name if anyone has a problem with this one)

I see that I keep advancing opinions and options about global Internet 
public policies vis a vis 'substantive area' , evne making it clear that 
i am not referring to CIR management area, and I keep getting 'nay' 
responses about CIR management area, with alternative options being 
suggested that clearly seem to only refer to CIR area (this is why I 
asked how substantive policies can be ever developed through these 
models and i dont think I got the response.)

Since, as per Tunis Agenda, we have reaffirmed that EC goes beyond CIR 
area, it will be a great service to overall discussion around EC if we 
give our EC related comments separately about the two IG areas - CIRs or 
technical management, and substantive issues related.  I dont see why 
anyone should have any objection against these simple process 
simplifying suggestion.

Regarding CIR or technical management area:

In fact, TA seems to suggest that it does not want to substantively 
disturb the actual technical management processes. and I agree. I am 
ready to evne endorse a sentence or two affirming our position in this 
regard - that the existing decentralized and multistakeholder processes 
of CIR management  should be continued etc. In my view this should 
satisfy all those who have repeatedly rooted for this model in the 
discussions of the last few days.

The only controversial issue here is of US versus a more global body as 
supervisory node over the ICANN plus system. I think it has been the 
civil society position for a long time that US's supervisory role in 
this regard is not acceptable to the international community. I think we 
have also expressed the position that ICANN oversight be 
internationalised. I am fine that we say that all the present authority 
of the US gov (and no more) be immidiately shifted to a global body with 
multistakeholder representation. I dont see how we as a global CS body 
have an objection to this. But happy to hear comments.

Regarding substantive issues

We should condemn making of Internet global public policy among conclave 
of a few powerful nations, when it is evident that the outcomes of these 
policies will have global ramifications. Also the fact that most global 
digital corporations that today provide services that are increasingly 
essential to our social lives are subject to regulatory powers of a few 
powerful countries.  To address both these anomalies, and in the context 
of the vacuum in global policy making (in these substantive, non CIR 
areas), and the fact that as Internet becomes more and more central to 
our social systems the need for global public policies will keep 
increasing, a global IG council or organization with representation from 
across the globe and from all stakeholders  ..... Hereafter we can add 
the nature, role and composition regarding details for this Body as per 
my earlier proposal, and comments of others....

While it makes sense that this Body also does CIR related functions/ 
role that is at present done by the US gov (and no more in relation to 
CIR management), since otherwise the separate CIR supervisory body will 
have little to do day-today, just to keep the two debates separate 
(since now I am convinced that mixing them is the main reaosn we are not 
able to make progress) I am fine if the global CIR supervisory body is a 
seperate one from the above referred IG Council or organization.

I request, if possible, for members to give their comments separately 
for CIR area and other substantive areas to this proposal for IGC 
comments for EC consultations.

Parminder






-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101108/ae966680/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From parminder at itforchange.net  Mon Nov  8 09:49:27 2010
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2010 20:19:27 +0530
Subject: [governance] Re: SECOND DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <4CD7F44D.6010605@itforchange.net>
References: <16575653.27390.1289214449991.JavaMail.www@wwinf1j04> <4CD7F44D.6010605@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <4CD80DF7.30807@itforchange.net>

To make it clearer, I prefer we give our response to EC consultation 
under four different parts

1) Core enhanced cooperation process, mandated to be initiated by the UN 
Sec General, as per Tunis Agenda

2) Broader process of creating conditions for enhanced cooperation

3) Enhanced cooperation process/ new institutional developments vis a 
vis CIR or technical management

4) Enhanced cooperation process/ new institutional developments vis a 
vis other substantive Internet related public policy issues that require 
attention and resolution at the global level

Lets see if we can close our differences enough by considering issues in 
these categories, and accordingly submitting IGC position.

Parminder


On Monday 08 November 2010 06:29 PM, parminder wrote:
>
> Dear Jeremy and All
>
> To make progress on a EC statement, it is my impression that we 
> separate important areas and implications of EC and discuss and 
> comment on them separately.
>
>  About one separation I have already commented. The EC process proper 
> and the broader processes of preparing conditions for it. These two 
> consist of different processes and different roles for different 
> actors. Our comments can deal with this issue accordingly in two parts.
>
> The second seperation, I see becoming key to taking an EC discussion 
> forward is between IG arena relating to CIR management and that 
> relating to other more substantive and socio-political areas like IP, 
> cyber security, content realted issues, socio-political issues about 
> Internet architecture, social networking, other key global digital 
> applications etc. Let me just for sake of distinction call these as 
> 'substantive areas' ( Am happy to use another name if anyone has a 
> problem with this one)
>
> I see that I keep advancing opinions and options about global Internet 
> public policies vis a vis 'substantive area' , evne making it clear 
> that i am not referring to CIR management area, and I keep getting 
> 'nay' responses about CIR management area, with alternative options 
> being suggested that clearly seem to only refer to CIR area (this is 
> why I asked how substantive policies can be ever developed through 
> these models and i dont think I got the response.)
>
> Since, as per Tunis Agenda, we have reaffirmed that EC goes beyond CIR 
> area, it will be a great service to overall discussion around EC if we 
> give our EC related comments separately about the two IG areas - CIRs 
> or technical management, and substantive issues related.  I dont see 
> why anyone should have any objection against these simple process 
> simplifying suggestion.
>
> Regarding CIR or technical management area:
>
> In fact, TA seems to suggest that it does not want to substantively 
> disturb the actual technical management processes. and I agree. I am 
> ready to evne endorse a sentence or two affirming our position in this 
> regard - that the existing decentralized and multistakeholder 
> processes of CIR management  should be continued etc. In my view this 
> should satisfy all those who have repeatedly rooted for this model in 
> the discussions of the last few days.
>
> The only controversial issue here is of US versus a more global body 
> as supervisory node over the ICANN plus system. I think it has been 
> the civil society position for a long time that US's supervisory role 
> in this regard is not acceptable to the international community. I 
> think we have also expressed the position that ICANN oversight be 
> internationalised. I am fine that we say that all the present 
> authority of the US gov (and no more) be immidiately shifted to a 
> global body with multistakeholder representation. I dont see how we as 
> a global CS body have an objection to this. But happy to hear comments.
>
> Regarding substantive issues
>
> We should condemn making of Internet global public policy among 
> conclave of a few powerful nations, when it is evident that the 
> outcomes of these policies will have global ramifications. Also the 
> fact that most global digital corporations that today provide services 
> that are increasingly essential to our social lives are subject to 
> regulatory powers of a few powerful countries.  To address both these 
> anomalies, and in the context of the vacuum in global policy making 
> (in these substantive, non CIR areas), and the fact that as Internet 
> becomes more and more central to our social systems the need for 
> global public policies will keep increasing, a global IG council or 
> organization with representation from across the globe and from all 
> stakeholders  ..... Hereafter we can add the nature, role and 
> composition regarding details for this Body as per my earlier 
> proposal, and comments of others....
>
> While it makes sense that this Body also does CIR related functions/ 
> role that is at present done by the US gov (and no more in relation to 
> CIR management), since otherwise the separate CIR supervisory body 
> will have little to do day-today, just to keep the two debates 
> separate (since now I am convinced that mixing them is the main reaosn 
> we are not able to make progress) I am fine if the global CIR 
> supervisory body is a seperate one from the above referred IG Council 
> or organization.
>
> I request, if possible, for members to give their comments separately 
> for CIR area and other substantive areas to this proposal for IGC 
> comments for EC consultations.
>
> Parminder
>
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101108/b13acc96/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From bortzmeyer at internatif.org  Mon Nov  8 09:57:33 2010
From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer)
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2010 22:57:33 +0800
Subject: [governance] Re: It's Time to Stop ICANN's Top-Level Domain  (TLD)
In-Reply-To: <4CD5EC31.2000207@cavebear.com>
References: <C8F899BB.131F6%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
 <20101105083752.GA5168@nic.fr>
 <96032D64-28F5-4949-894C-AFAA14965232@marzouki.info>
 <4CD5EC31.2000207@cavebear.com>
Message-ID: <20101108145732.GA23988@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org>

On Sat, Nov 06, 2010 at 05:00:49PM -0700,
 Karl Auerbach <karl at cavebear.com> wrote 
 a message of 66 lines which said:

> A stable identifier needs certain kinds of stability:

I agree with your three criteria, but they are too vague to allow a
serious discrimination between systems. For instance:

>    - Client stability (the name has the same meaning no matter who asks)
...
> But DNS names are increasingly failing on the client and location
> stability requirements.  For example "google.com" resolves
> differently depending where the client is.

This is clearly false: google.com does not have the same IP address
depending where you are but it has the same meaning and it brings you
to the same content. For the normal use of an URL (name to resource),
http://www.google.com/ is client-stable.

>    - Temporal stability (if the name has meaning, then the meaning
> remains the same no matter when the question of meaning is asked)
...
> For long term purposes we either need DNS zones in which once a name
> and record is created it becomes immutable and permanent, or we need
> another naming system.

This is clearly impossible. Temporal stability depend on *social*
practices (stable - on the long term - organizations with sensible
policies like the Library of Congress or the Bibliothèque Nationale de
France) not on *technical* rules. *Any* system of identifiers can have
changes if it is not carefully managed. Typical reasons for name rot
in the DNS are *non-technical* ones such as UDRP, expiration, sloppy
administration, etc.

Unlike what some snakeoil vendors (such as the International DOI
Fundation) pretend, there is no such thing as a stable naming
system. Stability is entirely in the practice, not in the standard.

> I have thought that perhaps I ought to start plopping a GUID/UUID
> string into everything I write.  That way there would be at least a
> stable name embedded into the content itself:
> 
> 	ee1a7c75-19a0-44f3-8cb9-627c20af8298

Then use RFC 4151 which is a much more elegant solution (summary: a
"tag" URI is made of a domain name *and* a date; therefore, it is
always valid even if BigCompany hijacks your domain with an UDRP;
small problem, it is not resolvable; you cannot easily have stability
*and* resolvability).

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

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

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


From b.schombe at gmail.com  Mon Nov  8 10:12:29 2010
From: b.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin SCHOMBE)
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2010 16:12:29 +0100
Subject: [governance] Nov 22/23/24 Consultation Meetings - who are
 coming?
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTin_p=pEBBZKC+yKPSUM96vvLrn66kFc9nM7W_tA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTinBpCdBOvyyoRhSYUfYLPr=4wUj_kZsyOdeN1mi@mail.gmail.com>
 <4CD3D715.6010708@nic.br> <AANLkTik9iVFkNcOUjSiGF33MN-+a_n=XFZeA_EEsS=G6@mail.gmail.com>
 <4CD41E0E.60206@paque.net> <AANLkTikvw-He_rfB-6GGeNCN35-SZkskwhrO6r4yw7Ot@mail.gmail.com>
 <AANLkTin_p=pEBBZKC+yKPSUM96vvLrn66kFc9nM7W_tA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTim2HDmXSBSv_71QA1Z5=4bAYwhAsZz95tDr6QbJ@mail.gmail.com>

Skype and Twitter simultaneously, I think that's possible. Would you need
the skype ID for remote participation?


SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN



2010/11/8 Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org>

> Sure, will try, perhaps mainly using the Skype Group, IGF10,
> is that OK?
>
> We can also try twitter, if people support that, but that tends to
> become more spontaneous, and hard to follow the substance.
>
> What do you think?
>
> izumi
>
> 2010/11/8 Baudouin SCHOMBE <b.schombe at gmail.com>:
> > hello all,
> >
> > I agree with Ginger, can you  facilitate remote participation?
> >
> > SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN
> > *COORDONNATEUR DU CENTRE AFRICAIN D'ECHANGE CULTUREL (CAFEC)
> >  ACADEMIE DES TIC
> > *COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC
> > *MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE
> > *NCUC/GNSO MEMBER (ICANN)
> >
> > Téléphone mobile: +243998983491/+243811980914
> > email:                   b.schombe at gmail.com
> > blog:                     http://akimambo.unblog.fr
> >
> >
> >
> > 2010/11/5 Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com>
> >>
> >> An advantage to the Diplo office is that it is within a few blocks of
> >> Cornavin. Unfortunately, I will not be able to be present. Please follow
> >> this up, as Diplo is a willing support partner.
> >>
> >> Can we form a Skype group for remote chat conversations? I always found
> >> that to be very helpful during the meetings, both planning meeting, and
> the
> >> OC itself.
> >>
> >> gp
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 11/5/2010 10:34 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote:
> >>
> >> Yes, I have contacted DiploFoundation if we can use their office and
> >> in general they said
> >> yes. I need to know how many of us will come to Geneva, say on Sunday,
> >> if we are to convene, and also on Tuesday when we cannot enter into
> >> the MAG closed meeting.
> >>
> >> izumi
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 2010/11/5 Hartmut Glaser <glaser at nic.br>:
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> -----------------
> >> On 04/11/10 12:56, Izumi AIZU wrote:
> >>
> >> Dear list,
> >> IGF will have Taking stock of the Vilnius Meeting as follows, and the
> >> registration
> >> is now open and will be CLOSED by Nov. 18:
> >>  http://info.intgovforum.org/regnov.php
> >>
> >>     * 22 November: Open Consultations.
> >>     * 23 November: MAG meeting.
> >>  (Both meetings will be held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva.)
> >> There will also be CSTD Open Consultation meeting on 22 Nov,
> back-to-back.
> >>
> >> I just sent an email to CSTD secretariat asking for any practical
> >> information
> >> on CSTD open consultation meeting scheduled on Nov 24.
> >>
> >> I like to know who will be attending these meetings from our Caucus, and
> >> also ask you if we can have any preparatory meeting in advance, I mean
> >> on Nov 21, Sunday.
> >>
> >> I will arrive around 1 pm at Geneva. If possible, let's have a meeting
> >> from,
> >> say 3 or 4 pm. We like to have some kind of work plan how to get
> involved,
> >> and also how to report/share with the caucus.
> >>
> >> Do you have a proposal for this meeting venue?
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >> Ginger (Virginia) Paque
> >> IGCBP Online Coordinator
> >> DiploFoundation
> >> www.diplomacy.edu/ig
> >>
> >> The latest from Diplo...
> >> http://igbook.diplomacy.edu is the online companion to An Introduction
> to
> >> Internet Governance, Diplo's publication on IG. Download the book, read
> the
> >> blogs and post your comments.
> >>
> >> ____________________________________________________________
> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> >> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> >>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> >>
> >> For all list information and functions, see:
> >>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> >>
> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
>                         >> Izumi Aizu <<
>
>           Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo
>
>            Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,
>                                   Japan
>                                  * * * * *
>            << Writing the Future of the History >>
>                                 www.anr.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101108/a1e23eb1/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From jeremy at ciroap.org  Mon Nov  8 10:29:36 2010
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2010 22:29:36 +0700
Subject: [governance] Re: SECOND DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <4CD80DF7.30807@itforchange.net>
References: <16575653.27390.1289214449991.JavaMail.www@wwinf1j04> <4CD7F44D.6010605@itforchange.net> <4CD80DF7.30807@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <7946904A-0B6C-4A9D-8819-6D144189DFE3@ciroap.org>

On 08/11/2010, at 9:49 PM, parminder wrote:

> To make it clearer, I prefer we give our response to EC consultation under four different parts

I'm not sure it is will be feasible to get such a radical reworking of the existing text through to consensus by Friday, which is when I'd been planning to put the text I'd been working on to a consensus call.  Partly this is because I am travelling from tomorrow.

But if you think it is feasible and have time, then can you please propose some text?  I suggest that it would be made available in parallel to the existing text, so that people can choose one of the other if and when the consensus call is made.

Meanwhile I will send around a fourth draft of the existing text tomorrow, incorporating the latest comments, but a less ambitious reworking than what you propose.

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

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

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101108/7bd37676/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101108/7bd37676/attachment.bin>

From avri at psg.com  Mon Nov  8 10:44:58 2010
From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2010 10:44:58 -0500
Subject: [governance] Re: SECOND DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <4CD7F44D.6010605@itforchange.net>
References: <16575653.27390.1289214449991.JavaMail.www@wwinf1j04> <4CD7F44D.6010605@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <BC3A0528-2BD2-46AB-9C6E-3152416ACBDF@psg.com>



Hi,

On 8 Nov 2010, at 07:59, parminder wrote:

> (this is why I asked how substantive policies can be ever developed through these models and i dont think I got the response.)


I had not understood this question properly.

And of course, I am not sure if I do yet.

Are you asking: "How can use a stakeholder model on issue beyond CIR since that have never been used on other areas beyond CIR before?"

Or put another way: "Please prove that that the multistakeholder model will work for things other than CIR?"

For the many reasons I have argued, that are not topic dependent, I believe that the multistakeholder model is a viable method of deepening democracy along the lines of representation+participation+advocacy.

While these democratic multistakeholder models are new in the area of CIR, they are even newer in other areas.  and while I think I understand why the ontogeny of these models is CIR related, I see no barrier to the basic model being applied in other areas to the advantage of the world's peoples.

However, at the moment they are still the only models I see that take us beyond simple trust in the most basic of democratic forms - trusting our sometime representative governments and the IGO that the bureaucrats from those nations create. My advocacy is for the use of various forms of multistakeholder model in any and all policy issues.  The modalities f the model with vary with implementation and with topic area, as will the mix of stakeholders

> 
> On 08.11.2010 09:29, Michael Gurstein wrote:
>> 
>> But the key question in my note which I would appreciate an answer to from
>> yourself or any of the others who are advocating for multistakeholderism
>> remains
>> 
>>> who is representing the
>>> broader public interest (certainly not a very narrowly based and
>>> non-representative in any sense, CS)--including for example, those
>>> with no or limited access; those for whom access is unavailable or
>>> highly restricted because of geography, disability or cost; or those
>>> with access but who are lacking in the opportunity to make effective
>>> use of that access in support of better living circumstances for
>>> themselves and their families and communities.

Although I like Jeannette's answer quite a bit, I would like to ad something.

I think that we see a lot of representation of those interests in this very caucus.  From IT4Change projects and their  championing of the people in the areas around Bangalore and in India in general, in the APC membership of local organizations that deal with all sorts of issues that relate to the poor and to the marginalized populations, to your advocacy in terms of the people involved in telecenters, the consumer groups that have gotten invovled in almost all organizations,  etc...   And this is just one of the civicl society groups. In some cases the presentation of interests comes by participation of groups such as the International Red cross in various organizations like ICANN. In some cases these interests are represented by those who work in the foundation created by the megacorps.  And of course to some extent those population are represented by the representation democracy in the democratic countries.  

Again with my constant proviso that there is further to outreach and more groups to be brought in, the point is that there is a constant elevation of the interests of the many in a multistakeholder organization.  That advocacy is somewhat fluid and is more likely to represent the interests of a population that the populations directly, but on occasion, especially with groups like APC for example, as far as I understand, the local populations have  a lot to say about the positions their umbrella groups take.

So the broader public interests are being represented by the amalgam of those who participate and advocate.  and the mode direct participation we get at various layers of the efforts, the better off we will be.

So again, I apologize for taking this theoretical approach, but I still see no other model than the multistakeholder model to further the interests of the many in a deepening od democracy by combining the representation+participation+advocacy.  What we still need to do is to learn how to make that model work in many situation beyond CIR where it has had it first real test.  I see establishing this model, in various modalities to be a primary requirement for future success of civil society's goals.  And thus I advocate for it.

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 jovank at diplomacy.edu  Mon Nov  8 11:14:10 2010
From: jovank at diplomacy.edu (Jovan Kurbalija)
Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2010 17:14:10 +0100
Subject: [governance] Re: SECOND DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006DCC@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
References: <70E573F5-00B4-4837-89B7-C05B9DA7E479@ciroap.org> <7.0.1.0.2.20101103021355.05d70e60@jefsey.com> <5B31379A-A914-4BE1-945B-EEF2478BA1DC@ciroap.org> <7.0.1.0.2.20101103094622.0651ee20@jefsey.com> <3FE17A9E-E507-44DA-8AE2-EC7EC56DD1D8@ciroap.org> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006DA4@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4CD17823.8010108@itforchange.net> <AANLkTikONmgaa+4rO+uZkAv4YrPDfSV4aP9YKk_=Lgox@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20101104103504.057fdc48@jefsey.com> <08B126B5-B3AB-4A91-B8BC-A90579C6EF5A@ciroap.org> <4CD4CF03.3000900@itforchange.net> <D1E1B737-C8E1-4657-8A1A-FDB3E30DB92D@psg.com> <4CD4E70D.8010807@itforchange.net> <806E2BA2-1AE8-45DE-A870-5F90AF3C0032@psg.com>,<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A073C5@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006DCC@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <4CD821D2.2070403@diplomacy.edu>

Lee,

I suggest caution with the use of the word "grid" for a few reasons...

Semantically, 'grid' implies a well-ordered structure (rows/columns). IG 
is far from being so well-organised.

Technically, 'grid' contradicts some of the basic premises of the 
Internet. I recently participated in a discussion on CERN's Worldwide 
LHC Computing Grid (which provides data support for the "big-bang" 
experiment at CERN). It is clear that CERN's grid, which is a principal 
deployment of the grid model, is hierarchical, location-aware and 
centrally planned. It does not provide for a decoupling of layers, which 
was achieved in the very early days of the Internet. The lack of 
decoupling oflayers leads to a problem with robustness, development of 
new applications, etc. All in all, CERN is considering some sort of 
merger or even evolution towards cloud computing, which is much better 
in virtualisation of resources (mainly by decoupling layers). Business 
abandoned the grid concept and moved to the cloud a few years ago.

Interestingly enough, both of the terms 'web' and 'grid' were coined 
within the CERN project, although for different purposes. I still think 
that 'web' both reflects better what occurs in the IG-field, and has 
better future than grid. Given the fuzziness, sometimes confusion of IG, 
'cloud' could be even better. This would also help speechwriters a lot - 
so many possible metaphors with clouds, blue sky, etc.

Marilia mentioned 'IG ecology', which is probably the best description. 
However, there are two possible confusions. One is with ISOC's Internet 
ecology. The other is with the most frequent connotation of ecology with 
environment and climate change.

What about "IG sphere"? Other suggestions?

Jovan


On 11/7/10 1:58 AM, Lee W McKnight wrote:
> Wolfgang,
>
> Agreed the ITU PP is a step in the right direction. Though in practice ITU&  IETF have been - practicing - enhanced cooperation for years as was discussed a while back on the list.
>
> Extending that more formally to a broader group of orgs is a good thing, but more of an incremental step than radical break with past practice. And it still leaves civil society in the cheap seats/as spectators at (most) ITU events, typically.
>
> On another note - and no offense - but can we stop talking about at an 'IG Web' - that sounds so 1990s.
>
> IG Cloud would be trendier but even vaguer.
>
> I suppose IG Grid would be my preference, connoting simultaneous info and resource sharing across..the grid.
>
> Lee
>
>
> ________________________________________
> From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" [wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de]
> Sent: Saturday, November 06, 2010 1:19 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Avri Doria; IGC
> Subject: AW: [governance] Re: SECOND DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
>
> Hi all
>
> It makes little sense to continue a theoretical discussion on "enhanced cooperation" when the practical process is moving forward and is creating new facts and opportunities. Do not underestimate the outcome of the ITU PP in Guadalajara with regard to "enhanced cooperation". In my eyes this is really a door opener and a breakthorugh towards a new more issue related "enhanced cooperation" among all players. The fact that the ITU calls in a resolution, adopted by all its 193 member states, for greater "collaboration and coordination" (remember our EC³ definition of enhanced cooperation from 2007) between the ITU on the one hand and ICANN, RIR, W3C, IETF and ISOC (on a reciprocity basis) on the other hand is very remarkable. If you take it seriously what Toure told Kieran Mc Carthy in his interview and look into Beckstroms letter to the ITU from June (published only recently) than you can see that "enhanced cooperation" is moving forward in the right way and gets substance.
>
> We did not discuss here the idea to create a network of formal arrangements, something like an "IG Web", among all these governmental and non-governmental players. UNESCO (an intergovernmental organisation) and ICANN (a private corporation) created an interesting model of a formalized IG oriented mutual bilateral relationship. The "Letter of Intent" (LOI), signed in Vilnjus, is a good source of inspiration, also for a formalization of the ICANN-ITU relationship. Will we see more of them, also with other players? Probably we will see the emergence of a network of fomalized bilatertal relationship in a very multilateral/multistakeholder environment. I called this previously the IG "Spaghetti Ball". So enhanced cooperation is moving foreward.
>
> Wolfgang
>
>
> EC³ was defined - in an expert meeting during following the 2007 Summer School on Internet Governance as follows "Enhanced cooperation in Internet Governance is the enhanced communication, coordination and collaboration (EC³) among non-govenrmental and inter-governmental institutions and organisations in developing norms, principles, programmes and procedures for the governance of the Internet in an informal or, when and where needed, formalized way."
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>       governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>       governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>       http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>       governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>       governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>       http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101108/d8c6439f/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From dogwallah at gmail.com  Mon Nov  8 11:25:34 2010
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2010 19:25:34 +0300
Subject: [governance] Re: SECOND DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <4CD821D2.2070403@diplomacy.edu>
References: <70E573F5-00B4-4837-89B7-C05B9DA7E479@ciroap.org>
 <7.0.1.0.2.20101103021355.05d70e60@jefsey.com> <5B31379A-A914-4BE1-945B-EEF2478BA1DC@ciroap.org>
 <7.0.1.0.2.20101103094622.0651ee20@jefsey.com> <3FE17A9E-E507-44DA-8AE2-EC7EC56DD1D8@ciroap.org>
 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006DA4@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
 <4CD17823.8010108@itforchange.net> <AANLkTikONmgaa+4rO+uZkAv4YrPDfSV4aP9YKk_=Lgox@mail.gmail.com>
 <7.0.1.0.2.20101104103504.057fdc48@jefsey.com> <08B126B5-B3AB-4A91-B8BC-A90579C6EF5A@ciroap.org>
 <4CD4CF03.3000900@itforchange.net> <D1E1B737-C8E1-4657-8A1A-FDB3E30DB92D@psg.com>
 <4CD4E70D.8010807@itforchange.net> <806E2BA2-1AE8-45DE-A870-5F90AF3C0032@psg.com>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A073C5@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006DCC@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4CD821D2.2070403@diplomacy.edu>
Message-ID: <AANLkTinSLwBk9xA+dFHmpzE-ST8AcJqUNzQvrsByuY6r@mail.gmail.com>

2010/11/8 Jovan Kurbalija <jovank at diplomacy.edu>:
> Lee,
>
> I suggest caution with the use of the word "grid" for a few reasons...
>
> Semantically, 'grid' implies a well-ordered structure (rows/columns). IG is
> far from being so well-organised.

it is very well organised, but more organic.


<snip>
>
> Marilia mentioned 'IG ecology', which is probably the best description.
> However, there are two possible confusions. One is with ISOC's Internet
> ecology.

I think that is "eco-system' which is a fine term IMHO.


-- 
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 miguel.alcaine at gmail.com  Mon Nov  8 11:31:15 2010
From: miguel.alcaine at gmail.com (Miguel Alcaine)
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2010 17:31:15 +0100
Subject: [governance] Re: SECOND DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinSLwBk9xA+dFHmpzE-ST8AcJqUNzQvrsByuY6r@mail.gmail.com>
References: <70E573F5-00B4-4837-89B7-C05B9DA7E479@ciroap.org>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20101103021355.05d70e60@jefsey.com>
	<5B31379A-A914-4BE1-945B-EEF2478BA1DC@ciroap.org>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20101103094622.0651ee20@jefsey.com>
	<3FE17A9E-E507-44DA-8AE2-EC7EC56DD1D8@ciroap.org>
	<93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006DA4@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
	<4CD17823.8010108@itforchange.net>
	<AANLkTikONmgaa+4rO+uZkAv4YrPDfSV4aP9YKk_=Lgox@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20101104103504.057fdc48@jefsey.com>
	<08B126B5-B3AB-4A91-B8BC-A90579C6EF5A@ciroap.org>
	<4CD4CF03.3000900@itforchange.net>
	<D1E1B737-C8E1-4657-8A1A-FDB3E30DB92D@psg.com>
	<4CD4E70D.8010807@itforchange.net>
	<806E2BA2-1AE8-45DE-A870-5F90AF3C0032@psg.com>
	<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A073C5@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
	<93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006DCC@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
	<4CD821D2.2070403@diplomacy.edu>
	<AANLkTinSLwBk9xA+dFHmpzE-ST8AcJqUNzQvrsByuY6r@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTinXKdmcCwhN1qub=N23QQKMJ=27DVmx2E44ySFS@mail.gmail.com>

I also believe as McTim "eco-system" is appropriate.

Best,

Miguel

On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 5:25 PM, McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:

> 2010/11/8 Jovan Kurbalija <jovank at diplomacy.edu>:
> > Lee,
> >
> > I suggest caution with the use of the word "grid" for a few reasons...
> >
> > Semantically, 'grid' implies a well-ordered structure (rows/columns). IG
> is
> > far from being so well-organised.
>
> it is very well organised, but more organic.
>
>
> <snip>
> >
> > Marilia mentioned 'IG ecology', which is probably the best description.
> > However, there are two possible confusions. One is with ISOC's Internet
> > ecology.
>
> I think that is "eco-system' which is a fine term IMHO.
>
>
> --
> 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101108/7433e32a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From lmcknigh at syr.edu  Mon Nov  8 12:23:20 2010
From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight)
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2010 12:23:20 -0500
Subject: [governance] Re: SECOND DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <4CD821D2.2070403@diplomacy.edu>
References: <70E573F5-00B4-4837-89B7-C05B9DA7E479@ciroap.org>
 <7.0.1.0.2.20101103021355.05d70e60@jefsey.com>
 <5B31379A-A914-4BE1-945B-EEF2478BA1DC@ciroap.org>
 <7.0.1.0.2.20101103094622.0651ee20@jefsey.com>
 <3FE17A9E-E507-44DA-8AE2-EC7EC56DD1D8@ciroap.org>
 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006DA4@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
 <4CD17823.8010108@itforchange.net>
 <AANLkTikONmgaa+4rO+uZkAv4YrPDfSV4aP9YKk_=Lgox@mail.gmail.com>
 <7.0.1.0.2.20101104103504.057fdc48@jefsey.com>
 <08B126B5-B3AB-4A91-B8BC-A90579C6EF5A@ciroap.org>
 <4CD4CF03.3000900@itforchange.net>
 <D1E1B737-C8E1-4657-8A1A-FDB3E30DB92D@psg.com>
 <4CD4E70D.8010807@itforchange.net>
 <806E2BA2-1AE8-45DE-A870-5F90AF3C0032@psg.com>,<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A073C5@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006DCC@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>,<4CD821D2.2070403@diplomacy.edu>
Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006DD3@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>

Jovan,

I beg to differ with you and CERN about whether 'grids' must be well-ordered or can be ad hoc and dynamic.

To elaborate:

 In fact I've spent the past 8 years differing on this : ) Frankly the high energy physicists...no offense to them, but they have a kind of constrained view of grids, based on their reasonable preoccupation with massive data files. We're not talking movie-download massive, we're talking Comet Hartley massive or subatomic particles colliding massive...very very small things can generate reams and reams of data.

Anyway, those are not the typical preoccupation of web or grid or whatever other class of Internet users. Who care mainly about dynamic things like reaching people who tend to move around.

The National Science Foundation Partnerships for Innovation 'Wireless Grid Innovation Testbed' (WiGiT) is developing open specifications or 'sharing protocol' for such dynamic and flexible grids of people, and their resources, including their services, and software, and content. I'm pleased to say NSF considers my re-definition (and the architecture underlying it) a 'transformative innovation' - though it is still early in the process of reeducating folks on the meaning of the word grid.

Especially given the resource and bandwidth constraints of rural areas, a more flexible and dynamic grid offers significant benefits, and can run transparently across available Internet networks. We're also very green since we don't send stuff back and forth unnecessarily as traditional nets do.

Basically, think of the Grid as where the 'Internet of Things' gets socially coordinated with Internet users. 

But yes 'grid' contradicts - or rather -complements and expands the Internet, as I made reasonably clear in my 'Future of the Internet is Not the Internet' presentation to NSF and OECD in 2007...to Vint Cerf among others. So they can't say they weren't warned. : ) 

An initial release of WiGiT open specs will be available in 2011, as may early versions of software implementing various pieces...until then all I can say is we're already going international...to Portugal and Seneca Nation of Indians...and we're already incorporating the latest 802.15.x specs for low power ad hoc wireless mesh networks (CCNY)  and cognitive radios (Virginia Tech)...and we'll be offering wireless grid music services for students with disabilities (BOCES).  To name a few examples of users comig onto the grid in 2011.

The article 'Squeezing a Grid onto a Widget' summarizes reasonably clearly the issues between the (old-fashioned) definition of grids, and their future. http://wglab.net see publications por news releases

Folks interested in our physical/virtual WiGiT meetings - and interested in joining the Virtual Organization which is the WiGiT testbed - feel free to send me an email.

I have already intro'd the 'Social Grid' concept into UN-GAID, and hope my IGC virtual pals are up for considering being early movers and creators of their own grid apps and services....

But if this is all too bleeding edge for IGC I'll not take offense, though I also won't stop developing WiGiT. Whose open specs should make it relatively trivial to create a global social grid for enhanced cooperation among other things.

Lee
________________________________________
From: Jovan Kurbalija [jovank at diplomacy.edu]
Sent: Monday, November 08, 2010 11:14 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Lee W McKnight
Cc: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"; Avri Doria
Subject: Re: [governance] Re: SECOND DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation

Lee,

I suggest caution with the use of the word "grid" for a few reasons...

Semantically, 'grid' implies a well-ordered structure (rows/columns). IG is far from being so well-organised.

Technically, 'grid' contradicts some of the basic premises of the Internet. I recently participated in a discussion on CERN's Worldwide LHC Computing Grid (which provides data support for the "big-bang" experiment at CERN). It is clear that CERN's grid, which is a principal deployment of the grid model, is hierarchical, location-aware and centrally planned. It does not provide for a decoupling of layers, which was achieved in the very early days of the Internet. The lack of decoupling of layers leads to a problem with robustness, development of new applications, etc. All in all, CERN is considering some sort of merger or even evolution towards cloud computing, which is much better in virtualisation of resources (mainly by decoupling layers). Business abandoned the grid concept and moved to the cloud a few years ago.

Interestingly enough, both of the terms 'web' and 'grid' were coined within the CERN project, although for different purposes. I still think that 'web' both reflects better what occurs in the IG-field, and has better future than grid. Given the fuzziness, sometimes confusion of IG, 'cloud' could be even better. This would also help speechwriters a lot - so many possible metaphors with clouds, blue sky, etc.

Marilia mentioned 'IG ecology', which is probably the best description. However, there are two possible confusions. One is with ISOC's Internet ecology. The other is with the most frequent connotation of ecology with environment and climate change.

What about "IG sphere"? Other suggestions?

Jovan


On 11/7/10 1:58 AM, Lee W McKnight wrote:

Wolfgang,

Agreed the ITU PP is a step in the right direction. Though in practice ITU & IETF have been - practicing - enhanced cooperation for years as was discussed a while back on the list.

Extending that more formally to a broader group of orgs is a good thing, but more of an incremental step than radical break with past practice. And it still leaves civil society in the cheap seats/as spectators at (most) ITU events, typically.

On another note - and no offense - but can we stop talking about at an 'IG Web' - that sounds so 1990s.

IG Cloud would be trendier but even vaguer.

I suppose IG Grid would be my preference, connoting simultaneous info and resource sharing across..the grid.

Lee


________________________________________
From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" [wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de<mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>]
Sent: Saturday, November 06, 2010 1:19 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org<mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>; Avri Doria; IGC
Subject: AW: [governance] Re: SECOND DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation

Hi all

It makes little sense to continue a theoretical discussion on "enhanced cooperation" when the practical process is moving forward and is creating new facts and opportunities. Do not underestimate the outcome of the ITU PP in Guadalajara with regard to "enhanced cooperation". In my eyes this is really a door opener and a breakthorugh towards a new more issue related "enhanced cooperation" among all players. The fact that the ITU calls in a resolution, adopted by all its 193 member states, for greater "collaboration and coordination" (remember our EC³ definition of enhanced cooperation from 2007) between the ITU on the one hand and ICANN, RIR, W3C, IETF and ISOC (on a reciprocity basis) on the other hand is very remarkable. If you take it seriously what Toure told Kieran Mc Carthy in his interview and look into Beckstroms letter to the ITU from June (published only recently) than you can see that "enhanced cooperation" is moving forward in the right way and gets substance.


We did not discuss here the idea to create a network of formal arrangements, something like an "IG Web", among all these governmental and non-governmental players. UNESCO (an intergovernmental organisation) and ICANN (a private corporation) created an interesting model of a formalized IG oriented mutual bilateral relationship. The "Letter of Intent" (LOI), signed in Vilnjus, is a good source of inspiration, also for a formalization of the ICANN-ITU relationship. Will we see more of them, also with other players? Probably we will see the emergence of a network of fomalized bilatertal relationship in a very multilateral/multistakeholder environment. I called this previously the IG "Spaghetti Ball". So enhanced cooperation is moving foreward.

Wolfgang


EC³ was defined - in an expert meeting during following the 2007 Summer School on Internet Governance as follows "Enhanced cooperation in Internet Governance is the enhanced communication, coordination and collaboration (EC³) among non-govenrmental and inter-governmental institutions and organisations in developing norms, principles, programmes and procedures for the governance of the Internet in an informal or, when and where needed, formalized way."


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From b.schombe at gmail.com  Mon Nov  8 12:35:58 2010
From: b.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin SCHOMBE)
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2010 18:35:58 +0100
Subject: [governance] Re: SECOND DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinXKdmcCwhN1qub=N23QQKMJ=27DVmx2E44ySFS@mail.gmail.com>
References: <70E573F5-00B4-4837-89B7-C05B9DA7E479@ciroap.org>
 <7.0.1.0.2.20101103021355.05d70e60@jefsey.com> <5B31379A-A914-4BE1-945B-EEF2478BA1DC@ciroap.org>
 <7.0.1.0.2.20101103094622.0651ee20@jefsey.com> <3FE17A9E-E507-44DA-8AE2-EC7EC56DD1D8@ciroap.org>
 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006DA4@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
 <4CD17823.8010108@itforchange.net> <AANLkTikONmgaa+4rO+uZkAv4YrPDfSV4aP9YKk_=Lgox@mail.gmail.com>
 <7.0.1.0.2.20101104103504.057fdc48@jefsey.com> <08B126B5-B3AB-4A91-B8BC-A90579C6EF5A@ciroap.org>
 <4CD4CF03.3000900@itforchange.net> <D1E1B737-C8E1-4657-8A1A-FDB3E30DB92D@psg.com>
 <4CD4E70D.8010807@itforchange.net> <806E2BA2-1AE8-45DE-A870-5F90AF3C0032@psg.com>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A073C5@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006DCC@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
 <4CD821D2.2070403@diplomacy.edu> <AANLkTinSLwBk9xA+dFHmpzE-ST8AcJqUNzQvrsByuY6r@mail.gmail.com>
 <AANLkTinXKdmcCwhN1qub=N23QQKMJ=27DVmx2E44ySFS@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTimz0xwBf+mb=vri6q2w1mC6tnDvhJ+4K8XhRpMo@mail.gmail.com>

approach supported by Marilia and McTim seems real when they propose the
term "eco-system."


SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN
*COORDONNATEUR DU CENTRE AFRICAIN D'ECHANGE CULTUREL (CAFEC)
 ACADEMIE DES TIC
*COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC
*MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE
*NCUC/GNSO MEMBER (ICANN)

Téléphone mobile: +243998983491/+243811980914
email:                   b.schombe at gmail.com
blog:                     http://akimambo.unblog.fr



2010/11/8 Miguel Alcaine <miguel.alcaine at gmail.com>

> I also believe as McTim "eco-system" is appropriate.
>
> Best,
>
> Miguel
>
> On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 5:25 PM, McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 2010/11/8 Jovan Kurbalija <jovank at diplomacy.edu>:
>> > Lee,
>> >
>> > I suggest caution with the use of the word "grid" for a few reasons...
>> >
>> > Semantically, 'grid' implies a well-ordered structure (rows/columns). IG
>> is
>> > far from being so well-organised.
>>
>> it is very well organised, but more organic.
>>
>>
>> <snip>
>> >
>> > Marilia mentioned 'IG ecology', which is probably the best description.
>> > However, there are two possible confusions. One is with ISOC's Internet
>> > ecology.
>>
>> I think that is "eco-system' which is a fine term IMHO.
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101108/5bd9deec/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From dogwallah at gmail.com  Mon Nov  8 12:37:40 2010
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2010 20:37:40 +0300
Subject: [governance] Re: SECOND DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <4CD80DF7.30807@itforchange.net>
References: <16575653.27390.1289214449991.JavaMail.www@wwinf1j04>
 <4CD7F44D.6010605@itforchange.net> <4CD80DF7.30807@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <AANLkTim1+R2vF12c6fomFuTjE4bcfhVmg2HqM0jx-+KZ@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks for the summary, it'll be easier to reply to:

On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 5:49 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
> To make it clearer, I prefer we give our response to EC consultation under
> four different parts
>
> 1) Core enhanced cooperation process, mandated to be initiated by the UN Sec
> General, as per Tunis Agenda

It was begun, and continues. We should applaud efforts so far, and
encourage more folk to contribute, in other words, make the spaghetti
ball richer.


>
> 2) Broader process of creating conditions for enhanced cooperation
>

I can't find this in the TA.  I think the conditions are in place, as
I see EC all over the place, so the conditions must have been created
long ago.

> 3) Enhanced cooperation process/ new institutional developments vis a vis
> CIR or technical management

I reject the notion that new institutions are needed.   We have a
"global body with multistakeholder representation" why would we need
another to oversee the first?  and who will oversee the new "global
body with multistakeholder representation" and who will oversee them,
etc, etc, ad infintum.  The bottom line is that the USG will cut the
cord long before any new body could be up and running.  Besides, the
ICANN Board would not likely (think hell freezing over) acquiesce to
being "overseen"

>
> 4) Enhanced cooperation process/ new institutional developments vis a vis
> other substantive Internet related public policy issues that require
> attention and resolution at the global level

I certainly don't see a need for any.  Are you really hoping to form a
global body to regulate FB/LinkedIn/MySpace?  Seriously?

>
> Lets see if we can close our differences enough by considering issues in
> these categories, and accordingly submitting IGC position.

I think a general statement supporting the current process of EC and
re-iterating CS involvement is the best we are going to be able to do.

-- 
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 avri at psg.com  Mon Nov  8 12:55:09 2010
From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2010 12:55:09 -0500
Subject: [governance] Re: SECOND DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTim1+R2vF12c6fomFuTjE4bcfhVmg2HqM0jx-+KZ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <16575653.27390.1289214449991.JavaMail.www@wwinf1j04> <4CD7F44D.6010605@itforchange.net> <4CD80DF7.30807@itforchange.net> <AANLkTim1+R2vF12c6fomFuTjE4bcfhVmg2HqM0jx-+KZ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <FB04210F-7420-42B1-8644-5A30E0D5DA61@psg.com>


On 8 Nov 2010, at 12:37, McTim wrote:

> 
>  Besides, the
> ICANN Board would not likely (think hell freezing over) acquiesce to
> being "overseen"


depends who is on that board, 
i think that they ca be convinced in time toward a binding appeals mechanism.

lots of issues to be solved first, but this could happen.

i believe.

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  Mon Nov  8 14:08:45 2010
From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight)
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2010 14:08:45 -0500
Subject: [governance] Re: SECOND DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinXKdmcCwhN1qub=N23QQKMJ=27DVmx2E44ySFS@mail.gmail.com>
References: <70E573F5-00B4-4837-89B7-C05B9DA7E479@ciroap.org>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20101103021355.05d70e60@jefsey.com>
	<5B31379A-A914-4BE1-945B-EEF2478BA1DC@ciroap.org>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20101103094622.0651ee20@jefsey.com>
	<3FE17A9E-E507-44DA-8AE2-EC7EC56DD1D8@ciroap.org>
	<93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006DA4@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
	<4CD17823.8010108@itforchange.net>
	<AANLkTikONmgaa+4rO+uZkAv4YrPDfSV4aP9YKk_=Lgox@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20101104103504.057fdc48@jefsey.com>
	<08B126B5-B3AB-4A91-B8BC-A90579C6EF5A@ciroap.org>
	<4CD4CF03.3000900@itforchange.net>
	<D1E1B737-C8E1-4657-8A1A-FDB3E30DB92D@psg.com>
	<4CD4E70D.8010807@itforchange.net>
	<806E2BA2-1AE8-45DE-A870-5F90AF3C0032@psg.com>
	<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A073C5@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
	<93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006DCC@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
	<4CD821D2.2070403@diplomacy.edu>
	<AANLkTinSLwBk9xA+dFHmpzE-ST8AcJqUNzQvrsByuY6r@mail.gmail.com>,<AANLkTinXKdmcCwhN1qub=N23QQKMJ=27DVmx2E44ySFS@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006DD6@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>

I'm happy with and use the phrase 'innovation ecosystem' or 'entrepreneurial ecosystem' myself...except when I am speaking of a grid, I say that.

Lee
________________________________________
From: Miguel Alcaine [miguel.alcaine at gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, November 08, 2010 11:31 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; McTim
Subject: Re: [governance] Re: SECOND DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation

I also believe as McTim "eco-system" is appropriate.

Best,

Miguel

On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 5:25 PM, McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com<mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com>> wrote:
2010/11/8 Jovan Kurbalija <jovank at diplomacy.edu<mailto:jovank at diplomacy.edu>>:
> Lee,
>
> I suggest caution with the use of the word "grid" for a few reasons...
>
> Semantically, 'grid' implies a well-ordered structure (rows/columns). IG is
> far from being so well-organised.

it is very well organised, but more organic.


<snip>
>
> Marilia mentioned 'IG ecology', which is probably the best description.
> However, there are two possible confusions. One is with ISOC's Internet
> ecology.

I think that is "eco-system' which is a fine term IMHO.


--
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<mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org<mailto:governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org>

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

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

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

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 Nov  8 17:54:44 2010
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2010 06:54:44 +0800
Subject: Multistakeholderism and Public Policy: (was) RE: [governance] Re:
 SECOND DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <BC3A0528-2BD2-46AB-9C6E-3152416ACBDF@psg.com>
Message-ID: <69B84B5BE82F40D5A0D6DF9C76AF0C76@userPC>

I fear that Avri ("I believe that the multistakeholder model...") and
Jeanette ("multistakeholderism...is useful in "nailing jello to a wall") are
lapsing into arguments based on faith (Avri) and hope (Jeanette), (I'll
leave off discussing who here is advocating "charity" ie.
multistakeholderism turning its attention to the burdens of supporting
service for the unserviced).

Since neither of them nor others have chosen to answer my rather simple and
straightforward question:

>>> who is representing the
>>> broader public interest (certainly not a very narrowly based and
>>> non-representative in any sense, CS)--including for example, those 
>>> with no or limited access; those for whom access is unavailable or 
>>> highly restricted because of geography, disability or cost; or those 
>>> with access but who are lacking in the opportunity to make effective 
>>> use of that access in support of better living circumstances for 
>>> themselves and their families and communities.

... The answer is that from my observation there has been little or no
progress in this area at the global level. In fact, given the more or less
complete absence of support for even the slight progress that was made in
WSIS, in the recent ITU/UNESCO Broadband report (see my blogpost on this)
arguably the international multistakeholder activity has simply provided a
cover for the evident inaction.

Meanwhile the quite considerable progress that has been made in this area
has all occurred at the national level as a result of the actions of
governments responding to national political/representative forces among
others ... E.g. the entrance into the constitution of Costa Rica and Finland
of a right to the Internet, legislation in various countries affirming and
supporting universal Internet access as a necessary goal (France, Spain, New
Zealand)and very widespread movements on the part of a number of governments
(Australia, Hong Kong, Malaysia among others) to extend Internet/broadband
access to the entire population. Of even more importance has in fact been
the actions on the ground driven by commercial and consumer forces to extend
mobile/Internet access to huge numbers of previously unconnected.

I too feel that there is a need at the global level for some form of
"Internet governance" and specifically to help to define, enhance and where
necessary enforce the broad global public interest. But I don't think that
that this can be based on either faith, hope or charity.  

Rather it needs, from the CS perspective, to be based on a clear
definition/articulation of what is the (global) public interest in the areas
being discussed in IG and then the mobilization of the broad coalition of
those working to support the public interest first to develop transparent
and inclusive frameworks within which those interests can be articulated and
then to develop the means for ensuring that the public interest so defined
becomes both the global and the local reality.

Mike Gurstein

-----Original Message-----
From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] 
Sent: Monday, November 08, 2010 11:45 PM
To: IGC
Subject: Re: [governance] Re: SECOND DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation




Hi,

On 8 Nov 2010, at 07:59, parminder wrote:

> (this is why I asked how substantive policies can be ever developed
> through these models and i dont think I got the response.)


I had not understood this question properly.

And of course, I am not sure if I do yet.

Are you asking: "How can use a stakeholder model on issue beyond CIR since
that have never been used on other areas beyond CIR before?"

Or put another way: "Please prove that that the multistakeholder model will
work for things other than CIR?"

For the many reasons I have argued, that are not topic dependent, I believe
that the multistakeholder model is a viable method of deepening democracy
along the lines of representation+participation+advocacy.

While these democratic multistakeholder models are new in the area of CIR,
they are even newer in other areas.  and while I think I understand why the
ontogeny of these models is CIR related, I see no barrier to the basic model
being applied in other areas to the advantage of the world's peoples.

However, at the moment they are still the only models I see that take us
beyond simple trust in the most basic of democratic forms - trusting our
sometime representative governments and the IGO that the bureaucrats from
those nations create. My advocacy is for the use of various forms of
multistakeholder model in any and all policy issues.  The modalities f the
model with vary with implementation and with topic area, as will the mix of
stakeholders

> 
> On 08.11.2010 09:29, Michael Gurstein wrote:
>> 
>> But the key question in my note which I would appreciate an answer to 
>> from yourself or any of the others who are advocating for 
>> multistakeholderism remains
>> 
>>> who is representing the
>>> broader public interest (certainly not a very narrowly based and 
>>> non-representative in any sense, CS)--including for example, those 
>>> with no or limited access; those for whom access is unavailable or 
>>> highly restricted because of geography, disability or cost; or those 
>>> with access but who are lacking in the opportunity to make effective 
>>> use of that access in support of better living circumstances for 
>>> themselves and their families and communities.

Although I like Jeannette's answer quite a bit, I would like to ad
something.

I think that we see a lot of representation of those interests in this very
caucus.  From IT4Change projects and their  championing of the people in the
areas around Bangalore and in India in general, in the APC membership of
local organizations that deal with all sorts of issues that relate to the
poor and to the marginalized populations, to your advocacy in terms of the
people involved in telecenters, the consumer groups that have gotten
invovled in almost all organizations,  etc...   And this is just one of the
civicl society groups. In some cases the presentation of interests comes by
participation of groups such as the International Red cross in various
organizations like ICANN. In some cases these interests are represented by
those who work in the foundation created by the megacorps.  And of course to
some extent those population are represented by the representation democracy
in the democratic countries.  

Again with my constant proviso that there is further to outreach and more
groups to be brought in, the point is that there is a constant elevation of
the interests of the many in a multistakeholder organization.  That advocacy
is somewhat fluid and is more likely to represent the interests of a
population that the populations directly, but on occasion, especially with
groups like APC for example, as far as I understand, the local populations
have  a lot to say about the positions their umbrella groups take.

So the broader public interests are being represented by the amalgam of
those who participate and advocate.  and the mode direct participation we
get at various layers of the efforts, the better off we will be.

So again, I apologize for taking this theoretical approach, but I still see
no other model than the multistakeholder model to further the interests of
the many in a deepening od democracy by combining the
representation+participation+advocacy.  What we still need to do is to learn
how to make that model work in many situation beyond CIR where it has had it
first real test.  I see establishing this model, in various modalities to be
a primary requirement for future success of civil society's goals.  And thus
I advocate for it.

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 Nov  8 19:35:41 2010
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2010 07:35:41 +0700
Subject: [governance] FOURTH DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
Message-ID: <296C93D0-7172-4DC7-8185-1DEAAA564B4D@ciroap.org>

This incorporates all comments on the third draft, and I would like us to try to contribute all final comments within the next couple of days, so that we can put the final text to a consensus call.  I realise that, unfortunately, the text may not satisfy all of those without outlying views.  A reminder that the deadline for our submission is Monday.

In addition to the plain text version, I have marked up version below, for those with graphical email clients or access to the Web archive.

--- begins ---

The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (CS-IGC) regards the process towards enhanced cooperation as a vital step towards addressing the "many cross-cutting international public policy issues that require attention and are not adequately addressed by the current mechanisms" (Tunis Agenda para 68).

Despite an intergovernmental mandate from WSIS to address this governance deficit, much remains to be done.  It is imperative that this deficit continue to be addressed, where appropriate through new institutional developments that comply with the WSIS process criteria of being multilateral, transparent, democratic and inclusive.

We make three further points.  First, enhanced cooperation should encompass all Internet-related public policy issues; second, many of our members believe the existing arrangements of relevant organisations (including the Internet Governance Forum) do not fully implement enhanced cooperation, and thirdly whatever new arrangements may be put in place, civil society must play an integral part in them, as one of the prerequisites for their legitimacy.

These points will be explained in turn:

1. Although much of the discussion of enhanced cooperation at WSIS turned around the narrow issue of internationalising the oversight of Internet naming and numbering functions, the Tunis Agenda expresses this principle far more broadly to include other substantive Internet related public policy issues that require attention and resolution at the global level.  It also reminds us that the ultimate objective of our cooperation is to advance a people-centred, inclusive, development-oriented and non-discriminatory Information Society.

2. The IGF in its present form is a very important part of the enhanced cooperation process, in that its multi-stakeholder process can provide input to shape decisions taken on Internet related public policy issues in other fora.  However the full realisation of enhanced cooperation will require a multi-stakeholder process to extend to all other Internet governance organisations, whether new or established.

If institutional changes are to be made, there are various options for enhancing multi-stakeholder cooperation within and amongst all relevant organisations (which may be complementary).  These include:

* establishing a lightweight multi-stakeholder observatory process perhaps hosted under the auspices of the IGF (pursuant to its mandate in paragraph 72(i));

* utilising a virtual and voluntary global social community or ecosystem, linking together all Internet governance organisations, in which all stakeholders would participate; or

* establishing a new umbrella governance institution for Internet policy development, with space for the full participation of each stakeholder group in its respective role.  This might also be situated within the IGF, but pursuant to a new and supplementary mandate.

3. Paragraph 71 of the Tunis Agenda makes very clear that civil society is an integral participant in the development of any process towards enhanced cooperation.  Therefore the IGC, in our capacity as members of civil society, looks forward to contributing constructively in transparent, accountable and democratic multi-stakeholder consultations towards this end.

--- ends ---

Marked up version follows:

The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (CS-IGC) regards the process towards enhanced cooperation as a vital step towards addressing the "many cross-cutting international public policy issues that require attention and are not adequately addressed by the current mechanisms" (Tunis Agenda para 68).

Despite an intergovernmental mandate from WSIS to address this governance deficit, much remains to be done.  It is imperative that this deficit continue to be addressed, where appropriate through new institutional developments that comply with the WSIS process criteria of being multilateral, transparent, democratic and inclusive.

We make three further points.  First, enhanced cooperation should encompass all Internet-related public policy issues; second, many of our members believe the existing arrangements of relevant organisations (including the Internet Governance Forum) do not fully implement enhanced cooperation, and thirdly whatever new arrangements may be put in place, civil society must play an integral part in them, as one of the prerequisites for their legitimacy.

These points will be explained in turn:

1. Although much of the discussion of enhanced cooperation at WSIS turned around the narrow issue of internationalising the oversight of Internet naming and numbering functions, the Tunis Agenda expresses this principle far more broadly to include other substantive Internet related public policy issues that require attention and resolution at the global level.  It also reminds us that the ultimate objective of our cooperation is to advance a people-centred, inclusive, development-oriented and non-discriminatory Information Society.

2. The IGF in its present form is a very important part of the enhanced cooperation process, in that ideally its multi-stakeholder process can help provide input to shape decisions taken on Internet related public policy issues in other fora.  However the full realisation of enhanced cooperation will require a multi-stakeholder process to extend to all other Internet governance organisations, whether new or established that do not already follow this model.

If institutional changes are to be made, there are various options for enhancing multi-stakeholder cooperation within and amongst all relevant organisations (which may be complementary).  These include:

* establishing a lightweight multi-stakeholder observatory process perhaps hosted under the auspices of the IGF (pursuant to its mandate in paragraph 72(i));

* utilising a virtual and voluntary global social community or "social grid" ecosystem, linking together all Internet governance organisations, in which all stakeholders would participate; or

* establishing a new umbrella governance institution for Internet policy development, with space for the full participation of each stakeholder group in its respective role.  This might also be situated within the IGF, but pursuant to a new and supplementary mandate.

3. Paragraph 71 of the Tunis Agenda makes very clear that civil society is an integral participant in the development of any process towards enhanced cooperation.  Therefore the IGC, in our capacity as members of civil society, looks forward to contributing constructively in transparent, accountable and democratic multi-stakeholder consultations towards this end.

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

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

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101109/1b6c2db0/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101109/1b6c2db0/attachment.bin>

From ias_pk at yahoo.com  Tue Nov  9 02:43:46 2010
From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah)
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2010 23:43:46 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [governance] FOURTH DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <296C93D0-7172-4DC7-8185-1DEAAA564B4D@ciroap.org>
References: <296C93D0-7172-4DC7-8185-1DEAAA564B4D@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <623464.58106.qm@web33005.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Dear Jeremy and All IGC Members
 
I would also like to comment and include some review notes on the FOURTH DRAFT 
statement on Enhanced Cooperation (EC). See bellow.
 

________________________________

--- begins ---
 
>The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (CS-IGC) regards the process 
>towards enhanced cooperation as a vital step towards addressing the "many 
>cross-cutting international public policy issues that require attention and are 
>not adequately addressed by the current mechanisms" (Tunis Agenda para 68).
 
IAS:        Agreed.
 
>Despite an intergovernmental mandate from WSIS to address this governance 
>deficit, much remains to be done. …
 
IAS:        Not only Intergovernmental mandate, but also other mandates are not 
addressed adequately as per para 72. So, it is proposed to rephrase this line as 
follows:
 
… Despite an intergovernmental mandate from WSIS to address this governance 
deficit, much other mandates remains to be done.
 
>. . . . . It is imperative that this deficit continue to be addressed, where 
>appropriate through new institutional developments that comply with the WSIS 
>process criteria of being multilateral, transparent, democratic and inclusive.
 
IAS:        Agreed.
 
>We make three further points.  First, enhanced cooperation should encompass all 
>Internet-related public policy issues; second, many of our members believe the 
>existing arrangements of relevant organisations (including the 
>Internet Governance Forum) do not fully implement enhanced cooperation, and 
>thirdly whatever new arrangements may be put in place, civil society must play 
>an integral part in them, as one of the prerequisites for their legitimacy.


>These points will be explained in turn:
>1. Although much of the discussion of enhanced cooperation at WSIS turned around 
>the narrow issue of internationalising the oversight of Internet naming and 
>numbering functions, the Tunis Agenda expresses this principle far more broadly 
>to include other substantive Internet related public policy issues that require 
>attention and resolution at the global level.  It also reminds us that the 
>ultimate objective of our cooperation is to advance a people-centred, inclusive, 
>development-oriented and non-discriminatory Information Society.
 
IAS:        Although the term of “Public Policy” which is also referred in Para 
72(a), comprises a wide range of meaning for implementation but in this 
practical world, I strongly recommend that we should point out to segregate the 
scope of Public Policies into at least two half. 

a).           Global and Regional Policies.
b).          National & Local Policies.
UN-IGF and CS-IGC and many other international organizations had been discussing 
Global and Regional Policies (on each forum), related to key elements of 
Internet governance in order to foster the sustainability, robustness, security, 
stability and development of the Internet. But there is deficit attention toward 
the discussion, consultation and dialogues for local and national policies 
development, which may benefit to the ultimate end-user of the Internet. In 
other words, the scope of the discussion of Internet Governance is much wider 
and has to be narrow down to focus the local issues especially related to the 
developing countries (as repeatedly mentioned in Para 72). 

 
Now, if the question arises that how to address the Local & National Issues 
related to Internet Governance adequately, we may follow the pattern which is 
being adopted to discuss the global issues.
 
>2. The IGF in its present form is a very important part of the enhanced 
>cooperation process, in that its multi-stakeholder process can provide input to 
>shape decisions taken on Internet related public policy issues in other fora. 
>However the full realisation of enhanced cooperation will require a 
>multi-stakeholder process to extend to all other Internet governance 
>organisations, whether new or established.
 
>If institutional changes are to be made, there are various options for enhancing 
>multi-stakeholder cooperation within and amongst all relevant 
>organisations (which may be complementary).  These include:
 
IAS:        I agree with this statement, because the scope of the IGF 
Multi-stakeholder framework is limited to the numbers of MAG, which should be 
expanded to incorporate the representation of all the Institutions & Civil 
Societies, governmental & non-governmental and must include the Local & Regional 
Internet Regulating Bodies and Internet core bandwidth Providers. 

 
Important Note:               Discussion, Common Dialogue and Consultations are 
important process steps to help to resolve the issues but do not resolve them 
itself by publishing the proceedings. (Who will follow the decisions made at 
Global Forum, without any legal, ethical or at-least moral bondage or 
commitment?). I propose that there should be one or more actors or group of 
actors responsible to resolve the issues with a solution defined at the end of 
the common dialogue. I propose that the Internet Regulating Bodies as well as 
Service Providers (Local or Regional), should have a specifically mentioned role 
in the membership status of the UN-IGF. The final decisions as a result of 
common dialogues of the IG Forum may be submitted to them for proceed further or 
to implement, (if related to them). 

 
 
>* establishing a lightweight multi-stakeholder observatory process perhaps 
>hosted under the auspices of the IGF (pursuant to its mandate in paragraph 
>72(i));


IAS:        I agree with the implementation of lightweight multi-stakeholder 
observatory, however in my opinion, we should provide a brief scope observatory 
group. Normally such groups directly submit their reports to the Chair.
 
>* utilising a virtual and voluntary global social community or ecosystem, 
>linking together all Internet governance organisations, in which all 
>stakeholders would participate; or


IAS:        I agree.
 
>* establishing a new umbrella governance institution for Internet policy 
>development, with space for the full participation of each stakeholder group in 
>its respective role.  This might also be situated within the IGF, but pursuant 
>to a new and supplementary mandate.
 
IAS:        I do not agree with the proposal for the establishment of any new 
institution due to any or many shortfall(s) in the development process or 
progress of an institute. 

 
However, it is a suitable option at this to develop other segments/groups within 
the existing IGF. 

I also agree with the statement of a new/supplementary mandate to existing one. 
 
However, should we have to define the contents or elements for new mandate now 
or soon?
 
>3. Paragraph 71 of the Tunis Agenda makes very clear that civil society is an 
>integral  participant in the development of any process towards enhanced 
>cooperation.  Therefore the IGC, in our capacity as members of civil society, 
>looks forward to contributing constructively in transparent, accountable and 
>democratic multi-stakeholder consultations towards this end.
 
IAS:        I agree.
 
--- ends ---
  
Thanking you and Best Regards
Imran Ahmad Shah
 
Founder & Executive Member
Urdu Internet Society
Pakistan Internet Governance Forum



________________________________

From: Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org>
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Sent: Tue, 9 November, 2010 5:35:41
Subject: [governance] FOURTH DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation


In addition to the plain text version, I have marked up version below, for those 
with graphical email clients or access to the Web archive.



--- begins ---

The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (CS-IGC) regards the process 
towards enhanced cooperation as a vital step towards addressing the "many 
cross-cutting international public policy issues that require attention and are 
not adequately addressed by the current mechanisms" (Tunis Agenda para 68).

Despite an intergovernmental mandate from WSIS to address this governance 
deficit, much remains to be done.  It is imperative that this deficit continue 
to be addressed, where appropriate through new institutional developments that 
comply with the WSIS process criteria of being multilateral, transparent, 
democratic and inclusive.

We make three further points.  First, enhanced cooperation should encompass all 
Internet-related public policy issues; second, many of our members believe the 
existing arrangements of relevant organisations (including the 
Internet Governance Forum) do not fully implement enhanced cooperation, and 
thirdly whatever new arrangements may be put in place, civil society must play 
an integral part in them, as one of the prerequisites for their legitimacy.

These points will be explained in turn:

1. Although much of the discussion of enhanced cooperation at WSIS turned around 
the narrow issue of internationalising the oversight of Internet naming and 
numbering functions, the Tunis Agenda expresses this principle far more broadly 
to include other substantive Internet related public policy issues that require 
attention and resolution at the global level.  It also reminds us that the 
ultimate objective of our cooperation is to advance a people-centred, inclusive, 
development-oriented and non-discriminatory Information Society.

2. The IGF in its present form is a very important part of the enhanced 
cooperation process, in that its multi-stakeholder process can provide input to 
shape decisions taken on Internet related public policy issues in other fora. 
 However the full realisation of enhanced cooperation will require a 
multi-stakeholder process to extend to all other Internet governance 
organisations, whether new or established.

If institutional changes are to be made, there are various options for enhancing 
multi-stakeholder cooperation within and amongst all relevant 
organisations (which may be complementary).  These include:

* establishing a lightweight multi-stakeholder observatory process perhaps 
hosted under the auspices of the IGF (pursuant to its mandate in paragraph 
72(i));

* utilising a virtual and voluntary global social community or ecosystem, 
linking together all Internet governance organisations, in which all 
stakeholders would participate; or

* establishing a new umbrella governance institution for Internet policy 
development, with space for the full participation of each stakeholder group in 
its respective role.  This might also be situated within the IGF, but pursuant 
to a new and supplementary mandate.

3. Paragraph 71 of the Tunis Agenda makes very clear that civil society is an 
integral participant in the development of any process towards enhanced 
cooperation.  Therefore the IGC, in our capacity as members of civil society, 
looks forward to contributing constructively in transparent, accountable and 
democratic multi-stakeholder consultations towards this end.

--- ends ---

Marked up version follows:

The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (CS-IGC) regards the process 
towards enhanced cooperation as a vital step towards addressing the "many 
cross-cutting international public policy issues that require attention and are 
not adequately addressed by the current mechanisms" (Tunis Agenda para 68).

Despite an intergovernmental mandate from WSIS to address this governance 
deficit, much remains to be done.  It is imperative that this deficit continue 
to be addressed, where appropriate through new institutional developments that 
comply with the WSIS process criteria of being multilateral, transparent, 
democratic and inclusive.

We make three further points.  First, enhanced cooperation should encompass all 
Internet-related public policy issues; second, many of our members believe the 
existing arrangements of relevant organisations (including the 
Internet Governance Forum) do not fully implement enhanced cooperation, and 
thirdly whatever new arrangements may be put in place, civil society must play 
an integral part in them, as one of the prerequisites for their legitimacy.

These points will be explained in turn:

1. Although much of the discussion of enhanced cooperation at WSIS turned around 
the narrow issue of internationalising the oversight of Internet naming and 
numbering functions, the Tunis Agenda expresses this principle far more broadly 
to include other substantive Internet related public policy issues that require 
attention and resolution at the global level.  It also reminds us that the 
ultimate objective of our cooperation is to advance a people-centred, inclusive, 
development-oriented and non-discriminatory Information Society.

2. The IGF in its present form is a very important part of the enhanced 
cooperation process, in that ideally its multi-stakeholder process can help 
provide input to shape decisions taken on Internet related public policy issues 
in other fora.  However the full realisation of enhanced cooperation will 
require a multi-stakeholder process to extend to all other Internet governance 
organisations, whether new or established that do not already follow this model.

If institutional changes are to be made, there are various options for enhancing 
multi-stakeholder cooperation within and amongst all relevant 
organisations (which may be complementary).  These include:

* establishing a lightweight multi-stakeholder observatory process perhaps 
hosted under the auspices of the IGF (pursuant to its mandate in paragraph 
72(i));

* utilising a virtual and voluntary global social community or "social grid" 
ecosystem, linking together all Internet governance organisations, in which all 
stakeholders would participate; or

* establishing a new umbrella governance institution for Internet policy 
development, with space for the full participation of each stakeholder group in 
its respective role.  This might also be situated within the IGF, but pursuant 
to a new and supplementary mandate.

3. Paragraph 71 of the Tunis Agenda makes very clear that civil society is an 
integral participant in the development of any process towards enhanced 
cooperation.  Therefore the IGC, in our capacity as members of civil society, 
looks forward to contributing constructively in transparent, accountable and 
democratic multi-stakeholder consultations towards this end.
-- 
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.

This incorporates all comments on the third draft, and I would like us to try to 
contribute all final comments within the next couple of days, so that we can put 
the final text to a consensus call.  I realise that, unfortunately, the text may 
not satisfy all of those without outlying views.  A reminder that the deadline 
for our submission is Monday. 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101108/f9eaaea2/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Tue Nov  9 03:27:59 2010
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2010 19:27:59 +1100
Subject: [governance] FOURTH DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <296C93D0-7172-4DC7-8185-1DEAAA564B4D@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <C8FF513F.134DD%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>

Because a couple of people have written to say they do not favour the
inclusion of text on new institutional arrangements, let me just say I
believe this text should stay in.

My reading is that, if no new institutional arrangements are contemplated or
considered, we are left with the two current and to me unsatisfactory
alternatives of trying to expand ICANN into areas beyond its competence and
useful brief to deal with other issues, or alternatively as some favour to
make all Internet issues part of the brief of ITU. To me neither of these
potential solutions is in the least bit attractive or satisfactory.

Ian Peter



From: Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org>
Reply-To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org>
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2010 07:35:41 +0700
To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>
Subject: [governance] FOURTH DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation

This incorporates all comments on the third draft, and I would like us to
try to contribute all final comments within the next couple of days, so that
we can put the final text to a consensus call.  I realise that,
unfortunately, the text may not satisfy all of those without outlying views.
A reminder that the deadline for our submission is Monday.

In addition to the plain text version, I have marked up version below, for
those with graphical email clients or access to the Web archive.

--- begins ---

The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (CS-IGC) regards the process
towards enhanced cooperation as a vital step towards addressing the "many
cross-cutting international public policy issues that require attention and
are not adequately addressed by the current mechanisms" (Tunis Agenda para
68).

Despite an intergovernmental mandate from WSIS to address this governance
deficit, much remains to be done.  It is imperative that this deficit
continue to be addressed, where appropriate through new institutional
developments that comply with the WSIS process criteria of being
multilateral, transparent, democratic and inclusive.

We make three further points.  First, enhanced cooperation should encompass
all Internet-related public policy issues; second, many of our members
believe the existing arrangements of relevant organisations (including the
Internet Governance Forum) do not fully implement enhanced cooperation, and
thirdly whatever new arrangements may be put in place, civil society must
play an integral part in them, as one of the prerequisites for their
legitimacy.

These points will be explained in turn:

1. Although much of the discussion of enhanced cooperation at WSIS turned
around the narrow issue of internationalising the oversight of Internet
naming and numbering functions, the Tunis Agenda expresses this principle
far more broadly to include other substantive Internet related public policy
issues that require attention and resolution at the global level.  It also
reminds us that the ultimate objective of our cooperation is to advance a
people-centred, inclusive, development-oriented and non-discriminatory
Information Society.

2. The IGF in its present form is a very important part of the enhanced
cooperation process, in that its multi-stakeholder process can provide input
to shape decisions taken on Internet related public policy issues in other
fora.  However the full realisation of enhanced cooperation will require a
multi-stakeholder process to extend to all other Internet governance
organisations, whether new or established.

If institutional changes are to be made, there are various options for
enhancing multi-stakeholder cooperation within and amongst all relevant
organisations (which may be complementary).  These include:

* establishing a lightweight multi-stakeholder observatory process perhaps
hosted under the auspices of the IGF (pursuant to its mandate in paragraph
72(i));

* utilising a virtual and voluntary global social community or ecosystem,
linking together all Internet governance organisations, in which all
stakeholders would participate; or

* establishing a new umbrella governance institution for Internet policy
development, with space for the full participation of each stakeholder group
in its respective role.  This might also be situated within the IGF, but
pursuant to a new and supplementary mandate.

3. Paragraph 71 of the Tunis Agenda makes very clear that civil society is
an integral participant in the development of any process towards enhanced
cooperation.  Therefore the IGC, in our capacity as members of civil
society, looks forward to contributing constructively in transparent,
accountable and democratic multi-stakeholder consultations towards this end.

--- ends ---

Marked up version follows:

The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (CS-IGC) regards the process
towards enhanced cooperation as a vital step towards addressing the "many
cross-cutting international public policy issues that require attention and
are not adequately addressed by the current mechanisms" (Tunis Agenda para
68).

Despite an intergovernmental mandate from WSIS to address this governance
deficit, much remains to be done.  It is imperative that this deficit
continue to be addressed, where appropriate through new institutional
developments that comply with the WSIS process criteria of being
multilateral, transparent, democratic and inclusive.

We make three further points.  First, enhanced cooperation should encompass
all Internet-related public policy issues; second, many of our members
believe the existing arrangements of relevant organisations (including the
Internet Governance Forum) do not fully implement enhanced cooperation, and
thirdly whatever new arrangements may be put in place, civil society must
play an integral part in them, as one of the prerequisites for their
legitimacy.

These points will be explained in turn:

1. Although much of the discussion of enhanced cooperation at WSIS turned
around the narrow issue of internationalising the oversight of Internet
naming and numbering functions, the Tunis Agenda expresses this principle
far more broadly to include other substantive Internet related public policy
issues that require attention and resolution at the global level.  It also
reminds us that the ultimate objective of our cooperation is to advance a
people-centred, inclusive, development-oriented and non-discriminatory
Information Society.

2. The IGF in its present form is a very important part of the enhanced
cooperation process, in that ideally its multi-stakeholder process can help
provide input to shape decisions taken on Internet related public policy
issues in other fora.  However the full realisation of enhanced cooperation
will require a multi-stakeholder process to extend to all other Internet
governance organisations, whether new or established that do not already
follow this model.

If institutional changes are to be made, there are various options for
enhancing multi-stakeholder cooperation within and amongst all relevant
organisations (which may be complementary).  These include:

* establishing a lightweight multi-stakeholder observatory process perhaps
hosted under the auspices of the IGF (pursuant to its mandate in paragraph
72(i));

* utilising a virtual and voluntary global social community or "social grid"
ecosystem, linking together all Internet governance organisations, in which
all stakeholders would participate; or

* establishing a new umbrella governance institution for Internet policy
development, with space for the full participation of each stakeholder group
in its respective role.  This might also be situated within the IGF, but
pursuant to a new and supplementary mandate.

3. Paragraph 71 of the Tunis Agenda makes very clear that civil society is
an integral participant in the development of any process towards enhanced
cooperation.  Therefore the IGC, in our capacity as members of civil
society, looks forward to contributing constructively in transparent,
accountable and democratic multi-stakeholder consultations towards this end.
-- 
Jeremy Malcolm
Project Coordinator
Consumers International
Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East
Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia
Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
CI is 50
Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in
2010.
Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer
rights around the world.
http://www.consumersinternational.org/50
<http://www.consumersinternational.org/50>

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



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101109/cb641efe/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From jeanette at wzb.eu  Tue Nov  9 04:10:49 2010
From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2010 10:10:49 +0100
Subject: Multistakeholderism and Public Policy: (was) RE: [governance]
In-Reply-To: <69B84B5BE82F40D5A0D6DF9C76AF0C76@userPC>
References: <69B84B5BE82F40D5A0D6DF9C76AF0C76@userPC>
Message-ID: <4CD91019.5020906@wzb.eu>



On 08.11.2010 23:54, Michael Gurstein wrote:
> I fear that Avri ("I believe that the multistakeholder model...") and
> Jeanette ("multistakeholderism...is useful in "nailing jello to a wall") are
> lapsing into arguments based on faith (Avri) and hope (Jeanette),

This is probably a misunderstanding.
(I'll
> leave off discussing who here is advocating "charity" ie.
> multistakeholderism turning its attention to the burdens of supporting
> service for the unserviced).
>
> Since neither of them nor others have chosen to answer my rather simple and
> straightforward question:

Perhaps you just not recognize our replies as answers? To somewhat 
overstate my point, the "broader public interest" you are referring to 
is a fiction. It does not exist as a clearly delimitable concern that 
could serve as a benchmark for assessing methods of representation.

jeanette
>
>>>> who is representing the
>>>> broader public interest (certainly not a very narrowly based and
>>>> non-representative in any sense, CS)--including for example, those
>>>> with no or limited access; those for whom access is unavailable or
>>>> highly restricted because of geography, disability or cost; or those
>>>> with access but who are lacking in the opportunity to make effective
>>>> use of that access in support of better living circumstances for
>>>> themselves and their families and communities.
>
> ... The answer is that from my observation there has been little or no
> progress in this area at the global level. In fact, given the more or less
> complete absence of support for even the slight progress that was made in
> WSIS, in the recent ITU/UNESCO Broadband report (see my blogpost on this)
> arguably the international multistakeholder activity has simply provided a
> cover for the evident inaction.
>
> Meanwhile the quite considerable progress that has been made in this area
> has all occurred at the national level as a result of the actions of
> governments responding to national political/representative forces among
> others ... E.g. the entrance into the constitution of Costa Rica and Finland
> of a right to the Internet, legislation in various countries affirming and
> supporting universal Internet access as a necessary goal (France, Spain, New
> Zealand)and very widespread movements on the part of a number of governments
> (Australia, Hong Kong, Malaysia among others) to extend Internet/broadband
> access to the entire population. Of even more importance has in fact been
> the actions on the ground driven by commercial and consumer forces to extend
> mobile/Internet access to huge numbers of previously unconnected.
>
> I too feel that there is a need at the global level for some form of
> "Internet governance" and specifically to help to define, enhance and where
> necessary enforce the broad global public interest. But I don't think that
> that this can be based on either faith, hope or charity.
>
> Rather it needs, from the CS perspective, to be based on a clear
> definition/articulation of what is the (global) public interest in the areas
> being discussed in IG and then the mobilization of the broad coalition of
> those working to support the public interest first to develop transparent
> and inclusive frameworks within which those interests can be articulated and
> then to develop the means for ensuring that the public interest so defined
> becomes both the global and the local reality.
>
> Mike Gurstein
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com]
> Sent: Monday, November 08, 2010 11:45 PM
> To: IGC
> Subject: Re: [governance] Re: SECOND DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
>
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
> On 8 Nov 2010, at 07:59, parminder wrote:
>
>> (this is why I asked how substantive policies can be ever developed
>> through these models and i dont think I got the response.)
>
>
> I had not understood this question properly.
>
> And of course, I am not sure if I do yet.
>
> Are you asking: "How can use a stakeholder model on issue beyond CIR since
> that have never been used on other areas beyond CIR before?"
>
> Or put another way: "Please prove that that the multistakeholder model will
> work for things other than CIR?"
>
> For the many reasons I have argued, that are not topic dependent, I believe
> that the multistakeholder model is a viable method of deepening democracy
> along the lines of representation+participation+advocacy.
>
> While these democratic multistakeholder models are new in the area of CIR,
> they are even newer in other areas.  and while I think I understand why the
> ontogeny of these models is CIR related, I see no barrier to the basic model
> being applied in other areas to the advantage of the world's peoples.
>
> However, at the moment they are still the only models I see that take us
> beyond simple trust in the most basic of democratic forms - trusting our
> sometime representative governments and the IGO that the bureaucrats from
> those nations create. My advocacy is for the use of various forms of
> multistakeholder model in any and all policy issues.  The modalities f the
> model with vary with implementation and with topic area, as will the mix of
> stakeholders
>
>>
>> On 08.11.2010 09:29, Michael Gurstein wrote:
>>>
>>> But the key question in my note which I would appreciate an answer to
>>> from yourself or any of the others who are advocating for
>>> multistakeholderism remains
>>>
>>>> who is representing the
>>>> broader public interest (certainly not a very narrowly based and
>>>> non-representative in any sense, CS)--including for example, those
>>>> with no or limited access; those for whom access is unavailable or
>>>> highly restricted because of geography, disability or cost; or those
>>>> with access but who are lacking in the opportunity to make effective
>>>> use of that access in support of better living circumstances for
>>>> themselves and their families and communities.
>
> Although I like Jeannette's answer quite a bit, I would like to ad
> something.
>
> I think that we see a lot of representation of those interests in this very
> caucus.  From IT4Change projects and their  championing of the people in the
> areas around Bangalore and in India in general, in the APC membership of
> local organizations that deal with all sorts of issues that relate to the
> poor and to the marginalized populations, to your advocacy in terms of the
> people involved in telecenters, the consumer groups that have gotten
> invovled in almost all organizations,  etc...   And this is just one of the
> civicl society groups. In some cases the presentation of interests comes by
> participation of groups such as the International Red cross in various
> organizations like ICANN. In some cases these interests are represented by
> those who work in the foundation created by the megacorps.  And of course to
> some extent those population are represented by the representation democracy
> in the democratic countries.
>
> Again with my constant proviso that there is further to outreach and more
> groups to be brought in, the point is that there is a constant elevation of
> the interests of the many in a multistakeholder organization.  That advocacy
> is somewhat fluid and is more likely to represent the interests of a
> population that the populations directly, but on occasion, especially with
> groups like APC for example, as far as I understand, the local populations
> have  a lot to say about the positions their umbrella groups take.
>
> So the broader public interests are being represented by the amalgam of
> those who participate and advocate.  and the mode direct participation we
> get at various layers of the efforts, the better off we will be.
>
> So again, I apologize for taking this theoretical approach, but I still see
> no other model than the multistakeholder model to further the interests of
> the many in a deepening od democracy by combining the
> representation+participation+advocacy.  What we still need to do is to learn
> how to make that model work in many situation beyond CIR where it has had it
> first real test.  I see establishing this model, in various modalities to be
> a primary requirement for future success of civil society's goals.  And thus
> I advocate for it.
>
> a.
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>       governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>       governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>       http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t=
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>       governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>       governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>       http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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


From dogwallah at gmail.com  Tue Nov  9 05:36:09 2010
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2010 13:36:09 +0300
Subject: [governance] Re: SECOND DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimCqyFZ2d+CE9snkx6by3i6ET3yLfG1sHR3gxA8@mail.gmail.com>
References: <70E573F5-00B4-4837-89B7-C05B9DA7E479@ciroap.org>
 <7.0.1.0.2.20101103021355.05d70e60@jefsey.com> <5B31379A-A914-4BE1-945B-EEF2478BA1DC@ciroap.org>
 <7.0.1.0.2.20101103094622.0651ee20@jefsey.com> <3FE17A9E-E507-44DA-8AE2-EC7EC56DD1D8@ciroap.org>
 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006DA4@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
 <4CD17823.8010108@itforchange.net> <AANLkTikONmgaa+4rO+uZkAv4YrPDfSV4aP9YKk_=Lgox@mail.gmail.com>
 <7.0.1.0.2.20101104103504.057fdc48@jefsey.com> <08B126B5-B3AB-4A91-B8BC-A90579C6EF5A@ciroap.org>
 <4CD4CF03.3000900@itforchange.net> <AANLkTi=gWOfhnaJd385OJ0XNjtbSjaCgEAOA-6KLsNEe@mail.gmail.com>
 <4CD555E8.2040707@itforchange.net> <4CD5603F.50507@itforchange.net>
 <AANLkTi=VWbRZGiAZMkR7R5BYGFCDxyhYTKt5R28V+Mco@mail.gmail.com>
 <AANLkTinkuij2jM=ZZpKBPC9q--Hy8joGVNmW96bQ2eKr@mail.gmail.com>
 <AANLkTinuf=eQZ9MiPj08pKDmvvk=_6YeWH80pJr6CqVU@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTimCqyFZ2d+CE9snkx6by3i6ET3yLfG1sHR3gxA8@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTim7O1h_baHGKgB8Bv4_WO9G+5xtKU8yM09ruYS9@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 8:18 PM, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:
> McTim an all,
>
> Thanks for gladly taking up the question I addressed to Wolfie ;) and for
> the info you've provided in that regard.
>
> I recognize those initiatives and I applaud them (I myself was lucky enough
> to attend the AfriNIC meeting a few years ago while I was in Maputo, and
> could see a vibrant community with a large range of participants at work,
> including, eg, Minister Venancio Massingue then Vice-Rector...)

I was there too, it's a wonder we didn't meet!


>
> In this context though, the question is that of global governance
> arrangements

Do you recall there was a global governance arrangement signed at that
meeting?  It was an early example of EC (or the spaghetti ball, which
I like better than "grid" BTW).


(as related to the draft on EC, the alternate proposal... even
> the raison d'etre of this caucus.)
I know you don't like those, but alas
> they exist and make decisions that impact a lot of people, at least those
> people who want to get involved at that global level are saying so. So they
> try to organize and get involved at that level. I'd completely agree with
> you if, say, ICANN was only a GIR (global internet registry), that is, the
> global counterpart of RIRs, and was not doing much more than technical
> coordination. But that unfortunately is not the case.

In theory, it is, in practice, there are lots of folk who always want
ICANN to do more.  Then the same folk decry the bloated budget, but I
digress.

>
> So I'm not religious about gov't participation, and am not advocating it for
> the sake of it. The most important question for me is this: if, as a result
> of your function, global policy is made which has far reaching implications
> and impact beyond the members of your trade association, then it makes sense
> that you are asked deliberately and consistently to take the legitimate
> concerns of those other stakeholders into account.

What makes you think they are not (taken into account)?

This goes to the heart of MG query "who represents the public interest",

Over the last few decades, when folk gather for their "many nice
lunches and dinners" they have (for the vast majority of them) made
decisions, (whether about standards, numbers or names) that have been
"for the good of the Internet" for some value of that phrase.  A very
small minority represent their employers interests.

As Jeannette says the "broader public interest" you are referring to
is a fiction. It does not exist as a clearly delimitable concern.."


 How best to achieve that,
> is where I see differences, unless you disagree on the previous statement.
> You (as well as many others) seem to think the status quo works fine, while
> I (as well as many others) am not satisfied with it.

Well, there is always room for improvement, and things are improving,
but if all the folk on this list were as actively engaged in actual IG
processes as they are in meta-(or psuedo) IG, then we would be well on
our way.

For example, I have done a breakdown of registered attendees at the
next AfriNIC meeting for a presentation:

itc   14%
gov  25%
cs   26%
biz  35%

Is this not (nearly) the ideal MS mix?  A few more CS folk and we
would have to change from "industry led" to "CS led", especially since
I think that most of the ITC folk are CS, so from that POV, we are
already CS led!


>
> I certainly do not want gov'ts to dictate their traditional rules for IG,
> let alone at global level. I concur with all the issues you've mentioned
> about gov't management, and do not forget that before the mobile boom in
> Africa waiting time for connection to fixed phone could last as long as a
> decade. Who, in those conditions, would advocate for gov'ts being in charge
> of management and operation? Not me. Instead, I'd like more African gov'ts,
> just to take their example, converted to new norms.

See numbers above, they ARE being converted to a new norm IMHO.

 Many of them still don't
> even seem to understand that in the world we're living, it is part of their
> duty (and it should be in their interest) to enable local businesses to
> grow, to seek more opportunities for them and even promote them overseas.
> Instead they keep fighting the last battle, or the one before the last.
> etc...
> Problem is, I do not see how ICANN's reported $200K just to apply for a new
> gTLD is any better for potential applicants in Africa (and in Latin America
> and large parts of Asia, etc.) than the narrow-minded tax policies of their
> government. The effect is the same: both are taking away business
> opportunities, from the majority of the user populations, mind you, and
> keeping them in the hands of a few. Neither is acceptable. I would like to
> see flourish in Africa more entrepreneurs like yourself, McTim, I'd like the
> playing field to make it possible if not easy for them to rise and become
> regional and even global Internet domain name Registries, too. For that to
> happen we need to work on both domestic and global policies.

Yes, the 200k is high, but as one of the dotafrica bids told me "the
money is no problem", in other words, you show a bank the .asia/.co
numbers and they will gladly lend you the money.

ICANN says this is cost-recovery (whether they are right on their
guesses about costs or not is something we will find out in time).
Should it not be done on a cost recovery basis?

>
> So here we are, not simply with a GIR but a nongovernmental body that
> nonetheless has the power to make that kind of over-reaching rules for
> everyone else.

ah, but you forget, WE are part of that "nongovernmental body"


 Then, until the day I might be convinced by the decisions and
> actions of those nongovernmental global governance arrangements that they
> are heeding and responding to my concerns, meaning the concerns of people I
> come from and those of other people like them (IMHO this is about fairness
> more than anything else), I might find some sense in bringing gov'ts in. Not
> because I want any one set of actors to dominate the process, but for each
> one to keep the others in check, and to increase the diversity of
> perspectives around the table. After all, if only they're willing to play
> along (or to be smart) national govts are more likely to speak to their
> domestic concerns than many of us here and more than a global body such
> as ICANN. (So yes, some people may support the formal participation off
> govts not because they're in love with the latter, but as a pragmatic move
> to enable a more balanced outcome in their view.)

I understand that, I just don't agree that giving gov'ts more power in
re: online activities is useful, especially when it comes to
encouraging innovation and entrepreneurship.

>
> To finish, almost all govts around the world have signed the UDHR. I know
> many still violate them. But there is an active global citizenship using a
> number of mechanisms to call them out, along with democracies that may be
> supporting them. At times in the past, that even led to sanctions and
> embargo. In the case of the Internet, maybe except the US, not a single one
> of the other countries has the keys to the whole (logical) infrastructure

That's a pretty strong statement, I think you know the arrangement is
much more subtle and weaker than that.

 --
> so Internet will be functioning whatever they do doesmtically. In that case,
> wouldn't you think it'd be even easier to get them onboard of a common
> framework and instrument (UDHR style) setting up norms designed
>
> - precisely to curb the heavy-handed regulation that we are decrying at home

Would it be easy? no, I think not.  Would it end up being
Intergovernmental only...am afraid that it would.

> (partly by a process of acculturation to new norms, as they work together
> and need to reach rough consensus with other players all over the world),
> - to ensure delibarate and multistakeholder decision-making in these
> matters, the outcoms if which they will all be subject to,
> - demanding best efforts at all levels of decision-making towards a fair
> hearing of all stakeholders while being more broadly civil
> liberties-friendly?
>
> Again, all that away from management and day to day operation issues - isn't
> that possible?

Possible, yes.  Likely, no.  Desirable? not IMHO.  Plus the danger is
that they would (as PJS has suggested) try to oversee that which needs
no external gov't oversight.


-- 
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 avri at psg.com  Tue Nov  9 06:45:33 2010
From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2010 06:45:33 -0500
Subject: Multistakeholderism and Public Policy: (was) RE: [governance]
 Re: SECOND DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <4CD91019.5020906@wzb.eu>
References: <69B84B5BE82F40D5A0D6DF9C76AF0C76@userPC> <4CD91019.5020906@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <93E49BCF-6B58-4DBF-9972-C7442C4F21E1@psg.com>


On 9 Nov 2010, at 04:10, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:

> Perhaps you just not recognize our replies as answers? To somewhat overstate my point, the "broader public interest" you are referring to is a fiction. It does not exist as a clearly delimitable concern that could serve as a benchmark for assessing methods of representation.


And my answer, which is slightly different though probably the same, is that the Broader Public interest is an aggregate of the many public interests and not one specific interest in itself.


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

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

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

From dogwallah at gmail.com  Tue Nov  9 07:18:12 2010
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2010 15:18:12 +0300
Subject: [governance] FOURTH DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <C8FF513F.134DD%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
References: <296C93D0-7172-4DC7-8185-1DEAAA564B4D@ciroap.org> <C8FF513F.134DD%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTinr_q0Wr3ohs_V0qTXV=+yNTo4yGwbLvRXd1XD4@mail.gmail.com>

Ian,

On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 11:27 AM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
> Because a couple of people have written to say they do not favour the
> inclusion of text on new institutional arrangements, let me just say I
> believe this text should stay in.

I am happy that it stay in, with the proviso that the lightest weight
option is included.


>
> My reading is that, if no new institutional arrangements are contemplated or
> considered, we are left with the two current and to me unsatisfactory
> alternatives of trying to expand ICANN into areas beyond its competence and
> useful brief to deal with other issues, or alternatively as some favour to
> make all Internet issues part of the brief of ITU.

Why is it only these two options?  The Internet has thrived precisely
(in part) due to lack of global regulation.  The regional and global
policy making that does exist is largely MS and heavily CS.  Why are
we so keen to give this up to gov'ts?

To me neither of these
> potential solutions is in the least bit attractive or satisfactory.

Agreed.

-- 
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 jeremy at ciroap.org  Tue Nov  9 09:30:05 2010
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2010 22:30:05 +0800
Subject: [governance] FOURTH DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinr_q0Wr3ohs_V0qTXV=+yNTo4yGwbLvRXd1XD4@mail.gmail.com>
References: <296C93D0-7172-4DC7-8185-1DEAAA564B4D@ciroap.org> <C8FF513F.134DD%ian.peter@ianpeter.com> <AANLkTinr_q0Wr3ohs_V0qTXV=+yNTo4yGwbLvRXd1XD4@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <99DF9064-BD4E-4132-8BA5-37A259A95432@ciroap.org>

On 09/11/2010, at 8:18 PM, McTim wrote:

> I am happy that it stay in, with the proviso that the lightest weight
> option is included.

The compromise I used in draft 4 (which is almost what you want) is to begin that paragraph with "If institutional changes are to be made, ...".

-- 
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 --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101109/172e7dff/attachment.bin>

From lmcknigh at syr.edu  Tue Nov  9 11:23:22 2010
From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight)
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2010 11:23:22 -0500
Subject: [governance] FW: Business and Politics -- Special Issue
In-Reply-To: <20101109031629.3C32BA88DDF@mass-mail-relay.util.bepress.com>
References: <20101109031629.3C32BA88DDF@mass-mail-relay.util.bepress.com>
Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006DE6@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>

FYI,

A journal special on 'Private Regulation in the Global Economy.' 

At least one article references growing trend toward mutistakeholder approaches; mainly about matters other than IG.

Lee
________________________________________
From: Vinod K. Aggarwal [mm-11219-10298030 at bepress.com]
Sent: Monday, November 08, 2010 10:16 PM
To: Lee W McKnight
Subject: Business and Politics -- Special Issue

Trouble viewing this email? You can open it in a browser: http://www.bepress.com/bap/announce/20101108
________________________________
bepress Journals<http://www.bepress.com/journals>
        November 08, 2010

Special Issue
Business and Politics<http://www.bepress.com/bap>


http://www.bepress.com/bap





Berkeley Electronic Press is pleased to announce the following special issue of Business and Politics<http://www.bepress.com/bap>.

Private Regulation in the Global Economy

The articles in this special issue examine private regulation in the global economy from a variety of perspectives. The papers were first presented at an interdisciplinary workshop, held at Duke University in October 2009 to critically examine our current knowledge about private regulation of global markets and advance the research frontier through conceptual, theoretical, and empirical contributions. Many of the articles focus on previously little-known cases of private regulation with distributional implications and consequences for millions of participants in the global economy, others examine new aspects of familiar cases. Jointly, they illustrate and analyze the politics of transnational private regulation.

Tim Büthe, Guest Editor

Private Regulation in the Global Economy: Guest Editor's Note<http://www.bepress.com/bap/vol12/iss3/art1?sending=11219>

Tim Büthe

Private Regulation in the Global Economy: A (P)Review<http://www.bepress.com/bap/vol12/iss3/art2?sending=11219>

Tim Büthe

Private Standards in the Climate Regime: The Greenhouse Gas Protocol<http://www.bepress.com/bap/vol12/iss3/art3?sending=11219>

Jessica F. Green

Engineering Uncontestedness? The Origins and Institutional Development of the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC)<http://www.bepress.com/bap/vol12/iss3/art4?sending=11219>

Tim Büthe

The Causes and Consequences of Private Food Governance<http://www.bepress.com/bap/vol12/iss3/art5?sending=11219>

Doris Fuchs and Agni Kalfagianni

Private Regulation and Legal Integration: The European Example<http://www.bepress.com/bap/vol12/iss3/art6?sending=11219>

Fabrizio Cafaggi and Agnieszka Janczuk

Transnational Private Regulation in Practice: The Limits of Forest and Labor Standards Certification in Indonesia<http://www.bepress.com/bap/vol12/iss3/art7?sending=11219>

Tim Bartley

The Search for Credible Information in Social and Environmental Global Governance: The Kosher Label<http://www.bepress.com/bap/vol12/iss3/art8?sending=11219>

Shana Starobin and Erika Weinthal

Can Technological Innovations Improve Private Regulation in the Global Economy?<http://www.bepress.com/bap/vol12/iss3/art9?sending=11219>

Graeme Auld, Benjamin Cashore, Cristina Balboa, Laura Bozzi, and Stefan Renckens

Private-Public Interaction in Global Governance: The Case of Transnational Commercial Arbitration<http://www.bepress.com/bap/vol12/iss3/art10?sending=11219>

Christopher A. Whytock

Regulation and Economic Globalization: Prospects and Limits of Private Governance<http://www.bepress.com/bap/vol12/iss3/art11?sending=11219>

Frederick Mayer and Gary Gereffi

Global Private Politics: A Research Agenda<http://www.bepress.com/bap/vol12/iss3/art12?sending=11219>

Tim Büthe

About this journal

Business and Politics<http://www.bepress.com/bap> publishes articles within the broad area of the interaction between firms and political actors. Two specific areas are of particular interest to the journal. The first concerns the use of non-market corporate strategy. The second involves efforts by policy makers to influence firm behavior through regulatory, legal, financial, and other government instruments. Recent articles concern the Chinese auto industry and the WTO, environmental regulation in Argentina, foreign investment and the oil curse, and lobbying and steel imports. The journal is edited by Vinod K. Aggarwal (UC Berkeley), a leading expert in trade policy and international negotiations. Authors include notable professors from Oxford, the University of Pennsylvania, and the Sloan School of Business at MIT.

Business and Politics<http://www.bepress.com/bap> is indexed in CSA Worldwide Political Science Abstracts, Dietrich's Index Philosophicus, EconLit, International Bibliography of the Social Sciences, Intute, OCLC, PAIS International, RePEc, Scopus, Sociological Abstracts, SwetsWise All Titles, and Worldwide Political Science Abstracts.


Edited by

Vinod Aggarwal
UC Berkeley

Most Popular Papers<http://www.bepress.com/bap/topdownloads.html> Sign Up for Alerts<http://www.bepress.com/bap/announcements.html> Tell a Colleague<mailto:?subject=Interesting%20journal&body=Business%20and%20Politics%20is%20a%20journal%20I%20think%20you'd%20find%20interesting.%20Have%20a%20look%20at%20http://www.bepress.com/bap%0A%0AYou%20can%20see%20the%20most%20recent%20content%20alert%20at%20http://www.bepress.com/bap/announce/20101108%0A%0ABest,> Recommend to Your Library<http://www.bepress.com/site_setup.cgi?context=bap&site_type=library>


About bepress Journals
www.bepress.com/journals<http://www.bepress.com/journals>


Founded by professors in 1999, Berkeley Electronic Press™ (bepress) exists to serve academia. Our journals feature fast and high-quality peer review, an innovative guest access policy<http://www.bepress.com/journals/guest_access.html>, and prices that libraries can easily afford.

2809 Telegraph Avenue, Suite 202, Berkeley, CA 94705





©2010 Berkeley Electronic Press.



________________________________
To be removed from this mailing list or to change your contact information, please click on the following link:
http://www.bepress.com/cgi/unsubscribe.cgi?sending=11219&rr=10298030&email=lmcknigh%40syr.edu

For more information about this message, you may email info-mailers at bepress.com<mailto:info-mailers at bepress.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 lmcknigh at syr.edu  Tue Nov  9 11:27:53 2010
From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight)
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2010 11:27:53 -0500
Subject: [governance] FOURTH DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <296C93D0-7172-4DC7-8185-1DEAAA564B4D@ciroap.org>
References: <296C93D0-7172-4DC7-8185-1DEAAA564B4D@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006DE7@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>

reads well imho
________________________________________
From: Jeremy Malcolm [jeremy at ciroap.org]
Sent: Monday, November 08, 2010 7:35 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: [governance] FOURTH DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation

This incorporates all comments on the third draft, and I would like us to try to contribute all final comments within the next couple of days, so that we can put the final text to a consensus call.  I realise that, unfortunately, the text may not satisfy all of those without outlying views.  A reminder that the deadline for our submission is Monday.

In addition to the plain text version, I have marked up version below, for those with graphical email clients or access to the Web archive.

--- begins ---

The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (CS-IGC) regards the process towards enhanced cooperation as a vital step towards addressing the "many cross-cutting international public policy issues that require attention and are not adequately addressed by the current mechanisms" (Tunis Agenda para 68).

Despite an intergovernmental mandate from WSIS to address this governance deficit, much remains to be done.  It is imperative that this deficit continue to be addressed, where appropriate through new institutional developments that comply with the WSIS process criteria of being multilateral, transparent, democratic and inclusive.

We make three further points.  First, enhanced cooperation should encompass all Internet-related public policy issues; second, many of our members believe the existing arrangements of relevant organisations (including the Internet Governance Forum) do not fully implement enhanced cooperation, and thirdly whatever new arrangements may be put in place, civil society must play an integral part in them, as one of the prerequisites for their legitimacy.

These points will be explained in turn:

1. Although much of the discussion of enhanced cooperation at WSIS turned around the narrow issue of internationalising the oversight of Internet naming and numbering functions, the Tunis Agenda expresses this principle far more broadly to include other substantive Internet related public policy issues that require attention and resolution at the global level.  It also reminds us that the ultimate objective of our cooperation is to advance a people-centred, inclusive, development-oriented and non-discriminatory Information Society.

2. The IGF in its present form is a very important part of the enhanced cooperation process, in that its multi-stakeholder process can provide input to shape decisions taken on Internet related public policy issues in other fora.  However the full realisation of enhanced cooperation will require a multi-stakeholder process to extend to all other Internet governance organisations, whether new or established.

If institutional changes are to be made, there are various options for enhancing multi-stakeholder cooperation within and amongst all relevant organisations (which may be complementary).  These include:

* establishing a lightweight multi-stakeholder observatory process perhaps hosted under the auspices of the IGF (pursuant to its mandate in paragraph 72(i));

* utilising a virtual and voluntary global social community or ecosystem, linking together all Internet governance organisations, in which all stakeholders would participate; or

* establishing a new umbrella governance institution for Internet policy development, with space for the full participation of each stakeholder group in its respective role.  This might also be situated within the IGF, but pursuant to a new and supplementary mandate.

3. Paragraph 71 of the Tunis Agenda makes very clear that civil society is an integral participant in the development of any process towards enhanced cooperation.  Therefore the IGC, in our capacity as members of civil society, looks forward to contributing constructively in transparent, accountable and democratic multi-stakeholder consultations towards this end.

--- ends ---

Marked up version follows:

The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (CS-IGC) regards the process towards enhanced cooperation as a vital step towards addressing the "many cross-cutting international public policy issues that require attention and are not adequately addressed by the current mechanisms" (Tunis Agenda para 68).

Despite an intergovernmental mandate from WSIS to address this governance deficit, much remains to be done.  It is imperative that this deficit continue to be addressed, where appropriate through new institutional developments that comply with the WSIS process criteria of being multilateral, transparent, democratic and inclusive.

We make three further points.  First, enhanced cooperation should encompass all Internet-related public policy issues; second, many of our members believe the existing arrangements of relevant organisations (including the Internet Governance Forum) do not fully implement enhanced cooperation, and thirdly whatever new arrangements may be put in place, civil society must play an integral part in them, as one of the prerequisites for their legitimacy.

These points will be explained in turn:

1. Although much of the discussion of enhanced cooperation at WSIS turned around the narrow issue of internationalising the oversight of Internet naming and numbering functions, the Tunis Agenda expresses this principle far more broadly to include other substantive Internet related public policy issues that require attention and resolution at the global level.  It also reminds us that the ultimate objective of our cooperation is to advance a people-centred, inclusive, development-oriented and non-discriminatory Information Society.

2. The IGF in its present form is a very important part of the enhanced cooperation process, in that ideally its multi-stakeholder process can help provide input to shape decisions taken on Internet related public policy issues in other fora.  However the full realisation of enhanced cooperation will require a multi-stakeholder process to extend to all other Internet governance organisations, whether new or established that do not already follow this model.

If institutional changes are to be made, there are various options for enhancing multi-stakeholder cooperation within and amongst all relevant organisations (which may be complementary).  These include:

* establishing a lightweight multi-stakeholder observatory process perhaps hosted under the auspices of the IGF (pursuant to its mandate in paragraph 72(i));

* utilising a virtual and voluntary global social community or "social grid" ecosystem, linking together all Internet governance organisations, in which all stakeholders would participate; or

* establishing a new umbrella governance institution for Internet policy development, with space for the full participation of each stakeholder group in its respective role.  This might also be situated within the IGF, but pursuant to a new and supplementary mandate.

3. Paragraph 71 of the Tunis Agenda makes very clear that civil society is an integral participant in the development of any process towards enhanced cooperation.  Therefore the IGC, in our capacity as members of civil society, looks forward to contributing constructively in transparent, accountable and democratic multi-stakeholder consultations towards this end.

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

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

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

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

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

From kichango at gmail.com  Tue Nov  9 12:16:40 2010
From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango)
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2010 12:16:40 -0500
Subject: [governance] Re: SECOND DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTim7O1h_baHGKgB8Bv4_WO9G+5xtKU8yM09ruYS9@mail.gmail.com>
References: <70E573F5-00B4-4837-89B7-C05B9DA7E479@ciroap.org>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20101103021355.05d70e60@jefsey.com>
	<5B31379A-A914-4BE1-945B-EEF2478BA1DC@ciroap.org>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20101103094622.0651ee20@jefsey.com>
	<3FE17A9E-E507-44DA-8AE2-EC7EC56DD1D8@ciroap.org>
	<93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006DA4@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
	<4CD17823.8010108@itforchange.net>
	<AANLkTikONmgaa+4rO+uZkAv4YrPDfSV4aP9YKk_=Lgox@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20101104103504.057fdc48@jefsey.com>
	<08B126B5-B3AB-4A91-B8BC-A90579C6EF5A@ciroap.org>
	<4CD4CF03.3000900@itforchange.net>
	<AANLkTi=gWOfhnaJd385OJ0XNjtbSjaCgEAOA-6KLsNEe@mail.gmail.com>
	<4CD555E8.2040707@itforchange.net>
	<4CD5603F.50507@itforchange.net>
	<AANLkTi=VWbRZGiAZMkR7R5BYGFCDxyhYTKt5R28V+Mco@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTinkuij2jM=ZZpKBPC9q--Hy8joGVNmW96bQ2eKr@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTinuf=eQZ9MiPj08pKDmvvk=_6YeWH80pJr6CqVU@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTimCqyFZ2d+CE9snkx6by3i6ET3yLfG1sHR3gxA8@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTim7O1h_baHGKgB8Bv4_WO9G+5xtKU8yM09ruYS9@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTinDoEV9oNFJ4SyqsU1AwOJwMoo7JVj1RXYLcBiB@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 5:36 AM, McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>

I think at this point we understand our mutual differences, so I find it
unnecessary to carry on arguing my point... I guess some things just never
change ;) Bottom line, you sound more hopeful than I about private actors
solving all/most of the problems with technical specifications, while I am
obviously more hopeful than you about the governments' *potential* also to
do the right thing by their people, as long as they aren't left to their own
devices. At least they can bring to the table relevant issues that you,
technologists, are too busy (too fascinated by your toys? ;)) to bother
with, and they might help reach better decisions on those. Anyway, I gather
none of us means to exclude the other party from the process (and I
certainly don't want to let any one party/mindset dominate the process).

Just to answer your questions...

There are different ways of doing cost recovery, particularly for a
nonprofit global service. The laws of economics may be necessary and
universal (at least some believe that), but economic development is an
organic thing. Practicing one-size-fits-all from the top and think that you
are not reinforcing existing inequalities is just self-delusional. Maybe
ICANN should elect headquarters in Nigeria and do price recovery from there,
that would be more helpful for bridging the digital divide :)

Re. AfriNIC, Maputo meeting: Although I remember interesting discussions
about NRO, I frankly don't remember the details of what was decided or
signed in Maputo.... I just learned then about the work AfriNIC had been
doing (so my newness to that arena at the the time may also explain why we
didn't meet). I found myself there while working with our colleagues at
CIUEM back then (the informatics center at the Eduardo Mondlane University).

Do let us know whenever you think we're missing out on "actual IG processes"
as opposed to the "meta-" ones (in your own words). Personally if I could
contribute something, I'd gladly participate. Keeping in mind that only a
small portion of those involved in broader policy issues are prepared to
engage meaningfully with the nuts and bolts of internet infrastructure. On
that point, your meeting attendance breakdown probably wouldn't have been
the same without processes such as WSIS, IGC, WGIG, IGF... Maybe these
global policy processes have not been only nefarious, after all.

cheers,
mawaki




>
> On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 8:18 PM, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:
> > McTim an all,
> >
> > Thanks for gladly taking up the question I addressed to Wolfie ;) and for
> > the info you've provided in that regard.
> >
> > I recognize those initiatives and I applaud them (I myself was lucky
> enough
> > to attend the AfriNIC meeting a few years ago while I was in Maputo, and
> > could see a vibrant community with a large range of participants at work,
> > including, eg, Minister Venancio Massingue then Vice-Rector...)
>
> I was there too, it's a wonder we didn't meet!
>
>
> >
> > In this context though, the question is that of global governance
> > arrangements
>
> Do you recall there was a global governance arrangement signed at that
> meeting?  It was an early example of EC (or the spaghetti ball, which
> I like better than "grid" BTW).
>
>
> (as related to the draft on EC, the alternate proposal... even
> > the raison d'etre of this caucus.)
> I know you don't like those, but alas
> > they exist and make decisions that impact a lot of people, at least those
> > people who want to get involved at that global level are saying so. So
> they
> > try to organize and get involved at that level. I'd completely agree with
> > you if, say, ICANN was only a GIR (global internet registry), that is,
> the
> > global counterpart of RIRs, and was not doing much more than technical
> > coordination. But that unfortunately is not the case.
>
> In theory, it is, in practice, there are lots of folk who always want
> ICANN to do more.  Then the same folk decry the bloated budget, but I
> digress.
>
> >
> > So I'm not religious about gov't participation, and am not advocating it
> for
> > the sake of it. The most important question for me is this: if, as a
> result
> > of your function, global policy is made which has far reaching
> implications
> > and impact beyond the members of your trade association, then it makes
> sense
> > that you are asked deliberately and consistently to take the legitimate
> > concerns of those other stakeholders into account.
>
> What makes you think they are not (taken into account)?
>
> This goes to the heart of MG query "who represents the public interest",
>
> Over the last few decades, when folk gather for their "many nice
> lunches and dinners" they have (for the vast majority of them) made
> decisions, (whether about standards, numbers or names) that have been
> "for the good of the Internet" for some value of that phrase.  A very
> small minority represent their employers interests.
>
> As Jeannette says the "broader public interest" you are referring to
> is a fiction. It does not exist as a clearly delimitable concern.."
>
>
>  How best to achieve that,
> > is where I see differences, unless you disagree on the previous
> statement.
> > You (as well as many others) seem to think the status quo works fine,
> while
> > I (as well as many others) am not satisfied with it.
>
> Well, there is always room for improvement, and things are improving,
> but if all the folk on this list were as actively engaged in actual IG
> processes as they are in meta-(or psuedo) IG, then we would be well on
> our way.
>
> For example, I have done a breakdown of registered attendees at the
> next AfriNIC meeting for a presentation:
>
> itc   14%
> gov  25%
> cs   26%
> biz  35%
>
> Is this not (nearly) the ideal MS mix?  A few more CS folk and we
> would have to change from "industry led" to "CS led", especially since
> I think that most of the ITC folk are CS, so from that POV, we are
> already CS led!
>
>
> >
> > I certainly do not want gov'ts to dictate their traditional rules for IG,
> > let alone at global level. I concur with all the issues you've mentioned
> > about gov't management, and do not forget that before the mobile boom in
> > Africa waiting time for connection to fixed phone could last as long as a
> > decade. Who, in those conditions, would advocate for gov'ts being in
> charge
> > of management and operation? Not me. Instead, I'd like more African
> gov'ts,
> > just to take their example, converted to new norms.
>
> See numbers above, they ARE being converted to a new norm IMHO.
>
>  Many of them still don't
> > even seem to understand that in the world we're living, it is part of
> their
> > duty (and it should be in their interest) to enable local businesses to
> > grow, to seek more opportunities for them and even promote them overseas.
> > Instead they keep fighting the last battle, or the one before the last.
> > etc...
> > Problem is, I do not see how ICANN's reported $200K just to apply for a
> new
> > gTLD is any better for potential applicants in Africa (and in Latin
> America
> > and large parts of Asia, etc.) than the narrow-minded tax policies of
> their
> > government. The effect is the same: both are taking away business
> > opportunities, from the majority of the user populations, mind you, and
> > keeping them in the hands of a few. Neither is acceptable. I would like
> to
> > see flourish in Africa more entrepreneurs like yourself, McTim, I'd like
> the
> > playing field to make it possible if not easy for them to rise and become
> > regional and even global Internet domain name Registries, too. For that
> to
> > happen we need to work on both domestic and global policies.
>
> Yes, the 200k is high, but as one of the dotafrica bids told me "the
> money is no problem", in other words, you show a bank the .asia/.co
> numbers and they will gladly lend you the money.
>
> ICANN says this is cost-recovery (whether they are right on their
> guesses about costs or not is something we will find out in time).
> Should it not be done on a cost recovery basis?
>
> >
> > So here we are, not simply with a GIR but a nongovernmental body that
> > nonetheless has the power to make that kind of over-reaching rules for
> > everyone else.
>
> ah, but you forget, WE are part of that "nongovernmental body"
>
>
>  Then, until the day I might be convinced by the decisions and
> > actions of those nongovernmental global governance arrangements that they
> > are heeding and responding to my concerns, meaning the concerns of people
> I
> > come from and those of other people like them (IMHO this is
> about fairness
> > more than anything else), I might find some sense in bringing gov'ts in.
> Not
> > because I want any one set of actors to dominate the process, but for
> each
> > one to keep the others in check, and to increase the diversity of
> > perspectives around the table. After all, if only they're willing to play
> > along (or to be smart) national govts are more likely to speak to their
> > domestic concerns than many of us here and more than a global body such
> > as ICANN. (So yes, some people may support the formal participation off
> > govts not because they're in love with the latter, but as a pragmatic
> move
> > to enable a more balanced outcome in their view.)
>
> I understand that, I just don't agree that giving gov'ts more power in
> re: online activities is useful, especially when it comes to
> encouraging innovation and entrepreneurship.
>
> >
> > To finish, almost all govts around the world have signed the UDHR. I know
> > many still violate them. But there is an active global citizenship using
> a
> > number of mechanisms to call them out, along with democracies that may be
> > supporting them. At times in the past, that even led to sanctions and
> > embargo. In the case of the Internet, maybe except the US, not a single
> one
> > of the other countries has the keys to the whole (logical) infrastructure
>
> That's a pretty strong statement, I think you know the arrangement is
> much more subtle and weaker than that.
>
>  --
> > so Internet will be functioning whatever they do doesmtically. In that
> case,
> > wouldn't you think it'd be even easier to get them onboard of a common
> > framework and instrument (UDHR style) setting up norms designed
> >
> > - precisely to curb the heavy-handed regulation that we are decrying at
> home
>
> Would it be easy? no, I think not.  Would it end up being
> Intergovernmental only...am afraid that it would.
>
> > (partly by a process of acculturation to new norms, as they work together
> > and need to reach rough consensus with other players all over the world),
> > - to ensure delibarate and multistakeholder decision-making in these
> > matters, the outcoms if which they will all be subject to,
> > - demanding best efforts at all levels of decision-making towards a fair
> > hearing of all stakeholders while being more broadly civil
> > liberties-friendly?
> >
> > Again, all that away from management and day to day operation issues -
> isn't
> > that possible?
>
> Possible, yes.  Likely, no.  Desirable? not IMHO.  Plus the danger is
> that they would (as PJS has suggested) try to oversee that which needs
> no external gov't oversight.
>
>
> --
> Cheers,
>
> McTim
> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
> route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101109/551d816b/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From dogwallah at gmail.com  Tue Nov  9 13:40:38 2010
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2010 21:40:38 +0300
Subject: [governance] FOURTH DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <99DF9064-BD4E-4132-8BA5-37A259A95432@ciroap.org>
References: <296C93D0-7172-4DC7-8185-1DEAAA564B4D@ciroap.org>
 <C8FF513F.134DD%ian.peter@ianpeter.com> <AANLkTinr_q0Wr3ohs_V0qTXV=+yNTo4yGwbLvRXd1XD4@mail.gmail.com>
 <99DF9064-BD4E-4132-8BA5-37A259A95432@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <AANLkTikBXqN+gkunRqk1LtU0eiSe0BEUsWB+3di5davY@mail.gmail.com>

Jeremy,

On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 5:30 PM, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:
> On 09/11/2010, at 8:18 PM, McTim wrote:
>
>> I am happy that it stay in, with the proviso that the lightest weight
>> option is included.
>
> The compromise I used in draft 4 (which is almost what you want)

DRAFT 4 is nothing like I want!

> is to begin that paragraph with "If institutional changes are to be made, ...".

Not much of a compromise if there are 3 examples of "things we could
do in the future", while the "thing we are doing quite successfully
already" gets left out.

SECOND DRAFT said  " * making no institutional changes but encouraging
organisations to enhance their own cooperation with other stakeholders
and to report to the CSTD on their progress;"

I understand that someone objected to that, while I objected to NOT
recognising that EC is an ongoing process that started long before
Tunis, and can continue with no new institutional developments, hence
the subsequent addition (and then removal) of the sentence quoted
above.

To quote Avri in SECOND DRAFT:
"I do not accept the premise that there is studied silence on Enhanced
Cooperation.  Or a vacuum.

I contend that we see progress in Enhanced cooperation.  The more I
watch the changes in the groups doing Internet Governance, the more I
see the participation of governments along side the other
stakeholders.  And the more I see the opening for Civil society of all
sorts to participate.  Yes, there is a ways to go, there will always
be a ways to go.  And we should wok on the means of  furthering the
progress we are making."

So I think that it is entirely reasonable to put back the text from
the second draft.

I also object to the "a new and supplementary mandate." language.
Where did that come from? Who would give such a mandate tot eh IGF?

-- 
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 dogwallah at gmail.com  Tue Nov  9 14:24:14 2010
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2010 22:24:14 +0300
Subject: [governance] Re: SECOND DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinDoEV9oNFJ4SyqsU1AwOJwMoo7JVj1RXYLcBiB@mail.gmail.com>
References: <70E573F5-00B4-4837-89B7-C05B9DA7E479@ciroap.org>
 <7.0.1.0.2.20101103021355.05d70e60@jefsey.com> <5B31379A-A914-4BE1-945B-EEF2478BA1DC@ciroap.org>
 <7.0.1.0.2.20101103094622.0651ee20@jefsey.com> <3FE17A9E-E507-44DA-8AE2-EC7EC56DD1D8@ciroap.org>
 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006DA4@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
 <4CD17823.8010108@itforchange.net> <AANLkTikONmgaa+4rO+uZkAv4YrPDfSV4aP9YKk_=Lgox@mail.gmail.com>
 <7.0.1.0.2.20101104103504.057fdc48@jefsey.com> <08B126B5-B3AB-4A91-B8BC-A90579C6EF5A@ciroap.org>
 <4CD4CF03.3000900@itforchange.net> <AANLkTi=gWOfhnaJd385OJ0XNjtbSjaCgEAOA-6KLsNEe@mail.gmail.com>
 <4CD555E8.2040707@itforchange.net> <4CD5603F.50507@itforchange.net>
 <AANLkTi=VWbRZGiAZMkR7R5BYGFCDxyhYTKt5R28V+Mco@mail.gmail.com>
 <AANLkTinkuij2jM=ZZpKBPC9q--Hy8joGVNmW96bQ2eKr@mail.gmail.com>
 <AANLkTinuf=eQZ9MiPj08pKDmvvk=_6YeWH80pJr6CqVU@mail.gmail.com>
 <AANLkTimCqyFZ2d+CE9snkx6by3i6ET3yLfG1sHR3gxA8@mail.gmail.com>
 <AANLkTim7O1h_baHGKgB8Bv4_WO9G+5xtKU8yM09ruYS9@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTinDoEV9oNFJ4SyqsU1AwOJwMoo7JVj1RXYLcBiB@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTinBJ4_JB_9=OHCFC9gs+6mM1k_CVdM_mv6=a139@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 8:16 PM, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 5:36 AM, McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>
> I think at this point we understand our mutual differences, so I find it
> unnecessary to carry on arguing my point... I guess some things just never
> change ;) Bottom line, you sound more hopeful than I about private actors
> solving all/most of the problems with technical specifications,

Not just with standards and technical policy, think netiquette as an example.

while I am
> obviously more hopeful than you about the governments' *potential* also to
> do the right thing by their people, as long as they aren't left to their own
> devices. At least they can bring to the table relevant issues that you,
> technologists, are too busy (too fascinated by your toys? ;)) to bother
> with, and they might help reach better decisions on those. Anyway, I gather
> none of us means to exclude the other party from the process (and I
> certainly don't want to let any one party/mindset dominate the process).
>
> Just to answer your questions...
>
> There are different ways of doing cost recovery, particularly for a
> nonprofit global service. The laws of economics may be necessary and
> universal (at least some believe that), but economic development is an
> organic thing. Practicing one-size-fits-all from the top and think that you
> are not reinforcing existing inequalities is just self-delusional.

Agreed, but the process to change this is ongoing, AND the idea behind
it (AFAICS) is not to reinforce existing inequalities, but to
artificially limit the number of new gTLDs for stability reasons.

Maybe
> ICANN should elect headquarters in Nigeria and do price recovery from there,
> that would be more helpful for bridging the digital divide :)

It actually wouldn't at all, given the cost of real estate and doing
biz in general in Naija (esp. in Lagos).  Would be cheaper in Geneva!!


> Re. AfriNIC, Maputo meeting: Although I remember interesting discussions
> about NRO, I frankly don't remember the details of what was decided or
> signed in Maputo

http://www.nro.net/documents/afrinic-nro-join-full.pdf

I've some photos if you are interested.

.... I just learned then about the work AfriNIC had been
> doing (so my newness to that arena at the the time may also explain why we
> didn't meet). I found myself there while working with our colleagues at
> CIUEM back then (the informatics center at the Eduardo Mondlane University).
>
> Do let us know whenever you think we're missing out on "actual IG processes"

That would be a veritable flood of mails.

> as opposed to the "meta-" ones (in your own words). Personally if I could
> contribute something, I'd gladly participate. Keeping in mind that only a
> small portion of those involved in broader policy issues are prepared to
> engage meaningfully with the nuts and bolts of internet infrastructure. On
> that point, your meeting attendance breakdown probably wouldn't have been
> the same without processes such as WSIS, IGC, WGIG, IGF...

Perhaps, but maybe it would have.  The RIRs began outreach to govt's
long before WSIS, IGF, etc.  Currently, AfriNIC has an AfGWG
(Governmental Working Group) and is setting up a Law Enforcement
Agency Working (LEAGWG) , bending over backwards to enhance
cooperation IMO.

Maybe these
> global policy processes have not been only nefarious, after all.

many fine lunches and dinners.

-- 
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 jlfullsack at orange.fr  Tue Nov  9 17:00:41 2010
From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK)
Date: Tue,  9 Nov 2010 23:00:41 +0100 (CET)
Subject: [governance] FOURTH DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
Message-ID: <4924625.69363.1289340041565.JavaMail.www@wwinf1j25>

Dear members of the list

For your enjoyment and information (if any) :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WguKoQNWJMc&feature=related

Jean-Louis  Fullsack
CSDPTT





> Message du 09/11/10 09:29
> De : "Ian Peter" 
> A : governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Jeremy Malcolm" 
> Copie à : 
> Objet : Re: [governance] FOURTH DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
> 
> Re: [governance] FOURTH DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation Because a couple of people have written to say they do not favour the inclusion of text on new institutional arrangements, let me just say I believe this text should stay in.
> 
> My reading is that, if no new institutional arrangements are contemplated or considered, we are left with the two current and to me unsatisfactory alternatives of trying to expand ICANN into areas beyond its competence and useful brief to deal with other issues, or alternatively as some favour to make all Internet issues part of the brief of ITU. To me neither of these potential solutions is in the least bit attractive or satisfactory.
> 
> Ian Peter
> 
> 
> From: Jeremy Malcolm 
> Reply-To: , Jeremy Malcolm 
> Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2010 07:35:41 +0700
> To: 
> Subject: [governance] FOURTH DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
> 
> This incorporates all comments on the third draft, and I would like us to try to contribute all final comments within the next couple of days, so that we can put the final text to a consensus call.  I realise that, unfortunately, the text may not satisfy all of those without outlying views.  A reminder that the deadline for our submission is Monday.
> 
> In addition to the plain text version, I have marked up version below, for those with graphical email clients or access to the Web archive.
> 
> --- begins ---
> 
> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (CS-IGC) regards the process towards enhanced cooperation as a vital step towards addressing the "many cross-cutting international public policy issues that require attention and are not adequately addressed by the current mechanisms" (Tunis Agenda para 68).
> 
> Despite an intergovernmental mandate from WSIS to address this governance deficit, much remains to be done.  It is imperative that this deficit continue to be addressed, where appropriate through new institutional developments that comply with the WSIS process criteria of being multilateral, transparent, democratic and inclusive.
> 
> We make three further points.  First, enhanced cooperation should encompass all Internet-related public policy issues; second, many of our members believe the existing arrangements of relevant organisations (including the Internet Governance Forum) do not fully implement enhanced cooperation, and thirdly whatever new arrangements may be put in place, civil society must play an integral part in them, as one of the prerequisites for their legitimacy.
> 
> These points will be explained in turn:
> 
> 1. Although much of the discussion of enhanced cooperation at WSIS turned around the narrow issue of internationalising the oversight of Internet naming and numbering functions, the Tunis Agenda expresses this principle far more broadly to include other substantive Internet related public policy issues that require attention and resolution at the global level.  It also reminds us that the ultimate objective of our cooperation is to advance a people-centred, inclusive, development-oriented and non-discriminatory Information Society.
> 
> 2. The IGF in its present form is a very important part of the enhanced cooperation process, in that its multi-stakeholder process can provide input to shape decisions taken on Internet related public policy issues in other fora.  However the full realisation of enhanced cooperation will require a multi-stakeholder process to extend to all other Internet governance organisations, whether new or established.
> 
> If institutional changes are to be made, there are various options for enhancing multi-stakeholder cooperation within and amongst all relevant organisations (which may be complementary).  These include:
> 
> * establishing a lightweight multi-stakeholder observatory process perhaps hosted under the auspices of the IGF (pursuant to its mandate in paragraph 72(i));
> 
> * utilising a virtual and voluntary global social community or ecosystem, linking together all Internet governance organisations, in which all stakeholders would participate; or
> 
> * establishing a new umbrella governance institution for Internet policy development, with space for the full participation of each stakeholder group in its respective role.  This might also be situated within the IGF, but pursuant to a new and supplementary mandate.
> 
> 3. Paragraph 71 of the Tunis Agenda makes very clear that civil society is an integral participant in the development of any process towards enhanced cooperation.  Therefore the IGC, in our capacity as members of civil society, looks forward to contributing constructively in transparent, accountable and democratic multi-stakeholder consultations towards this end.
> 
> --- ends ---
> 
> Marked up version follows:
> 
> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (CS-IGC) regards the process towards enhanced cooperation as a vital step towards addressing the "many cross-cutting international public policy issues that require attention and are not adequately addressed by the current mechanisms" (Tunis Agenda para 68).
> 
> Despite an intergovernmental mandate from WSIS to address this governance deficit, much remains to be done.  It is imperative that this deficit continue to be addressed, where appropriate through new institutional developments that comply with the WSIS process criteria of being multilateral, transparent, democratic and inclusive.
> 
> We make three further points.  First, enhanced cooperation should encompass all Internet-related public policy issues; second, many of our members believe the existing arrangements of relevant organisations (including the Internet Governance Forum) do not fully implement enhanced cooperation, and thirdly whatever new arrangements may be put in place, civil society must play an integral part in them, as one of the prerequisites for their legitimacy.
> 
> These points will be explained in turn:
> 
> 1. Although much of the discussion of enhanced cooperation at WSIS turned around the narrow issue of internationalising the oversight of Internet naming and numbering functions, the Tunis Agenda expresses this principle far more broadly to include other substantive Internet related public policy issues that require attention and resolution at the global level.  It also reminds us that the ultimate objective of our cooperation is to advance a people-centred, inclusive, development-oriented and non-discriminatory Information Society.
> 
> 2. The IGF in its present form is a very important part of the enhanced cooperation process, in that ideally its multi-stakeholder process can help provide input to shape decisions taken on Internet related public policy issues in other fora.  However the full realisation of enhanced cooperation will require a multi-stakeholder process to extend to all other Internet governance organisations, whether new or established that do not already follow this model.
> 
> If institutional changes are to be made, there are various options for enhancing multi-stakeholder cooperation within and amongst all relevant organisations (which may be complementary).  These include:
> 
> * establishing a lightweight multi-stakeholder observatory process perhaps hosted under the auspices of the IGF (pursuant to its mandate in paragraph 72(i));
> 
> * utilising a virtual and voluntary global social community or "social grid" ecosystem, linking together all Internet governance organisations, in which all stakeholders would participate; or
> 
> * establishing a new umbrella governance institution for Internet policy development, with space for the full participation of each stakeholder group in its respective role.  This might also be situated within the IGF, but pursuant to a new and supplementary mandate.
> 
> 3. Paragraph 71 of the Tunis Agenda makes very clear that civil society is an integral participant in the development of any process towards enhanced cooperation.  Therefore the IGC, in our capacity as members of civil society, looks forward to contributing constructively in transparent, accountable and democratic multi-stakeholder consultations towards this end.
> -- 
> Jeremy Malcolm
> Project Coordinator
> Consumers International
> Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East
> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
> CI is 50
> Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010.
> Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer rights around the world. 
> http://www.consumersinternational.org/50  
> 
> Read our email confidentiality notice  . Don't print this email unless necessary.
> 
> 
> 
>
> [ message-footer.txt (0.4 Ko) ]
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101109/3570d332/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From jeremy at ciroap.org  Tue Nov  9 18:41:34 2010
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 07:41:34 +0800
Subject: [governance] FOURTH DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikBXqN+gkunRqk1LtU0eiSe0BEUsWB+3di5davY@mail.gmail.com>
References: <296C93D0-7172-4DC7-8185-1DEAAA564B4D@ciroap.org> <C8FF513F.134DD%ian.peter@ianpeter.com> <AANLkTinr_q0Wr3ohs_V0qTXV=+yNTo4yGwbLvRXd1XD4@mail.gmail.com> <99DF9064-BD4E-4132-8BA5-37A259A95432@ciroap.org> <AANLkTikBXqN+gkunRqk1LtU0eiSe0BEUsWB+3di5davY@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <177224C1-0E5F-4060-B1EE-C8E3D9FFEED4@ciroap.org>

On 10/11/2010, at 2:40 AM, McTim wrote:

>> is to begin that paragraph with "If institutional changes are to be made, ...".
> 
> Not much of a compromise if there are 3 examples of "things we could
> do in the future", while the "thing we are doing quite successfully
> already" gets left out.

Does anyone else prefer me to put back the "do nothing" option (ie. "making no institutional changes but encouraging organisations to enhance their own cooperation with other stakeholders and to report to the CSTD on their progress")?  Or more to the point, would anyone else (I know about Parminder) refuse to approve the statement if this went back in?

-- 
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 --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101110/1afa4002/attachment.bin>

From avri at psg.com  Tue Nov  9 19:06:12 2010
From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2010 19:06:12 -0500
Subject: [governance] FOURTH DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <177224C1-0E5F-4060-B1EE-C8E3D9FFEED4@ciroap.org>
References: <296C93D0-7172-4DC7-8185-1DEAAA564B4D@ciroap.org> <C8FF513F.134DD%ian.peter@ianpeter.com> <AANLkTinr_q0Wr3ohs_V0qTXV=+yNTo4yGwbLvRXd1XD4@mail.gmail.com> <99DF9064-BD4E-4132-8BA5-37A259A95432@ciroap.org> <AANLkTikBXqN+gkunRqk1LtU0eiSe0BEUsWB+3di5davY@mail.gmail.com> <177224C1-0E5F-4060-B1EE-C8E3D9FFEED4@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <825A60A5-0E32-4222-9111-D26F0CE4ADC2@psg.com>


On 9 Nov 2010, at 18:41, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:

> Does anyone else prefer me to put back the "do nothing" option (ie. "making no institutional changes but encouraging organisations to enhance their own cooperation with other stakeholders and to report to the CSTD on their progress")? 

I think your way of describing might be a bit prejudicial.
I support the 'do no harm while supporting the existing efforts' clause as defined by McTim.

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 fm-lists at st-kilda.org  Tue Nov  9 19:58:53 2010
From: fm-lists at st-kilda.org (Fearghas McKay)
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 00:58:53 +0000
Subject: [governance] FOURTH DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <825A60A5-0E32-4222-9111-D26F0CE4ADC2@psg.com>
References: <296C93D0-7172-4DC7-8185-1DEAAA564B4D@ciroap.org> <C8FF513F.134DD%ian.peter@ianpeter.com> <AANLkTinr_q0Wr3ohs_V0qTXV=+yNTo4yGwbLvRXd1XD4@mail.gmail.com> <99DF9064-BD4E-4132-8BA5-37A259A95432@ciroap.org> <AANLkTikBXqN+gkunRqk1LtU0eiSe0BEUsWB+3di5davY@mail.gmail.com> <177224C1-0E5F-4060-B1EE-C8E3D9FFEED4@ciroap.org> <825A60A5-0E32-4222-9111-D26F0CE4ADC2@psg.com>
Message-ID: <D1D28ADF-2B6F-4633-B099-750DF2B83C6E@st-kilda.org>


On 10 Nov 2010, at 00:06, Avri Doria wrote:

> I think your way of describing might be a bit prejudicial.
> I support the 'do no harm while supporting the existing efforts' clause as defined by McTim.

+1 to the points above.

However it should be be there as an option.

	f

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

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

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

From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch  Tue Nov  9 21:03:31 2010
From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake)
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 11:03:31 +0900
Subject: [governance] FOURTH DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <D1D28ADF-2B6F-4633-B099-750DF2B83C6E@st-kilda.org>
References: <296C93D0-7172-4DC7-8185-1DEAAA564B4D@ciroap.org> <C8FF513F.134DD%ian.peter@ianpeter.com> <AANLkTinr_q0Wr3ohs_V0qTXV=+yNTo4yGwbLvRXd1XD4@mail.gmail.com> <99DF9064-BD4E-4132-8BA5-37A259A95432@ciroap.org> <AANLkTikBXqN+gkunRqk1LtU0eiSe0BEUsWB+3di5davY@mail.gmail.com> <177224C1-0E5F-4060-B1EE-C8E3D9FFEED4@ciroap.org> <825A60A5-0E32-4222-9111-D26F0CE4ADC2@psg.com> <D1D28ADF-2B6F-4633-B099-750DF2B83C6E@st-kilda.org>
Message-ID: <FF17B3D0-1B79-4DC1-8989-61D5906A68B5@graduateinstitute.ch>

Hello,

A late intervention due to travels offline:

On Nov 10, 2010, at 9:58 AM, Fearghas McKay wrote:

> 
> On 10 Nov 2010, at 00:06, Avri Doria wrote:
> 
>> I think your way of describing might be a bit prejudicial.
>> I support the 'do no harm while supporting the existing efforts' clause as defined by McTim.
> 
> +1 to the points above.
> 
> However it should be be there as an option.

I agree that the existing efforts should be supported/encouraged and certainly cannot be characterized as "do nothing."  To reflect the diversity of views in the caucus and have a connection to the realities on the ground, l world think McTim's line needs to be included.  Perhaps we could square the circle by conditioning it a little, i.e. ""making no institutional changes UNLESS THERE IS AGREEMENT ON THE NEED TO DO SO but encouraging organisations to enhance their own cooperation with other stakeholders and to report to the CSTD on their progress."  Alternatively, we could decouple the issues entirely, and just have "Encouraging organisations to enhance their own cooperation with other stakeholders and to report to the CSTD on their progress" stand as an implicit alternative to making no institutional changes.

On a related matter, I am quite uncomfortable with  "a new umbrella governance institution for Internet policy development."   The notion of an "umbrella" body with authority over global policy development seems wholly disconnected from the realities of the distributed institutional architecture of global IG.  The verbal imagery conjures up an arrangement in which all the various governance actors and processes somehow feed up into and are overseen by some sort of über alles entity, presumably the sort of UN-based Council of high priests that the IGC rejected back in the WGIG days.  There's a pretty broad array of questions that would have to be worked through on this, starting with to what exactly would this be a solution—is a lack of UN top down coordination and control really the main problem from a global public interest standpoint?  Mechanisms that promote info/knowledge aggregation/analysis/sharing & dialogue——observatories, light working groups, the IGF itself—on a holistic, cross-cutting basis make sense to me, but proposing new hierarchies of supreme authority that have already rightly been rejected does not.

Rather than fixing on one (IMO archaic) model, why not a more open sentence like, "establishing new governance arrangements designed to address any pressing public policy matters that cannot be managed through existing institutions, with space for…"

Best,

Bill


***********************************************************
William J. Drake
Senior Associate
Centre for International Governance
Graduate Institute of International and
 Development Studies
Geneva, Switzerland
william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch
www.williamdrake.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 jeremy at ciroap.org  Tue Nov  9 22:39:53 2010
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 11:39:53 +0800
Subject: [governance] FOURTH DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <FF17B3D0-1B79-4DC1-8989-61D5906A68B5@graduateinstitute.ch>
References: <296C93D0-7172-4DC7-8185-1DEAAA564B4D@ciroap.org> <C8FF513F.134DD%ian.peter@ianpeter.com> <AANLkTinr_q0Wr3ohs_V0qTXV=+yNTo4yGwbLvRXd1XD4@mail.gmail.com> <99DF9064-BD4E-4132-8BA5-37A259A95432@ciroap.org> <AANLkTikBXqN+gkunRqk1LtU0eiSe0BEUsWB+3di5davY@mail.gmail.com> <177224C1-0E5F-4060-B1EE-C8E3D9FFEED4@ciroap.org> <825A60A5-0E32-4222-9111-D26F0CE4ADC2@psg.com> <D1D28ADF-2B6F-4633-B099-750DF2B83C6E@st-kilda.org> <FF17B3D0-1B79-4DC1-8989-61D5906A68B5@graduateinstitute.ch>
Message-ID: <32974073-59CF-4894-B34D-C851C23A5B62@ciroap.org>

On 10/11/2010, at 10:03 AM, William Drake wrote:

>>> I think your way of describing might be a bit prejudicial.
>>> I support the 'do no harm while supporting the existing efforts' clause as defined by McTim.
>> 
>> +1 to the points above.
>> 
>> However it should be be there as an option.
> 
> I agree that the existing efforts should be supported/encouraged and certainly cannot be characterized as "do nothing."

OK, in the next draft will add this back and also massage the language of the "new umbrella governance institution" option as suggested here by Bill.

Any other final suggestions for the version that goes to a consensus call?

-- 
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 --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101110/60ac6748/attachment.bin>

From dogwallah at gmail.com  Tue Nov  9 22:56:33 2010
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 06:56:33 +0300
Subject: [governance] FOURTH DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <FF17B3D0-1B79-4DC1-8989-61D5906A68B5@graduateinstitute.ch>
References: <296C93D0-7172-4DC7-8185-1DEAAA564B4D@ciroap.org>
 <C8FF513F.134DD%ian.peter@ianpeter.com> <AANLkTinr_q0Wr3ohs_V0qTXV=+yNTo4yGwbLvRXd1XD4@mail.gmail.com>
 <99DF9064-BD4E-4132-8BA5-37A259A95432@ciroap.org> <AANLkTikBXqN+gkunRqk1LtU0eiSe0BEUsWB+3di5davY@mail.gmail.com>
 <177224C1-0E5F-4060-B1EE-C8E3D9FFEED4@ciroap.org> <825A60A5-0E32-4222-9111-D26F0CE4ADC2@psg.com>
 <D1D28ADF-2B6F-4633-B099-750DF2B83C6E@st-kilda.org> <FF17B3D0-1B79-4DC1-8989-61D5906A68B5@graduateinstitute.ch>
Message-ID: <AANLkTikHNohCur7e7zZLhKX5AnpymGTghuM1Gd-JbiQn@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 5:03 AM, William Drake
<william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> A late intervention due to travels offline:
>
> On Nov 10, 2010, at 9:58 AM, Fearghas McKay wrote:
>
>>
>> On 10 Nov 2010, at 00:06, Avri Doria wrote:
>>
>>> I think your way of describing might be a bit prejudicial.
>>> I support the 'do no harm while supporting the existing efforts' clause as defined by McTim.
>>
>> +1 to the points above.
>>
>> However it should be be there as an option.
>
> I agree that the existing efforts should be supported/encouraged and certainly cannot be characterized as "do nothing."  To reflect the diversity of views in the caucus and have a connection to the realities on the ground, l world think McTim's line needs to be included.  Perhaps we could square the circle by conditioning it a little, i.e. ""making no institutional changes UNLESS THERE IS AGREEMENT ON THE NEED TO DO SO

WSIS showed us there was no clear agreement.

 but encouraging organisations to enhance their own cooperation with
other stakeholders and to report to the CSTD on their progress."
Alternatively, we could decouple the issues entirely, and just have
"Encouraging organisations to enhance their own cooperation with other
stakeholders and to report to the CSTD on their progress" stand as an
implicit alternative to making no institutional changes.


I prefer the latter.

>
> On a related matter, I am quite uncomfortable with  "a new umbrella governance institution for Internet policy development."

Agreed.

The notion of an "umbrella" body with authority over global policy
development seems wholly disconnected from the realities of the
distributed institutional architecture of global IG.  The verbal
imagery conjures up an arrangement in which all the various governance
actors and processes somehow feed up into and are overseen by some
sort of über alles entity, presumably the sort of UN-based Council of
high priests that the IGC rejected back in the WGIG days.

Exactly!

  There's a pretty broad array of questions that would have to be
worked through on this, starting with to what exactly would this be a
solution—is a lack of UN top down coordination and control really the
main problem from a global public interest standpoint?  Mechanisms
that promote info/knowledge aggregation/analysis/sharing &
dialogue——observatories, light working groups, the IGF itself—on a
holistic, cross-cutting basis make sense to me, but proposing new
hierarchies of supreme authority that have already rightly been
rejected does not.

Agreed

>
> Rather than fixing on one (IMO archaic) model, why not a more open sentence like, "establishing new governance arrangements designed to address any pressing public policy matters that cannot be managed through existing institutions, with space for…"

this is better.

-- 
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 dogwallah at gmail.com  Tue Nov  9 22:57:28 2010
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 06:57:28 +0300
Subject: [governance] FOURTH DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <32974073-59CF-4894-B34D-C851C23A5B62@ciroap.org>
References: <296C93D0-7172-4DC7-8185-1DEAAA564B4D@ciroap.org>
 <C8FF513F.134DD%ian.peter@ianpeter.com> <AANLkTinr_q0Wr3ohs_V0qTXV=+yNTo4yGwbLvRXd1XD4@mail.gmail.com>
 <99DF9064-BD4E-4132-8BA5-37A259A95432@ciroap.org> <AANLkTikBXqN+gkunRqk1LtU0eiSe0BEUsWB+3di5davY@mail.gmail.com>
 <177224C1-0E5F-4060-B1EE-C8E3D9FFEED4@ciroap.org> <825A60A5-0E32-4222-9111-D26F0CE4ADC2@psg.com>
 <D1D28ADF-2B6F-4633-B099-750DF2B83C6E@st-kilda.org> <FF17B3D0-1B79-4DC1-8989-61D5906A68B5@graduateinstitute.ch>
 <32974073-59CF-4894-B34D-C851C23A5B62@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <AANLkTinpb3MtsdNgk6Fky_KnLW==71H7Prv0SyCxefXh@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 6:39 AM, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:
> On 10/11/2010, at 10:03 AM, William Drake wrote:
>
>>>> I think your way of describing might be a bit prejudicial.
>>>> I support the 'do no harm while supporting the existing efforts' clause as defined by McTim.
>>>
>>> +1 to the points above.
>>>
>>> However it should be be there as an option.
>>
>> I agree that the existing efforts should be supported/encouraged and certainly cannot be characterized as "do nothing."
>
> OK, in the next draft will add this back and also massage the language of the "new umbrella governance institution" option as suggested here by Bill.
>
> Any other final suggestions for the version that goes to a consensus call?

Can you answer my query about the "new mandate" language?

>
> --
> 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.
>
>



-- 
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 parminder at itforchange.net  Tue Nov  9 23:56:11 2010
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 10:26:11 +0530
Subject: [governance] Re: SECOND DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <7946904A-0B6C-4A9D-8819-6D144189DFE3@ciroap.org>
References: <16575653.27390.1289214449991.JavaMail.www@wwinf1j04> <4CD7F44D.6010605@itforchange.net> <4CD80DF7.30807@itforchange.net> <7946904A-0B6C-4A9D-8819-6D144189DFE3@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <4CDA25EB.4050408@itforchange.net>



On Monday 08 November 2010 08:59 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> On 08/11/2010, at 9:49 PM, parminder wrote:
>
>> To make it clearer, I prefer we give our response to EC consultation 
>> under four different parts
>
> I'm not sure it is will be feasible to get such a radical reworking of 
> the existing text through to consensus by Friday, which is when I'd 
> been planning to put the text I'd been working on to a consensus call.
Jeremy

These two distinctions and separations that elucidate the enhanced 
cooperation concept was an important aspect of Tunis Agenda. We need to 
build on them rather than regress from them. The present draft 
statement, as I see it, does in fact regress on these distinctions. I 
would not be part of such a regressive statement. By not saying many 
things and by confusing other things the statement says much. That is 
how it will be read, that would be taken as the political position of 
the IGC. And I do not agree with it, and strongly oppose it.

Cant see for instance how can we say, "The IGF in its present form is a 
very important part of the enhanced cooperation process" (from the 
draft) when we have already said in Vilnius that EC and IGF are distinct 
processes, and this is also said in the ECOSOC resolution. I proposed 
this issues may be perhaps be addressed by making a distinction between 
broader   'conditions creating' process for EC(as per TA) and the core 
process of EC. In fact we should say as we said in Vilnius that EC and 
IGF are distinct but complementary processes. In my understanding of the 
language I cant see how one thing can be  a part of another and also 
complementary to it.

Also I cannot see when giving our statement on EC we can skirt all core 
substantive issues and basically just say - 'whatever you do civil 
society should be there'. That is all I really see said in this 
statement. How , for instance, in an EC statement, at a crucial moment 
where very substantive inputs on what EC means and how to take it 
forward, are being sought,  can we not mention what the whole world 
outside (largely) strongly feels, in my opinion, ' that the US 
supervisory role on CIR management is completely unacceptable to the 
world community' and that this role should immediately be ceded to a 
global body with multistakeholder representation. If we are not able to 
muster enough political will to say this thing, which thing in fact got 
said many times even around the WSIS, I cant be a party to this 
regeressive non-statement.

Also when the marginalized countries and groups are right now suffering 
such deep and extensive exclusion from the way the digital phenomenon - 
the globally applicable policies and the corporate driven digital 
architecture design - is being shaped in the North by powerful corporate 
and state actors, largely a collusion of them - how can we not comment 
on such an exclusion, which 'the real issue' that the EC process is 
supposed to or should address. We must mention what is happening through 
ACTA kind of plurilateral process to the exclusion of all others. 
Silence in an IGC statement on such all-important aspects, which is the 
real stuff that bothers most progressives civil society actors outside 
this charmed circle of IG specialists is not acceptable. Such a 
statement will  not do any credit to the IGC, and will further increase 
the political distance that IGC kind of CS groups have from mainstream 
progressive civil society.

So, well, I cannot support the present statement. I am strongly against 
it being sent on IGC behalf.

(Sorry if some of my responses are not prompt enough, am traveling and 
very time and connectivity constrained)

Parminder





> Partly this is because I am travelling from tomorrow.
>
> But if you think it is feasible and have time, then can you please 
> propose some text?  I suggest that it would be made available in 
> parallel to the existing text, so that people can choose one of the 
> other if and when the consensus call is made.
>
> Meanwhile I will send around a fourth draft of the existing text 
> tomorrow, incorporating the latest comments, but a less ambitious 
> reworking than what you propose.
>
> -- 
>
> *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.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101110/bbc1b6aa/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From jeremy at ciroap.org  Wed Nov 10 00:54:01 2010
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 13:54:01 +0800
Subject: [governance] Re: SECOND DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <4CDA25EB.4050408@itforchange.net>
References: <16575653.27390.1289214449991.JavaMail.www@wwinf1j04> <4CD7F44D.6010605@itforchange.net> <4CD80DF7.30807@itforchange.net> <7946904A-0B6C-4A9D-8819-6D144189DFE3@ciroap.org> <4CDA25EB.4050408@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <72A36238-6BA4-429E-8027-E0E77EDCEE5C@ciroap.org>

On 10/11/2010, at 12:56 PM, parminder wrote:

> Also I cannot see when giving our statement on EC we can skirt all core substantive issues and basically just say - 'whatever you do civil society should be there'. That is all I really see said in this statement. How , for instance, in an EC statement, at a crucial moment where very substantive inputs on what EC means and how to take it forward, are being sought,  can we not mention what the whole world outside (largely) strongly feels, in my opinion, ' that the US supervisory role on CIR management is completely unacceptable to the world community' and that this role should immediately be ceded to a global body with multistakeholder representation. If we are not able to muster enough political will to say this thing, which thing in fact got said many times even around the WSIS, I cant be a party to this regeressive non-statement.

Simply because the statement is pitched at a higher level than the specific cases of CIR and ACTA that you mention.  But, in a hope to get closer to something you would be satisfied with, will incorporate these issues somehow into the next draft, hopefully tonight.

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

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

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101110/9015482c/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101110/9015482c/attachment.bin>

From jeremy at ciroap.org  Wed Nov 10 01:02:06 2010
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 14:02:06 +0800
Subject: [governance] FOURTH DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinpb3MtsdNgk6Fky_KnLW==71H7Prv0SyCxefXh@mail.gmail.com>
References: <296C93D0-7172-4DC7-8185-1DEAAA564B4D@ciroap.org> <C8FF513F.134DD%ian.peter@ianpeter.com> <AANLkTinr_q0Wr3ohs_V0qTXV=+yNTo4yGwbLvRXd1XD4@mail.gmail.com> <99DF9064-BD4E-4132-8BA5-37A259A95432@ciroap.org> <AANLkTikBXqN+gkunRqk1LtU0eiSe0BEUsWB+3di5davY@mail.gmail.com> <177224C1-0E5F-4060-B1EE-C8E3D9FFEED4@ciroap.org> <825A60A5-0E32-4222-9111-D26F0CE4ADC2@psg.com> <D1D28ADF-2B6F-4633-B099-750DF2B83C6E@st-kilda.org> <FF17B3D0-1B79-4DC1-8989-61D5906A68B5@graduateinstitute.ch> <32974073-59CF-4894-B34D-C851C23A5B62@ciroap.org> <AANLkTinpb3MtsdNgk6Fky_KnLW==71H7Prv0SyCxefXh@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <D1BDB389-C3CA-4F84-9EF1-13C31C3048CA@ciroap.org>

On 10/11/2010, at 11:57 AM, McTim wrote:

>> Any other final suggestions for the version that goes to a consensus call?
> 
> Can you answer my query about the "new mandate" language?
...
> I also object to the "a new and supplementary mandate." language.
> Where did that come from? Who would give such a mandate tot eh IGF?


It could be an outcome of the Enhanced Cooperation consultations.  Some suggest we should be strongly pushing for a new multi-stakeholder policy-making institution (eg. Parminder), and others (eg. Marilia, and me if I was not trying to be an impartial coordinator) see this body as being part of the IGF.  If so, this would require the "new and supplementary mandate".

Anyway, I can see that this is not going to make it into a consensus statement, so I'm going to be toning down the language as discussed.

-- 
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 --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101110/8d3748d2/attachment.bin>

From jeanette at wzb.eu  Wed Nov 10 03:45:26 2010
From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 09:45:26 +0100
Subject: [governance] FOURTH DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <FF17B3D0-1B79-4DC1-8989-61D5906A68B5@graduateinstitute.ch>
References: <296C93D0-7172-4DC7-8185-1DEAAA564B4D@ciroap.org> <C8FF513F.134DD%ian.peter@ianpeter.com> <AANLkTinr_q0Wr3ohs_V0qTXV=+yNTo4yGwbLvRXd1XD4@mail.gmail.com> <99DF9064-BD4E-4132-8BA5-37A259A95432@ciroap.org> <AANLkTikBXqN+gkunRqk1LtU0eiSe0BEUsWB+3di5davY@mail.gmail.com> <177224C1-0E5F-4060-B1EE-C8E3D9FFEED4@ciroap.org> <825A60A5-0E32-4222-9111-D26F0CE4ADC2@psg.com> <D1D28ADF-2B6F-4633-B099-750DF2B83C6E@st-kilda.org> <FF17B3D0-1B79-4DC1-8989-61D5906A68B5@graduateinstitute.ch>
Message-ID: <4CDA5BA6.5060202@wzb.eu>

Hi,

I support having the 'do no harm while supporting the existing efforts' 
clause in the statement.

I also prefer Bill's wording below over the umbrella language in the 
current draft statement.

jeanette



On 10.11.2010 03:03, William Drake wrote:
> Hello,
>
> A late intervention due to travels offline:
>
> On Nov 10, 2010, at 9:58 AM, Fearghas McKay wrote:
>
>>
>> On 10 Nov 2010, at 00:06, Avri Doria wrote:
>>
>>> I think your way of describing might be a bit prejudicial.
>>> I support the 'do no harm while supporting the existing efforts' clause as defined by McTim.
>>
>> +1 to the points above.
>>
>> However it should be be there as an option.
>
> I agree that the existing efforts should be supported/encouraged and certainly cannot be characterized as "do nothing."  To reflect the diversity of views in the caucus and have a connection to the realities on the ground, l world think McTim's line needs to be included.  Perhaps we could square the circle by conditioning it a little, i.e. ""making no institutional changes UNLESS THERE IS AGREEMENT ON THE NEED TO DO SO but encouraging organisations to enhance their own cooperation with other stakeholders and to report to the CSTD on their progress."  Alternatively, we could decouple the issues entirely, and just have "Encouraging organisations to enhance their own cooperation with other stakeholders and to report to the CSTD on their progress" stand as an implicit alternative to making no institutional changes.
>
> On a related matter, I am quite uncomfortable with  "a new umbrella governance institution for Internet policy development."   The notion of an "umbrella" body with authority over global policy development seems wholly disconnected from the realities of the distributed institutional architecture of global IG.  The verbal imagery conjures up an arrangement in which all the various governance actors and processes somehow feed up into and are overseen by some sort of über alles entity, presumably the sort of UN-based Council of high priests that the IGC rejected back in the WGIG days.  There's a pretty broad array of questions that would have to be worked through on this, starting with to what exactly would this be a solution—is a lack of UN top down coordination and control really the main problem from a global public interest standpoint?  Mechanisms that promote info/knowledge aggregation/analysis/sharing&  dialogue——observatories, light working groups, the IGF itself—on a 
holistic, cross-cutting basis make sense to me, but proposing new hierarchies of supreme authority that have already rightly been rejected does not.
>
> Rather than fixing on one (IMO archaic) model, why not a more open sentence like, "establishing new governance arrangements designed to address any pressing public policy matters that cannot be managed through existing institutions, with space for…"
>
> Best,
>
> Bill
>
>
> ***********************************************************
> William J. Drake
> Senior Associate
> Centre for International Governance
> Graduate Institute of International and
>   Development Studies
> Geneva, Switzerland
> william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch
> www.williamdrake.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 dogwallah at gmail.com  Wed Nov 10 03:57:58 2010
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 11:57:58 +0300
Subject: [governance] FOURTH DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <D1BDB389-C3CA-4F84-9EF1-13C31C3048CA@ciroap.org>
References: <296C93D0-7172-4DC7-8185-1DEAAA564B4D@ciroap.org>
 <C8FF513F.134DD%ian.peter@ianpeter.com> <AANLkTinr_q0Wr3ohs_V0qTXV=+yNTo4yGwbLvRXd1XD4@mail.gmail.com>
 <99DF9064-BD4E-4132-8BA5-37A259A95432@ciroap.org> <AANLkTikBXqN+gkunRqk1LtU0eiSe0BEUsWB+3di5davY@mail.gmail.com>
 <177224C1-0E5F-4060-B1EE-C8E3D9FFEED4@ciroap.org> <825A60A5-0E32-4222-9111-D26F0CE4ADC2@psg.com>
 <D1D28ADF-2B6F-4633-B099-750DF2B83C6E@st-kilda.org> <FF17B3D0-1B79-4DC1-8989-61D5906A68B5@graduateinstitute.ch>
 <32974073-59CF-4894-B34D-C851C23A5B62@ciroap.org> <AANLkTinpb3MtsdNgk6Fky_KnLW==71H7Prv0SyCxefXh@mail.gmail.com>
 <D1BDB389-C3CA-4F84-9EF1-13C31C3048CA@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=dWBS+WxQtBJo76dwW3Hyc4TeaACjaMdxEN4ZM@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 9:02 AM, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:
> On 10/11/2010, at 11:57 AM, McTim wrote:
>
>>> Any other final suggestions for the version that goes to a consensus call?
>>
>> Can you answer my query about the "new mandate" language?
> ...
>> I also object to the "a new and supplementary mandate." language.
>> Where did that come from? Who would give such a mandate tot eh IGF?
>
>
> It could be an outcome of the Enhanced Cooperation
consultations.

Could it? It took a UN Summit to prepare the current mandate.  Would a
"consultation" have the authority to formally mandate the IGF to take
on other tasks?

Some suggest we should be strongly pushing for a new multi-stakeholder
policy-making institution (eg. Parminder), and others (eg. Marilia,
and me if I was not trying to be an impartial coordinator) see this
body as being part of the IGF.  If so, this would require the "new and
supplementary mandate".

IF IGF was created by WSIS, then wouldn't it be expected that WSIS
2015 would have to change that mandate?

>
> Anyway, I can see that this is not going to make it into a consensus statement, so I'm going to be toning down the language as discussed.

Thank you.

-- 
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 parminder at itforchange.net  Wed Nov 10 04:37:19 2010
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 15:07:19 +0530
Subject: [governance] Re: SECOND DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <72A36238-6BA4-429E-8027-E0E77EDCEE5C@ciroap.org>
References: <16575653.27390.1289214449991.JavaMail.www@wwinf1j04> <4CD7F44D.6010605@itforchange.net> <4CD80DF7.30807@itforchange.net> <7946904A-0B6C-4A9D-8819-6D144189DFE3@ciroap.org> <4CDA25EB.4050408@itforchange.net> <72A36238-6BA4-429E-8027-E0E77EDCEE5C@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <4CDA67CF.101@itforchange.net>



On Wednesday 10 November 2010 11:24 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> On 10/11/2010, at 12:56 PM, parminder wrote:
>
>> Also I cannot see when giving our statement on EC we can skirt all 
>> core substantive issues and basically just say - 'whatever you do 
>> civil society should be there'. That is all I really see said in this 
>> statement. How , for instance, in an EC statement, at a crucial 
>> moment where very substantive inputs on what EC means and how to take 
>> it forward, are being sought,  can we not mention what the whole 
>> world outside (largely) strongly feels, in my opinion, ' that the US 
>> supervisory role on CIR management is completely unacceptable to the 
>> world community' and that this role should immediately be ceded to a 
>> global body with multistakeholder representation. If we are not able 
>> to muster enough political will to say this thing, which thing in 
>> fact got said many times even around the WSIS, I cant be a party to 
>> this regeressive non-statement.
>
> Simply because the statement is pitched at a higher level than the 
> specific cases of CIR and ACTA that you mention.  But, in a hope to 
> get closer to something you would be satisfied with, will incorporate 
> these issues somehow into the next draft, hopefully tonight.
Jeremy, Not that simple. the CIR management regime issue was key to both 
what happened at the WSIS and what is happening now in the discussion on 
this list, whether explicit or not....

And ACTA is mentioned not as 'an issue'  but a symptom of the main 
problem of the need  for democratic global Internet related public 
policy making processes (in non CIR areas as well as in CIR, but it is 
helpful to understand them separately) that is the very rationale of the 
EC process. This is to help elucidate the 'main issue' that needs to be 
engaged with in an EC discussion. We are not engaging with the rational 
and purpose of EC, and only saying if anything happens CS should be 
there. Parminder

>
> -- 
>
> *Jeremy Malcolm
> Project Coordinator*
> Consumers International
> Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East
> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, 
> Malaysia
> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
>
> *CI is 50*
> Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement 
> in 2010.
> Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect 
> consumer rights around the world.
> _http://www.consumersinternational.org/50_
>
> Read our email confidentiality notice 
> <http://www.consumersinternational.org/Templates/Internal.asp?NodeID=100521&int1stParentNodeID=89765>. 
> Don't print this email unless necessary.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101110/0a85a192/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From parminder at itforchange.net  Wed Nov 10 04:47:00 2010
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 15:17:00 +0530
Subject: [governance] FOURTH DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <FF17B3D0-1B79-4DC1-8989-61D5906A68B5@graduateinstitute.ch>
References: <296C93D0-7172-4DC7-8185-1DEAAA564B4D@ciroap.org> <C8FF513F.134DD%ian.peter@ianpeter.com> <AANLkTinr_q0Wr3ohs_V0qTXV=+yNTo4yGwbLvRXd1XD4@mail.gmail.com> <99DF9064-BD4E-4132-8BA5-37A259A95432@ciroap.org> <AANLkTikBXqN+gkunRqk1LtU0eiSe0BEUsWB+3di5davY@mail.gmail.com> <177224C1-0E5F-4060-B1EE-C8E3D9FFEED4@ciroap.org> <825A60A5-0E32-4222-9111-D26F0CE4ADC2@psg.com> <D1D28ADF-2B6F-4633-B099-750DF2B83C6E@st-kilda.org> <FF17B3D0-1B79-4DC1-8989-61D5906A68B5@graduateinstitute.ch>
Message-ID: <4CDA6A14.1090605@itforchange.net>

I do not agree with Bill's suggestions for the changes.

For instance " "making no institutional changes UNLESS THERE IS 
AGREEMENT ON THE NEED TO DO SO "

Cant understand what that means, Bill, who all's agreement will you 
consider as the required agreement ?

This new model of governance where everyone, including whose 'power' may 
be sought to be regulated, is in my view a strange one. Remember, the 
earlier discussion on health insurance policies in the US, and the issue 
of all agreeing to things before they become policy.

Parminder


On Wednesday 10 November 2010 07:33 AM, William Drake wrote:
> Hello,
>
> A late intervention due to travels offline:
>
> On Nov 10, 2010, at 9:58 AM, Fearghas McKay wrote:
>
>    
>> On 10 Nov 2010, at 00:06, Avri Doria wrote:
>>
>>      
>>> I think your way of describing might be a bit prejudicial.
>>> I support the 'do no harm while supporting the existing efforts' clause as defined by McTim.
>>>        
>> +1 to the points above.
>>
>> However it should be be there as an option.
>>      
> I agree that the existing efforts should be supported/encouraged and certainly cannot be characterized as "do nothing."  To reflect the diversity of views in the caucus and have a connection to the realities on the ground, l world think McTim's line needs to be included.  Perhaps we could square the circle by conditioning it a little, i.e. ""making no institutional changes UNLESS THERE IS AGREEMENT ON THE NEED TO DO SO but encouraging organisations to enhance their own cooperation with other stakeholders and to report to the CSTD on their progress."  Alternatively, we could decouple the issues entirely, and just have "Encouraging organisations to enhance their own cooperation with other stakeholders and to report to the CSTD on their progress" stand as an implicit alternative to making no institutional changes.
>
> On a related matter, I am quite uncomfortable with  "a new umbrella governance institution for Internet policy development."   The notion of an "umbrella" body with authority over global policy development seems wholly disconnected from the realities of the distributed institutional architecture of global IG.  The verbal imagery conjures up an arrangement in which all the various governance actors and processes somehow feed up into and are overseen by some sort of über alles entity, presumably the sort of UN-based Council of high priests that the IGC rejected back in the WGIG days.  There's a pretty broad array of questions that would have to be worked through on this, starting with to what exactly would this be a solution—is a lack of UN top down coordination and control really the main problem from a global public interest standpoint?  Mechanisms that promote info/knowledge aggregation/analysis/sharing&  dialogue——observatories, light working groups, the IGF itself—on a holistic, cross-cutting basis make sense to me, but proposing new hierarchies of supreme authority that have already rightly been rejected does not.
>
> Rather than fixing on one (IMO archaic) model, why not a more open sentence like, "establishing new governance arrangements designed to address any pressing public policy matters that cannot be managed through existing institutions, with space for…"
>
> Best,
>
> Bill
>
>
> ***********************************************************
> William J. Drake
> Senior Associate
> Centre for International Governance
> Graduate Institute of International and
>   Development Studies
> Geneva, Switzerland
> william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch
> www.williamdrake.org
> ***********************************************************____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>       governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>       governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>       http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>    
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101110/b168d805/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From jeremy at ciroap.org  Wed Nov 10 05:52:53 2010
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 18:52:53 +0800
Subject: [governance] FOURTH DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=dWBS+WxQtBJo76dwW3Hyc4TeaACjaMdxEN4ZM@mail.gmail.com>
References: <296C93D0-7172-4DC7-8185-1DEAAA564B4D@ciroap.org> <C8FF513F.134DD%ian.peter@ianpeter.com> <AANLkTinr_q0Wr3ohs_V0qTXV=+yNTo4yGwbLvRXd1XD4@mail.gmail.com> <99DF9064-BD4E-4132-8BA5-37A259A95432@ciroap.org> <AANLkTikBXqN+gkunRqk1LtU0eiSe0BEUsWB+3di5davY@mail.gmail.com> <177224C1-0E5F-4060-B1EE-C8E3D9FFEED4@ciroap.org> <825A60A5-0E32-4222-9111-D26F0CE4ADC2@psg.com> <D1D28ADF-2B6F-4633-B099-750DF2B83C6E@st-kilda.org> <FF17B3D0-1B79-4DC1-8989-61D5906A68B5@graduateinstitute.ch> <32974073-59CF-4894-B34D-C851C23A5B62@ciroap.org> <AANLkTinpb3MtsdNgk6Fky_KnLW==71H7Prv0SyCxefXh@mail.gmail.com> <D1BDB389-C3CA-4F84-9EF1-13C31C3048CA@ciroap.org> <AANLkTi=dWBS+WxQtBJo76dwW3Hyc4TeaACjaMdxEN4ZM@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <C03ECDD2-A72D-45DF-9471-770F39BD0D43@ciroap.org>

On 10/11/2010, at 4:57 PM, McTim wrote:

>>> I also object to the "a new and supplementary mandate." language.
>>> Where did that come from? Who would give such a mandate tot eh IGF?
>> 
>> 
>> It could be an outcome of the Enhanced Cooperation consultations.
> 
> Could it? It took a UN Summit to prepare the current mandate.  Would a
> "consultation" have the authority to formally mandate the IGF to take
> on other tasks?

No but the consultation would lead to a recommendation to the UN General Assembly, which would have the authority to do so.  Aren't we half-expecting that soon anyway?

> IF IGF was created by WSIS, then wouldn't it be expected that WSIS
> 2015 would have to change that mandate?

Sure, that would work too.

Actually the ability to make non-binding decisions on Internet public policy issues (and even to draft, but not to conclude, treaties) is already well within the current mandate of the IGF... but of course the reality is that the IGF would never attempt such a thing without being forced to by a mandate change.

-- 
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 --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101110/5e921768/attachment.bin>

From miguel.alcaine at gmail.com  Wed Nov 10 09:24:12 2010
From: miguel.alcaine at gmail.com (Miguel Alcaine)
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 15:24:12 +0100
Subject: [governance] FOURTH DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <296C93D0-7172-4DC7-8185-1DEAAA564B4D@ciroap.org>
References: <296C93D0-7172-4DC7-8185-1DEAAA564B4D@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <AANLkTik_4-oazn0ng91AGkWvoGNk1xXkKJPkpcOP2wYV@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all,

Please find below my suggestions in the text, which is easier for me to
follow, incorporating suggestions from some of you which I support and
trying to take into account everything said.




--- begins ---



The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (CS-IGC) regards the process
towards enhanced cooperation as a vital step towards addressing the "many
cross-cutting international public policy issues that require attention and
are not adequately addressed by the current mechanisms" (Tunis Agenda para
68).





Despite an intergovernmental mandate from WSIS to address this governance
deficit *and even recognizing that some steps have been taken towards
Enhanced Cooperation*, much remains to be done.  It is imperative that this
deficit continue to be addressed, where appropriate through new
institutional developments that comply with the WSIS process criteria of
being multilateral, transparent, democratic and inclusive.



[COMMENT: Amendment to capture the idea shared by some and not shared by
some others that something has happened on Enhanced Cooperation. I consider
the IGFa good example of enhanced cooperation in some respects.]





We make three further points. First, enhanced cooperation should encompass
all Internet-related public policy issues; second, many of our members
believe the existing arrangements of relevant organisations (including the
Internet Governance Forum) do not fully implement enhanced cooperation, and
thirdly whatever new arrangements may be put in place, civil society must
play an integral part in them, as one of the prerequisites for their
legitimacy.



These points will be explained in turn:



1. Although much of the discussion of enhanced cooperation at WSIS turned
around the narrow issue of internationalising the oversight of Internet
naming and numbering functions, the Tunis Agenda expresses this principle
far more broadly to include other substantive Internet related public policy
issues that require attention and resolution at *all levels,
particularly*the global level.
It also reminds us that the ultimate objective of our cooperation is to
advance a people-centred, inclusive, development-oriented and
non-discriminatory Information Society.



[COMMENT: EC has to happen at all levels, but the consultation is mainly
towards the global and to some extent to the regional level. The national
level was intentionally left out of the international mechanisms]



2. The IGF in its present form is a very important part of the enhanced
cooperation process, in that its multi-stakeholder process can provide input
to shape decisions taken on Internet related public policy issues in other
fora.  However the full realisation of enhanced cooperation will require a
multi-stakeholder process to extend to all other Internet governance
organisations, whether new or established.



If institutional changes are to be made, there are various options for
enhancing multi-stakeholder cooperation within and amongst all relevant
organisations (which may be complementary).  These include:



* establishing a lightweight multi-stakeholder observatory process perhaps
hosted under the auspices of the IGF (pursuant to its mandate in paragraph
72(i));



* utilising a virtual and voluntary global social community or ecosystem,
linking together all Internet governance organisations, in which all
stakeholders would participate;



* encouraging organisations to enhance their own cooperation with other
stakeholders*, to take full advantage of the IGF,* and to report to the CSTD
on their progress; or



[COMMENT: Text is following Bill’s idea. CS should seek to preserve and
strengthen the space gained in the CSTD]



* establishing a new *governance arrangement* for Internet policy
development, with space for the full participation of each stakeholder group
in its respective role. [COMMENT: I suggest a mix between the original text
and text suggested by Bill.

I suggest to add the IGF to the previous point and take it away from here
for the time being. If  IGF remains in this paragraph, it is not necessary
to say here that it is through a new and supplementary mandate. Actually, if
it is contained in a General Assembly resolution, it will become part of the
mandate event without containing the word “mandate”



The other current spaces where this can take place as already pointed out by
Ian Peter is ICANN and ITU.



Another place where it has occurred is in the Council of Europe. However, to
have some actors (a closed group) negotiating binding instruments, and
opening afterwards such instruments to anybody else creates unneeded
barriers of acceptance, inclusiveness, universality, transparency, openness,
among others]





3. Paragraph 71 of the Tunis Agenda makes very clear that civil society is
an integral participant in the development of any process towards enhanced
cooperation.  Therefore the IGC, in our capacity as members of civil
society, looks forward to contributing constructively in transparent,
accountable and democratic multi-stakeholder consultations towards this end.





--- ends ---


On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 1:35 AM, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:

> This incorporates all comments on the third draft, and I would like us to
> try to contribute all final comments within the next couple of days, so that
> we can put the final text to a consensus call.  I realise that,
> unfortunately, the text may not satisfy all of those without outlying views.
>  A reminder that the deadline for our submission is Monday.
>
> In addition to the plain text version, I have marked up version below, for
> those with graphical email clients or access to the Web archive.
>
> --- begins ---
>
> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (CS-IGC) regards the process
> towards enhanced cooperation as a vital step towards addressing the "many
> cross-cutting international public policy issues that require attention and
> are not adequately addressed by the current mechanisms" (Tunis Agenda para
> 68).
>
> Despite an intergovernmental mandate from WSIS to address this governance
> deficit, much remains to be done.  It is imperative that this deficit
> continue to be addressed, where appropriate through new institutional
> developments that comply with the WSIS process criteria of being
> multilateral, transparent, democratic and inclusive.
>
> We make three further points.  First, enhanced cooperation should encompass
> all Internet-related public policy issues; second, many of our members
> believe the existing arrangements of relevant organisations (including the
> Internet Governance Forum) do not fully implement enhanced cooperation, and
> thirdly whatever new arrangements may be put in place, civil society must
> play an integral part in them, as one of the prerequisites for their
> legitimacy.
>
> These points will be explained in turn:
>
> 1. Although much of the discussion of enhanced cooperation at WSIS turned
> around the narrow issue of internationalising the oversight of Internet
> naming and numbering functions, the Tunis Agenda expresses this principle
> far more broadly to include other substantive Internet related public
> policy issues that require attention and resolution at the global level.
>  It also reminds us that the ultimate objective of our cooperation is to
> advance a people-centred, inclusive, development-oriented and
> non-discriminatory Information Society.
>
> 2. The IGF in its present form is a very important part of the enhanced
> cooperation process, in that its multi-stakeholder process can provide input
> to shape decisions taken on Internet related public policy issues in other
> fora.  However the full realisation of enhanced cooperation will require a
> multi-stakeholder process to extend to all other Internet governance
> organisations, whether new or established.
>
> If institutional changes are to be made, there are various options for
> enhancing multi-stakeholder cooperation within and amongst all relevant
> organisations (which may be complementary).  These include:
>
> * establishing a lightweight multi-stakeholder observatory process perhaps
> hosted under the auspices of the IGF (pursuant to its mandate in paragraph
> 72(i));
>
> * utilising a virtual and voluntary global social community or ecosystem,
> linking together all Internet governance organisations, in which all
> stakeholders would participate; or
>
> * establishing a new umbrella governance institution for Internet policy
> development, with space for the full participation of each stakeholder group
> in its respective role.  This might also be situated within the IGF, but
> pursuant to a new and supplementary mandate.
>
> 3. Paragraph 71 of the Tunis Agenda makes very clear that civil society is
> an integral participant in the development of any process towards enhanced
> cooperation.  Therefore the IGC, in our capacity as members of civil
> society, looks forward to contributing constructively in transparent,
> accountable and democratic multi-stakeholder consultations towards this end.
>
> --- ends ---
>
> Marked up version follows:
>
>  The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (CS-IGC) regards the process
> towards enhanced cooperation as a vital step towards addressing the "many
> cross-cutting international public policy issues that require attention and
> are not adequately addressed by the current mechanisms" (Tunis Agenda para
> 68).
>
> Despite an intergovernmental mandate from WSIS to address this governance
> deficit, much remains to be done.  It is imperative that this deficit
> continue to be addressed, where appropriate through new institutional
> developments that comply with the WSIS process criteria of being
> multilateral, transparent, democratic and inclusive.
>
> We make three further points.  First, enhanced cooperation should encompass
> all Internet-related public policy issues; second, *many of our members
> believe* the existing arrangements of relevant organisations (including
> the Internet Governance Forum) do not fully implement enhanced cooperation,
> and thirdly whatever new arrangements may be put in place, civil society
> must play an integral part in them*, as one of the prerequisites for their
> legitimacy*.
>
> These points will be explained in turn:
>
> 1. Although much of the discussion of enhanced cooperation at WSIS turned
> around the narrow issue of internationalising the oversight of Internet
> naming and numbering functions, the Tunis Agenda expresses this principle
> far more broadly *to include **other substantive Internet related public
> policy issues that require attention and resolution at the global level*.
>  It also reminds us that the ultimate objective of our cooperation is to
> advance a people-centred, inclusive, development-oriented and
> non-discriminatory Information Society.
>
> 2. The IGF in its present form is a very important part of the enhanced
> cooperation process, in that ideally its multi-stakeholder process can help
> *provide input to* shape decisions taken on Internet related public policy
> issues in other fora.  However the full realisation of enhanced cooperation
> will require a multi-stakeholder process to extend to all
> other Internet governance organisations*, whether new or established *that
> do not already follow this model.
>
> *If institutional changes are to be made,* there are various options for
> enhancing multi-stakeholder cooperation within and amongst all relevant
> organisations* (which may be complementary)*.  These include:
>
> * establishing a lightweight multi-stakeholder observatory process perhaps
> hosted under the auspices of the IGF (pursuant to its mandate in paragraph
> 72(i));
>
> * utilising a virtual and voluntary global social community or "social
> grid" *ecosystem*, linking together all Internet governance organisations,
> in which all stakeholders would participate; or
>
> * establishing a new umbrella governance institution for Internet policy
> development, with space for the full participation of each stakeholder group
> in its respective role.  *This might also be situated within the IGF, but
> pursuant to a new and supplementary mandate.*
>
> 3. Paragraph 71 of the Tunis Agenda makes very clear that civil society is
> an integral participant in the development of any process towards enhanced
> cooperation.  Therefore the IGC, in our capacity as members of civil
> society, looks forward to contributing constructively in transparent,
> accountable and democratic multi-stakeholder consultations towards this end.
>
> --
>
> *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.
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101110/11fa9341/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From jeremy at ciroap.org  Wed Nov 10 09:40:01 2010
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 22:40:01 +0800
Subject: [governance] FINAL? DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
Message-ID: <7E0ED935-470F-451E-B072-319351CAAD94@ciroap.org>

There is still active discussion about this statement, so excuse me labelling this as "final?", but we need to try to quickly wrap things up in order to meet our deadline of Monday.  You can still make comments which can be incorporated into the version that goes to a consensus call, but please try to make them minor and specific, if you can.

Please also try to remember that we are trying to craft a statement that will be acceptable by as many IGC members as possible, which - because we have such a wide diversity of views - probably means that nobody will find it completely to their satisfaction.  This is not to excuse the deficiencies in the statement, but just to ask for your tolerance. :-)  If there is no way that you can agree to the statement even with minor amendments, you can make this point, or just reject it at the poll.

This time, I just put the revision marks below, since I'm sure at least 90% of you can see them.  (Izumi and I have discussed putting together a proper collaborative editing environment for drafting statements, but this is still just a vague plan.)

--- begins ---

The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (CS-IGC) regards the process towards enhanced cooperation as a vital step towards addressing the "many cross-cutting international public policy issues that require attention and are not adequately addressed by the current mechanisms" (Tunis Agenda para 68).

Despite an intergovernmental mandate from WSIS to address this governance deficit, much remains to be done.  It is imperative that this deficit continue to be addressed, where appropriate through new institutional developments that comply with the WSIS process criteria of being multilateral, transparent, democratic and inclusive.

It is now especially critical that the global community give renewed attention to these principles, at a time when we see danger of them being forgotten - for example, in that a proposed Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement that will affect Internet users around the world (including the most marginalized), has been shaped almost entirely by powerful corporate and state actors from the global North.

We make three further points.  First, enhanced cooperation should encompass all Internet-related public policy issues; second, many of our members believe the existing arrangements of relevant organisations (including the Internet Governance Forum) do not fully implement enhanced cooperation, and thirdly whatever new arrangements may be put in place, civil society must play an integral part in them, as one of the prerequisites for their legitimacy.

These points will be explained in turn:

1. Although much of the discussion of enhanced cooperation at WSIS turned around the narrow issue of internationalising the oversight of Internet naming and numbering functions critical Internet resource administration, the Tunis Agenda expresses this principle far more broadly to include other substantive Internet related public policy issues that require attention and resolution at the global level.  It also reminds us that the ultimate objective of our cooperation is to advance a people-centred, inclusive, development-oriented and non-discriminatory Information Society.

This is not to say that the broadening of oversight of critical Internet resource administration is not an important issue - it is, and CS-IGC members are among many who strongly consider the continuing supervisory role of the US government to be inappropriate for a truly global resource such as the Internet. But this is only one of many important public policy issues on which enhanced cooperation is needed.

2. The IGF in its present form is a very important part of the broader enhanced cooperation process, in that its multi-stakeholder process can provide input to shape decisions taken on Internet related public policy issues in other fora.  However the full realisation of enhanced cooperation will require a multi-stakeholder process to extend to all other Internet governance organisations, whether new or established.

If institutional changes are to be made, tThere are various options for enhancing multi-stakeholder cooperation within and amongst all relevant organisations (which may be complementary).  These include:

* making no institutional changes but encouraging organisations to enhance their own cooperation with other stakeholders and to report to the CSTD on their progress;

* establishing a lightweight multi-stakeholder observatory process perhaps hosted under the auspices of the IGF (pursuant to its mandate in paragraph 72(i));

* utilising a virtual and voluntary global social community or ecosystem, linking together all Internet governance organisations, in which all stakeholders would participate; or

* establishing a new umbrella governance institution for Internet policy development establishing new governance arrangements designed to address any pressing public policy matters that cannot be managed through existing institutions, with space for the full participation of each stakeholder group in its respective role.  This might also be situated within the IGF, but pursuant to a new and supplementary mandate.

3. Paragraph 71 of the Tunis Agenda makes very clear that civil society is an integral participant in the development of any process towards enhanced cooperation.  Therefore the IGC, in our capacity as members of civil society, looks forward to contributing constructively in transparent, accountable and democratic multi-stakeholder consultations towards this end.

--- 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101110/77afd17a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101110/77afd17a/attachment.bin>

From jeremy at ciroap.org  Wed Nov 10 09:43:27 2010
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 22:43:27 +0800
Subject: [governance] FOURTH DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTik_4-oazn0ng91AGkWvoGNk1xXkKJPkpcOP2wYV@mail.gmail.com>
References: <296C93D0-7172-4DC7-8185-1DEAAA564B4D@ciroap.org> <AANLkTik_4-oazn0ng91AGkWvoGNk1xXkKJPkpcOP2wYV@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <E8F18D4C-8B5B-4934-B1E0-ACA8703B2D7B@ciroap.org>

On 10/11/2010, at 10:24 PM, Miguel Alcaine wrote:

> Dear all,
>  
> Please find below my suggestions in the text, which is easier for me to follow, incorporating suggestions from some of you which I support and trying to take into account everything said.

Sorry, this crossed with my last draft.  Your suggestions are - thanks! - specific, minor and well-considered, and I would invite people to respond to them.  If there is no disagreement with them, I can incorporate them into the version on which consensus is called even if there is no other draft in the interim.

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

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

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101110/5d7036d4/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101110/5d7036d4/attachment.bin>

From katitza at eff.org  Wed Nov 10 09:46:47 2010
From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez)
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 06:46:47 -0800
Subject: [governance] FINAL? DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <7E0ED935-470F-451E-B072-319351CAAD94@ciroap.org>
References: <7E0ED935-470F-451E-B072-319351CAAD94@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <4CDAB057.8020406@eff.org>

I think Miguel's point are not included, right?

On 11/10/10 6:40 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> There is still active discussion about this statement, so excuse me 
> labelling this as "final?", but we need to try to quickly wrap things 
> up in order to meet our deadline of Monday.  You can still make 
> comments which can be incorporated into the version that goes to a 
> consensus call, but please try to make them minor and specific, if you 
> can.
>
> Please also try to remember that we are trying to craft a statement 
> that will be acceptable by as many IGC members as possible, which - 
> because we have such a wide diversity of views - probably means that 
> nobody will find it completely to their satisfaction.  This is not to 
> excuse the deficiencies in the statement, but just to ask for your 
> tolerance. :-)  If there is no way that you can agree to the statement 
> even with minor amendments, you can make this point, or just reject it 
> at the poll.
>
> This time, I just put the revision marks below, since I'm sure at 
> least 90% of you can see them.  (Izumi and I have discussed putting 
> together a proper collaborative editing environment for drafting 
> statements, but this is still just a vague plan.)
>
> --- begins ---
>
> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (CS-IGC) regards the 
> process towards enhanced cooperation as a vital step towards 
> addressing the "many cross-cutting international public policy issues 
> that require attention and are not adequately addressed by the current 
> mechanisms" (Tunis Agenda para 68).
>
> Despite an intergovernmental mandate from WSIS to address this 
> governance deficit, much remains to be done.  It is imperative that 
> this deficit continue to be addressed, where appropriate through new 
> institutional developments that comply with the WSIS process 
> criteria of being multilateral, transparent, democratic and inclusive.
>
> It is now especially critical that the global community give renewed 
> attention to these principles, at a time when we see danger of them 
> being forgotten - for example, in that a proposed Anti-Counterfeiting 
> Trade Agreement that will affect Internet users around the world 
> (including the most marginalized), has been shaped almost entirely by 
> powerful corporate and state actors from the global North.
>
> We make three further points.  First, enhanced cooperation should 
> encompass all Internet-related public policy issues; second, many of 
> our members believe the existing arrangements of relevant 
> organisations (including the Internet Governance Forum) do not fully 
> implement enhanced cooperation, and thirdly whatever new arrangements 
> may be put in place, civil society must play an integral part in them, 
> as one of the prerequisites for their legitimacy.
>
> These points will be explained in turn:
>
> 1. Although much of the discussion of enhanced cooperation at WSIS 
> turned around the narrow issue of internationalising the oversight of 
> Internet naming and numbering functions critical Internet resource 
> administration, the Tunis Agenda expresses this principle far more 
> broadly to include other substantive Internet related public policy 
> issues that require attention and resolution at the global level.  It 
> also reminds us that the ultimate objective of our cooperation is to 
> advance a people-centred, inclusive, development-oriented and 
> non-discriminatory Information Society.
>
> This is not to say that the broadening of oversight of critical 
> Internet resource administration is not an important issue - it is, 
> and CS-IGC members are among many who strongly consider the continuing 
> supervisory role of the US government to be inappropriate for a truly 
> global resource such as the Internet. But this is only one of many 
> important public policy issues on which enhanced cooperation is needed.
>
> 2. The IGF in its present form is a very important part of the broader 
> enhanced cooperation process, in that its multi-stakeholder process 
> can provide input to shape decisions taken on Internet related public 
> policy issues in other fora.  However the full realisation of enhanced 
> cooperation will require a multi-stakeholder process to extend to all 
> other Internet governance organisations, whether new or established.
>
> If institutional changes are to be made, tThere are various options 
> for enhancing multi-stakeholder cooperation within and amongst all 
> relevant organisations (which may be complementary).  These include:
>
> * making no institutional changes but encouraging organisations to 
> enhance their own cooperation with other stakeholders and to report to 
> the CSTD on their progress;
>
> * establishing a lightweight multi-stakeholder observatory process 
> perhaps hosted under the auspices of the IGF (pursuant to its mandate 
> in paragraph 72(i));
>
> * utilising a virtual and voluntary global social community or 
> ecosystem, linking together all Internet governance organisations, in 
> which all stakeholders would participate; or
>
> * establishing a new umbrella governance institution for Internet 
> policy development establishing new governance arrangements designed 
> to address any pressing public policy matters that cannot be managed 
> through existing institutions, with space for the full participation 
> of each stakeholder group in its respective role. This might also be 
> situated within the IGF, but pursuant to a new and supplementary mandate.
>
> 3. Paragraph 71 of the Tunis Agenda makes very clear that civil 
> society is an integral participant in the development of any process 
> towards enhanced cooperation.  Therefore the IGC, in our capacity as 
> members of civil society, looks forward to contributing constructively 
> in transparent, accountable and democratic multi-stakeholder 
> consultations towards this end.
>
> --- 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 
> <http://www.consumersinternational.org/Templates/Internal.asp?NodeID=100521&int1stParentNodeID=89765>. 
> Don't print this email unless necessary.
>


-- 
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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101110/ed9c9af0/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From katitza at eff.org  Wed Nov 10 09:56:59 2010
From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez)
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 06:56:59 -0800
Subject: [governance] FINAL? DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <7E0ED935-470F-451E-B072-319351CAAD94@ciroap.org>
References: <7E0ED935-470F-451E-B072-319351CAAD94@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <4CDAB2BB.8050303@eff.org>

I have trouble understanding Parminder's opinion. While I agree with 
this phrase (quote below), I do not understand why he thinks that by 
having this new global policy setting, Bilateral agreements (US FTAs - 
other countries), ACTA, etc will stop from happening. Better to said: 
Why creating a new  global policy setting with binding recommendations 
will avoid / stop those agreements to happen.  The United States start 
using this strategy when they failed to incorporate some of these 
proposals through WIPO, so they end up adding those proposals through 
the bilateral or multi lateral agreements (which of course, we object).

"It is now especially critical that the global community give renewed 
attention to these principles, at a time when we see danger of them 
being forgotten - for example, in that a proposed Anti-Counterfeiting 
Trade Agreement that will affect Internet users around the world 
(including the most marginalized), has been shaped almost entirely by 
powerful corporate and state actors from the global North."



--- begins ---

The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (CS-IGC) regards the 
process towards enhanced cooperation as a vital step towards addressing 
the "many cross-cutting international public policy issues that require 
attention and are not adequately addressed by the current mechanisms" 
(Tunis Agenda para 68).

Despite an intergovernmental mandate from WSIS to address this 
governance deficit, much remains to be done.  It is imperative that this 
deficit continue to be addressed, where appropriate through new 
institutional developments that comply with the WSIS process criteria of 
being multilateral, transparent, democratic and inclusive.

It is now especially critical that the global community give renewed 
attention to these principles, at a time when we see danger of them 
being forgotten - for example, in that a proposed Anti-Counterfeiting 
Trade Agreement that will affect Internet users around the world 
(including the most marginalized), has been shaped almost entirely by 
powerful corporate and state actors from the global North.

We make three further points.  First, enhanced cooperation should 
encompass all Internet-related public policy issues; second, many of our 
members believe the existing arrangements of relevant organisations 
(including the Internet Governance Forum) do not fully implement 
enhanced cooperation, and thirdly whatever new arrangements may be put 
in place, civil society must play an integral part in them, as one of 
the prerequisites for their legitimacy.

These points will be explained in turn:

1. Although much of the discussion of enhanced cooperation at WSIS 
turned around the narrow issue of internationalising the oversight of 
Internet naming and numbering functions critical Internet resource 
administration, the Tunis Agenda expresses this principle far more 
broadly to include other substantive Internet related public policy 
issues that require attention and resolution at the global level.  It 
also reminds us that the ultimate objective of our cooperation is to 
advance a people-centred, inclusive, development-oriented and 
non-discriminatory Information Society.

This is not to say that the broadening of oversight of critical Internet 
resource administration is not an important issue - it is, and CS-IGC 
members are among many who strongly consider the continuing supervisory 
role of the US government to be inappropriate for a truly global 
resource such as the Internet. But this is only one of many important 
public policy issues on which enhanced cooperation is needed.

2. The IGF in its present form is a very important part of the broader 
enhanced cooperation process, in that its multi-stakeholder process can 
provide input to shape decisions taken on Internet related public policy 
issues in other fora.  However the full realisation of enhanced 
cooperation will require a multi-stakeholder process to extend to all 
other Internet governance organisations, whether new or established.

If institutional changes are to be made, tThere are various options for 
enhancing multi-stakeholder cooperation within and amongst all relevant 
organisations (which may be complementary).  These include:

* making no institutional changes but encouraging organisations to 
enhance their own cooperation with other stakeholders and to report to 
the CSTD on their progress;

* establishing a lightweight multi-stakeholder observatory process 
perhaps hosted under the auspices of the IGF (pursuant to its mandate in 
paragraph 72(i));

* utilising a virtual and voluntary global social community or 
ecosystem, linking together all Internet governance organisations, in 
which all stakeholders would participate; or

* establishing a new umbrella governance institution for Internet policy 
development establishing new governance arrangements designed to address 
any pressing public policy matters that cannot be managed through 
existing institutions, with space for the full participation of each 
stakeholder group in its respective role. This might also be situated 
within the IGF, but pursuant to a new and supplementary mandate.

3. Paragraph 71 of the Tunis Agenda makes very clear that civil society 
is an integral participant in the development of any process towards 
enhanced cooperation.  Therefore the IGC, in our capacity as members of 
civil society, looks forward to contributing constructively in 
transparent, accountable and democratic multi-stakeholder 
consultations towards this end.

--- ends ---


-- 
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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101110/feb95061/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From ias_pk at yahoo.com  Wed Nov 10 10:24:53 2010
From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah)
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 07:24:53 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [governance] FOURTH DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <E8F18D4C-8B5B-4934-B1E0-ACA8703B2D7B@ciroap.org>
References: <296C93D0-7172-4DC7-8185-1DEAAA564B4D@ciroap.org> <AANLkTik_4-oazn0ng91AGkWvoGNk1xXkKJPkpcOP2wYV@mail.gmail.com> <E8F18D4C-8B5B-4934-B1E0-ACA8703B2D7B@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <376874.62261.qm@web33005.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

My little suggestions are also, once again,

            just ignored


________________________________
From: Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org>
To: Miguel Alcaine <miguel.alcaine at gmail.com>
Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Sent: Wed, 10 November, 2010 19:43:27
Subject: Re: [governance] FOURTH DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation


On 10/11/2010, at 10:24 PM, Miguel Alcaine wrote:

Dear all,
>
>Please find below my suggestions in the text, which is easier for me to follow, 
>incorporating suggestions from some of you which I support and trying to take 
>into account everything said.

Sorry, this crossed with my last draft.  Your suggestions are - thanks! - 
specific, minor and well-considered, and I would invite people to respond to 
them.  If there is no disagreement with them, I can incorporate them into the 
version on which consensus is called even if there is no other draft in the 
interim.

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

Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101110/e6a5a436/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From avri at psg.com  Wed Nov 10 10:42:14 2010
From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 10:42:14 -0500
Subject: [governance] FINAL? DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <7E0ED935-470F-451E-B072-319351CAAD94@ciroap.org>
References: <7E0ED935-470F-451E-B072-319351CAAD94@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <2355BBFB-89C2-46CC-B2A8-A4067DD5E314@psg.com>


On 10 Nov 2010, at 09:40, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:

> Despite an intergovernmental mandate from WSIS to address this governance deficit, much remains to be done.  It is imperative that this deficit continue to be addressed, where appropriate through new institutional developments that comply with the WSIS process criteria of being multilateral, transparent, democratic and inclusive.
> 
> It is now especially critical that the global community give renewed attention to these principles, at a time when we see danger of them being forgotten - for example, in that a proposed Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement that will affect Internet users around the world (including the most marginalized), has been shaped almost entirely by powerful corporate and state actors from the global North.
> 

I have two recommendations:

1.

> continue to be addressed, where appropriate through new institutional developments that

This seems to imply that new institutional developments are required, as opposed to allowable if appropriate.

i think it might read better as:

continue to be addressed through the existing institutions, and where appropriate through new institutional developments, that ....

2. 

the ACTA stuff is actually multi-lateral as it is occurring between states.  and I understand that WSIS went with multilateral as opposed to a wider more inclusive formulation. But why does the IGC want it to be multi-lateral, i.e. giving primacy to governments, when that can deliver results we find abominable.

I would recommend replacing:

> the WSIS process criteria of being multilateral, transparent, democratic and inclusive.

with 

the accepted process criteria of being open, accountable, transparent, democratic and inclusive.

I think it reasonable that the IGC try to push beyond the WSIS criterion of multi-lateraisml that leaves decisions primarily in governments hands, while recognizing that of course governments are included as we say it should be inclusive.  Please note that I have refrained from using the multistakeholder moniker for this process to avoid offending those who have a different definition of it than i do.

a.


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

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

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

From lmcknigh at syr.edu  Wed Nov 10 10:44:17 2010
From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight)
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 10:44:17 -0500
Subject: [governance] FINAL? DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <2355BBFB-89C2-46CC-B2A8-A4067DD5E314@psg.com>
References: <7E0ED935-470F-451E-B072-319351CAAD94@ciroap.org>,<2355BBFB-89C2-46CC-B2A8-A4067DD5E314@psg.com>
Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006DF5@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>

+1 for open
________________________________________
From: Avri Doria [avri at psg.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 10:42 AM
To: IGC
Subject: Re: [governance] FINAL? DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation

On 10 Nov 2010, at 09:40, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:

> Despite an intergovernmental mandate from WSIS to address this governance deficit, much remains to be done.  It is imperative that this deficit continue to be addressed, where appropriate through new institutional developments that comply with the WSIS process criteria of being multilateral, transparent, democratic and inclusive.
>
> It is now especially critical that the global community give renewed attention to these principles, at a time when we see danger of them being forgotten - for example, in that a proposed Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement that will affect Internet users around the world (including the most marginalized), has been shaped almost entirely by powerful corporate and state actors from the global North.
>

I have two recommendations:

1.

> continue to be addressed, where appropriate through new institutional developments that

This seems to imply that new institutional developments are required, as opposed to allowable if appropriate.

i think it might read better as:

continue to be addressed through the existing institutions, and where appropriate through new institutional developments, that ....

2.

the ACTA stuff is actually multi-lateral as it is occurring between states.  and I understand that WSIS went with multilateral as opposed to a wider more inclusive formulation. But why does the IGC want it to be multi-lateral, i.e. giving primacy to governments, when that can deliver results we find abominable.

I would recommend replacing:

> the WSIS process criteria of being multilateral, transparent, democratic and inclusive.

with

the accepted process criteria of being open, accountable, transparent, democratic and inclusive.

I think it reasonable that the IGC try to push beyond the WSIS criterion of multi-lateraisml that leaves decisions primarily in governments hands, while recognizing that of course governments are included as we say it should be inclusive.  Please note that I have refrained from using the multistakeholder moniker for this process to avoid offending those who have a different definition of it than i do.

a.


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

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

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

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

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

From miguel.alcaine at gmail.com  Wed Nov 10 10:51:54 2010
From: miguel.alcaine at gmail.com (Miguel Alcaine)
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 16:51:54 +0100
Subject: [governance] FINAL? DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <2355BBFB-89C2-46CC-B2A8-A4067DD5E314@psg.com>
References: <7E0ED935-470F-451E-B072-319351CAAD94@ciroap.org>
	<2355BBFB-89C2-46CC-B2A8-A4067DD5E314@psg.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTimRz7xURskrb88oR67EYFFGS9ykTO1YdD5Uj=NF@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all,

I support Avri's recommendations. Both of them.

For me, the first is better drafting.

In the second, I can live with getting rid of multilateral and I strongly
support to include open and accountable.

Best,

Miguel

On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 4:42 PM, Avri Doria <avri at psg.com> wrote:

>
> On 10 Nov 2010, at 09:40, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>
> > Despite an intergovernmental mandate from WSIS to address this governance
> deficit, much remains to be done.  It is imperative that this deficit
> continue to be addressed, where appropriate through new institutional
> developments that comply with the WSIS process criteria of being
> multilateral, transparent, democratic and inclusive.
> >
> > It is now especially critical that the global community give renewed
> attention to these principles, at a time when we see danger of them being
> forgotten - for example, in that a proposed Anti-Counterfeiting Trade
> Agreement that will affect Internet users around the world (including the
> most marginalized), has been shaped almost entirely by powerful corporate
> and state actors from the global North.
> >
>
> I have two recommendations:
>
> 1.
>
> > continue to be addressed, where appropriate through new institutional
> developments that
>
> This seems to imply that new institutional developments are required, as
> opposed to allowable if appropriate.
>
> i think it might read better as:
>
> continue to be addressed through the existing institutions, and where
> appropriate through new institutional developments, that ....
>
> 2.
>
> the ACTA stuff is actually multi-lateral as it is occurring between states.
>  and I understand that WSIS went with multilateral as opposed to a wider
> more inclusive formulation. But why does the IGC want it to be
> multi-lateral, i.e. giving primacy to governments, when that can deliver
> results we find abominable.
>
> I would recommend replacing:
>
> > the WSIS process criteria of being multilateral, transparent, democratic
> and inclusive.
>
> with
>
> the accepted process criteria of being open, accountable, transparent,
> democratic and inclusive.
>
> I think it reasonable that the IGC try to push beyond the WSIS criterion of
> multi-lateraisml that leaves decisions primarily in governments hands, while
> recognizing that of course governments are included as we say it should be
> inclusive.  Please note that I have refrained from using the
> multistakeholder moniker for this process to avoid offending those who have
> a different definition of it than i do.
>
> a.
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101110/2181ff77/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From jeanette at wzb.eu  Wed Nov 10 10:54:59 2010
From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 16:54:59 +0100
Subject: [governance] FINAL? DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimRz7xURskrb88oR67EYFFGS9ykTO1YdD5Uj=NF@mail.gmail.com>
References: <7E0ED935-470F-451E-B072-319351CAAD94@ciroap.org>	<2355BBFB-89C2-46CC-B2A8-A4067DD5E314@psg.com> <AANLkTimRz7xURskrb88oR67EYFFGS9ykTO1YdD5Uj=NF@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4CDAC053.8010603@wzb.eu>

I support Avri's recommendations as well. Particularly the suggestion of 
getting rid of multilateral.

jeanette

Am 10.11.2010 16:51, schrieb Miguel Alcaine:
> Dear all,
> I support Avri's recommendations. Both of them.
> For me, the first is better drafting.
> In the second, I can live with getting rid of multilateral and I
> strongly support to include open and accountable.
> Best,
> Miguel
>
> On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 4:42 PM, Avri Doria <avri at psg.com
> <mailto:avri at psg.com>> wrote:
>
>
>     On 10 Nov 2010, at 09:40, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>
>      > Despite an intergovernmental mandate from WSIS to address this
>     governance deficit, much remains to be done.  It is imperative that
>     this deficit continue to be addressed, where appropriate through new
>     institutional developments that comply with the WSIS process
>     criteria of being multilateral, transparent, democratic and inclusive.
>      >
>      > It is now especially critical that the global community give
>     renewed attention to these principles, at a time when we see danger
>     of them being forgotten - for example, in that a proposed
>     Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement that will affect Internet users
>     around the world (including the most marginalized), has been shaped
>     almost entirely by powerful corporate and state actors from the
>     global North.
>      >
>
>     I have two recommendations:
>
>     1.
>
>      > continue to be addressed, where appropriate through new
>     institutional developments that
>
>     This seems to imply that new institutional developments are
>     required, as opposed to allowable if appropriate.
>
>     i think it might read better as:
>
>     continue to be addressed through the existing institutions, and
>     where appropriate through new institutional developments, that ....
>
>     2.
>
>     the ACTA stuff is actually multi-lateral as it is occurring between
>     states.  and I understand that WSIS went with multilateral as
>     opposed to a wider more inclusive formulation. But why does the IGC
>     want it to be multi-lateral, i.e. giving primacy to governments,
>     when that can deliver results we find abominable.
>
>     I would recommend replacing:
>
>      > the WSIS process criteria of being multilateral, transparent,
>     democratic and inclusive.
>
>     with
>
>     the accepted process criteria of being open, accountable,
>     transparent, democratic and inclusive.
>
>     I think it reasonable that the IGC try to push beyond the WSIS
>     criterion of multi-lateraisml that leaves decisions primarily in
>     governments hands, while recognizing that of course governments are
>     included as we say it should be inclusive.  Please note that I have
>     refrained from using the multistakeholder moniker for this process
>     to avoid offending those who have a different definition of it than
>     i do.
>
>     a.
>
>
>     ____________________________________________________________
>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>     To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>     <mailto:governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org>
>
>     For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>     Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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


From aizu at anr.org  Wed Nov 10 11:05:20 2010
From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 01:05:20 +0900
Subject: [governance] FINAL? DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <4CDAC053.8010603@wzb.eu>
References: <7E0ED935-470F-451E-B072-319351CAAD94@ciroap.org>
 <2355BBFB-89C2-46CC-B2A8-A4067DD5E314@psg.com> <AANLkTimRz7xURskrb88oR67EYFFGS9ykTO1YdD5Uj=NF@mail.gmail.com>
 <4CDAC053.8010603@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <AANLkTikC7gFJqr6CpR9A4vkOi07GRmV3boM7NTJmSWhb@mail.gmail.com>

My personal comment, not as co-coordinator:

I also agree Avri's recommendation of taking out "multi-lateral" and push
for "open, accountable, transparent, democratic and inclusive"

izumi


2010/11/11 Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu>:
> I support Avri's recommendations as well. Particularly the suggestion of
> getting rid of multilateral.
>
> jeanette
>
> Am 10.11.2010 16:51, schrieb Miguel Alcaine:
>>
>> Dear all,
>> I support Avri's recommendations. Both of them.
>> For me, the first is better drafting.
>> In the second, I can live with getting rid of multilateral and I
>> strongly support to include open and accountable.
>> Best,
>> Miguel
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 4:42 PM, Avri Doria <avri at psg.com
>> <mailto:avri at psg.com>> wrote:
>>
>>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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


From b.schombe at gmail.com  Wed Nov 10 11:11:24 2010
From: b.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin SCHOMBE)
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 17:11:24 +0100
Subject: [governance] FINAL? DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <7E0ED935-470F-451E-B072-319351CAAD94@ciroap.org>
References: <7E0ED935-470F-451E-B072-319351CAAD94@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <AANLkTin65S08wvG8567ADdBDm0a=gkd_-jSHBNMGGxJ7@mail.gmail.com>

Good evening
To reinforce the point:
"We make Three Further points. First, enhanced cooperation should "Encompass
all Internet-related public policy issues; second, Many Believe the members
of Our Existing arrangements of organizations covered (Including the
Internet Governance Forum) do not Fully Implement enhanced cooperation, and
thirdly whatever new arrangements May Be Put in Instead, the Civil Society
must play integral part in year 'em, As One Of The Prerequisites for Their
Legitimacy".

One must specify the following references contained in the Tunis Agenda:
* Internet Governance: Section 29,31,34,35 and 53
* Implementation: Section 83,85,92,98,100,101,102,105 and 108
I can not quite make it but I leave you the freedom to enjoy


best regards

Écouter
Lire phonétiquement


 Baudouin



2010/11/10 Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org>

> There is still active discussion about this statement, so excuse me
> labelling this as "final?", but we need to try to quickly wrap things up in
> order to meet our deadline of Monday.  You can still make comments which can
> be incorporated into the version that goes to a consensus call, but please
> try to make them minor and specific, if you can.
>
> Please also try to remember that we are trying to craft a statement that
> will be acceptable by as many IGC members as possible, which - because we
> have such a wide diversity of views - probably means that nobody will find
> it completely to their satisfaction.  This is not to excuse the deficiencies
> in the statement, but just to ask for your tolerance. :-)  If there is no
> way that you can agree to the statement even with minor amendments, you can
> make this point, or just reject it at the poll.
>
> This time, I just put the revision marks below, since I'm sure at least 90%
> of you can see them.  (Izumi and I have discussed putting together a proper
> collaborative editing environment for drafting statements, but this is still
> just a vague plan.)
>
> --- begins ---
>
> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (CS-IGC) regards the process
> towards enhanced cooperation as a vital step towards addressing the "many
> cross-cutting international public policy issues that require attention and
> are not adequately addressed by the current mechanisms" (Tunis Agenda para
> 68).
>
> Despite an intergovernmental mandate from WSIS to address this governance
> deficit, much remains to be done.  It is imperative that this deficit
> continue to be addressed, where appropriate through new institutional
> developments that comply with the WSIS process criteria of being
> multilateral, transparent, democratic and inclusive.
>
> It is now especially critical that the global community give renewed
> attention to these principles, at a time when we see danger of them being
> forgotten - for example, in that a proposed Anti-Counterfeiting Trade
> Agreement that will affect Internet users around the world (including the
> most marginalized), has been shaped almost entirely by powerful corporate
> and state actors from the global North.
>
> We make three further points.  First, enhanced cooperation should encompass
> all Internet-related public policy issues; second, many of our members
> believe the existing arrangements of relevant organisations (including the
> Internet Governance Forum) do not fully implement enhanced cooperation, and
> thirdly whatever new arrangements may be put in place, civil society must
> play an integral part in them, as one of the prerequisites for their
> legitimacy.
>
> These points will be explained in turn:
>
> 1. Although much of the discussion of enhanced cooperation at WSIS turned
> around the narrow issue of internationalising the oversight of Internet
> naming and numbering functions critical Internet resource administration,
> the Tunis Agenda expresses this principle far more broadly to include other
> substantive Internet related public policy issues that require attention and
> resolution at the global level.  It also reminds us that the ultimate
> objective of our cooperation is to advance a people-centred, inclusive,
> development-oriented and non-discriminatory Information Society.
>
> This is not to say that the broadening of oversight of critical Internet
> resource administration is not an important issue - it is, and CS-IGC
> members are among many who strongly consider the continuing supervisory role
> of the US government to be inappropriate for a truly global resource such as
> the Internet. But this is only one of many important public policy issues on
> which enhanced cooperation is needed.
>
> 2. The IGF in its present form is a very important part of the broaderenhanced cooperation process, in that its multi-stakeholder process can
> provide input to shape decisions taken on Internet related public policy
> issues in other fora.  However the full realisation of enhanced cooperation
> will require a multi-stakeholder process to extend to all
> other Internet governance organisations, whether new or established.
>
> If institutional changes are to be made, tThere are various options for
> enhancing multi-stakeholder cooperation within and amongst all relevant
> organisations (which may be complementary).  These include:
>
> * making no institutional changes but encouraging organisations to enhance
> their own cooperation with other stakeholders and to report to the CSTD on
> their progress;
>
> * establishing a lightweight multi-stakeholder observatory process perhaps
> hosted under the auspices of the IGF (pursuant to its mandate in paragraph
> 72(i));
>
> * utilising a virtual and voluntary global social community or ecosystem,
> linking together all Internet governance organisations, in which all
> stakeholders would participate; or
>
> * establishing a new umbrella governance institution for Internet policy
> development establishing new governance arrangements designed to address
> any pressing public policy matters that cannot be managed through existing
> institutions, with space for the full participation of each stakeholder
> group in its respective role.  This might also be situated within the IGF,
> but pursuant to a new and supplementary mandate.
>
> 3. Paragraph 71 of the Tunis Agenda makes very clear that civil society is
> an integral participant in the development of any process towards enhanced
> cooperation.  Therefore the IGC, in our capacity as members of civil
> society, looks forward to contributing constructively in transparent,
> accountable and democratic multi-stakeholder consultations towards this end.
>
> --- 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<http://www.consumersinternational.org/Templates/Internal.asp?NodeID=100521&int1stParentNodeID=89765>.
> Don't print this email unless necessary.
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101110/13af3377/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From lehto.paul at gmail.com  Wed Nov 10 11:23:12 2010
From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto)
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 11:23:12 -0500
Subject: [governance] FINAL? DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikC7gFJqr6CpR9A4vkOi07GRmV3boM7NTJmSWhb@mail.gmail.com>
References: <7E0ED935-470F-451E-B072-319351CAAD94@ciroap.org>
	<2355BBFB-89C2-46CC-B2A8-A4067DD5E314@psg.com>
	<AANLkTimRz7xURskrb88oR67EYFFGS9ykTO1YdD5Uj=NF@mail.gmail.com>
	<4CDAC053.8010603@wzb.eu>
	<AANLkTikC7gFJqr6CpR9A4vkOi07GRmV3boM7NTJmSWhb@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=EPFoO2e15cwGRuxX8h474sawHPSjHq1_J=Xca@mail.gmail.com>

In my view, this is the context or close to the preamble that sets the
stage for understanding all the rest, and something very close to it
should be at or near the beginning:

"The question of governance regarding the Internet is not if there
will be governance, and the question is not whether there will be
governance regarding the Internet.  Instead, the question is whether
there will be democratic laws of Internet goverance, or whether by
default the laws of Internet governance will be laws set via private
contracts that are defined entirely by business entities presently
active on the web, and then enforced by public courts around the
world, at public expense.  The question of internet governance at the
cutting edge, then, is whether the Internet will develop more in the
direction of international democracy or whether international
democracy is rendered increasingly irrelevant by the forces of private
law via contract and by market forces, and by its own abdication
and/or failure to apply universal laws and principles with very wide
consensus support to a relatively new field of human development
called the Internet."

Paul Lehto, J.D.

On 11/10/10, Izumi AIZU <aizu at anr.org> wrote:
> My personal comment, not as co-coordinator:
>
> I also agree Avri's recommendation of taking out "multi-lateral" and push
> for "open, accountable, transparent, democratic and inclusive"
>
> izumi
>
>
> 2010/11/11 Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu>:
>> I support Avri's recommendations as well. Particularly the suggestion of
>> getting rid of multilateral.
>>
>> jeanette
>>
>> Am 10.11.2010 16:51, schrieb Miguel Alcaine:
>>>
>>> Dear all,
>>> I support Avri's recommendations. Both of them.
>>> For me, the first is better drafting.
>>> In the second, I can live with getting rid of multilateral and I
>>> strongly support to include open and accountable.
>>> Best,
>>> Miguel
>>>
>>> On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 4:42 PM, Avri Doria <avri at psg.com
>>> <mailto:avri at psg.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>


-- 
Paul R Lehto, J.D.
P.O. Box 1
Ishpeming, MI  49849
lehto.paul at gmail.com
906-204-2334
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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


From mueller at syr.edu  Wed Nov 10 15:49:06 2010
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 15:49:06 -0500
Subject: [governance] FINAL? DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <7E0ED935-470F-451E-B072-319351CAAD94@ciroap.org>
References: <7E0ED935-470F-451E-B072-319351CAAD94@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC12008CC@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>

Overall, I support it. One request: Can we get rid of the "in their respective role" phrase in the last bullet point of paragraph 2? Just delete it. I know, the "respective role" concept is part of the Tunis Agenda but its a conceptual dungheap and we shouldn't contribute to its legitimacy by using it. 
--MM
________________________________________
From: Jeremy Malcolm [jeremy at ciroap.org]
Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 9:40 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: [governance] FINAL? DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation

There is still active discussion about this statement, so excuse me labelling this as "final?", but we need to try to quickly wrap things up in order to meet our deadline of Monday.  You can still make comments which can be incorporated into the version that goes to a consensus call, but please try to make them minor and specific, if you can.

Please also try to remember that we are trying to craft a statement that will be acceptable by as many IGC members as possible, which - because we have such a wide diversity of views - probably means that nobody will find it completely to their satisfaction.  This is not to excuse the deficiencies in the statement, but just to ask for your tolerance. :-)  If there is no way that you can agree to the statement even with minor amendments, you can make this point, or just reject it at the poll.

This time, I just put the revision marks below, since I'm sure at least 90% of you can see them.  (Izumi and I have discussed putting together a proper collaborative editing environment for drafting statements, but this is still just a vague plan.)

--- begins ---

The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (CS-IGC) regards the process towards enhanced cooperation as a vital step towards addressing the "many cross-cutting international public policy issues that require attention and are not adequately addressed by the current mechanisms" (Tunis Agenda para 68).

Despite an intergovernmental mandate from WSIS to address this governance deficit, much remains to be done.  It is imperative that this deficit continue to be addressed, where appropriate through new institutional developments that comply with the WSIS process criteria of being multilateral, transparent, democratic and inclusive.

It is now especially critical that the global community give renewed attention to these principles, at a time when we see danger of them being forgotten - for example, in that a proposed Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement that will affect Internet users around the world (including the most marginalized), has been shaped almost entirely by powerful corporate and state actors from the global North.

We make three further points.  First, enhanced cooperation should encompass all Internet-related public policy issues; second, many of our members believe the existing arrangements of relevant organisations (including the Internet Governance Forum) do not fully implement enhanced cooperation, and thirdly whatever new arrangements may be put in place, civil society must play an integral part in them, as one of the prerequisites for their legitimacy.

These points will be explained in turn:

1. Although much of the discussion of enhanced cooperation at WSIS turned around the narrow issue of internationalising the oversight of Internet naming and numbering functions critical Internet resource administration, the Tunis Agenda expresses this principle far more broadly to include other substantive Internet related public policy issues that require attention and resolution at the global level.  It also reminds us that the ultimate objective of our cooperation is to advance a people-centred, inclusive, development-oriented and non-discriminatory Information Society.

This is not to say that the broadening of oversight of critical Internet resource administration is not an important issue - it is, and CS-IGC members are among many who strongly consider the continuing supervisory role of the US government to be inappropriate for a truly global resource such as the Internet. But this is only one of many important public policy issues on which enhanced cooperation is needed.

2. The IGF in its present form is a very important part of the broader enhanced cooperation process, in that its multi-stakeholder process can provide input to shape decisions taken on Internet related public policy issues in other fora.  However the full realisation of enhanced cooperation will require a multi-stakeholder process to extend to all other Internet governance organisations, whether new or established.

If institutional changes are to be made, tThere are various options for enhancing multi-stakeholder cooperation within and amongst all relevant organisations (which may be complementary).  These include:

* making no institutional changes but encouraging organisations to enhance their own cooperation with other stakeholders and to report to the CSTD on their progress;

* establishing a lightweight multi-stakeholder observatory process perhaps hosted under the auspices of the IGF (pursuant to its mandate in paragraph 72(i));

* utilising a virtual and voluntary global social community or ecosystem, linking together all Internet governance organisations, in which all stakeholders would participate; or

* establishing a new umbrella governance institution for Internet policy development establishing new governance arrangements designed to address any pressing public policy matters that cannot be managed through existing institutions, with space for the full participation of each stakeholder group in its respective role.  This might also be situated within the IGF, but pursuant to a new and supplementary mandate.

3. Paragraph 71 of the Tunis Agenda makes very clear that civil society is an integral participant in the development of any process towards enhanced cooperation.  Therefore the IGC, in our capacity as members of civil society, looks forward to contributing constructively in transparent, accountable and democratic multi-stakeholder consultations towards this end.


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

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

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

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

From mueller at syr.edu  Wed Nov 10 15:52:27 2010
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 15:52:27 -0500
Subject: [governance] FINAL? DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <4CDAC053.8010603@wzb.eu>
References: <7E0ED935-470F-451E-B072-319351CAAD94@ciroap.org>
	<2355BBFB-89C2-46CC-B2A8-A4067DD5E314@psg.com>
 <AANLkTimRz7xURskrb88oR67EYFFGS9ykTO1YdD5Uj=NF@mail.gmail.com>,<4CDAC053.8010603@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC12008CD@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>

Me, too
--MM
________________________________________
From: Jeanette Hofmann [jeanette at wzb.eu]

I support Avri's recommendations as well. Particularly the suggestion of
getting rid of multilateral.

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

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

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

From mueller at syr.edu  Wed Nov 10 15:59:26 2010
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 15:59:26 -0500
Subject: [governance] FINAL? DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <4CDAB2BB.8050303@eff.org>
References: <7E0ED935-470F-451E-B072-319351CAAD94@ciroap.org>,<4CDAB2BB.8050303@eff.org>
Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC12008CE@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>

Katitza is right. We will not stop powerful national governments from pursuing their interests through smaller "clubs" of like-minded states by creating new, overarching governance institutions -- unless you are proposing that these new institutions subordinate existing states to their authority - an idea that might be appealing in abstract terms, but would require a (literally) revolutionary groundswell of global popular support to have any effect.  
--MM
________________________________________
From: Katitza Rodriguez [katitza at eff.org]

I have trouble understanding Parminder's opinion. While I agree with this phrase (quote below), I do not understand why he thinks that by having this new global policy setting, Bilateral agreements (US FTAs - other countries), ACTA, etc will stop from happening. Better to said: Why creating a new  global policy setting with binding recommendations will avoid / stop those agreements to happen.  The United States start using this strategy when they failed to incorporate some of these proposals through WIPO, so they end up adding those proposals through the bilateral or multi lateral agreements (which of course, we object).

"It is now especially critical that the global community give renewed attention to these principles, at a time when we see danger of them being forgotten - for example, in that a proposed Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement that will affect Internet users around the world (including the most marginalized), has been shaped almost entirely by powerful corporate and state actors from the global North."

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

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 Nov 10 16:25:20 2010
From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez)
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 13:25:20 -0800
Subject: [governance] FOURTH DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTik_4-oazn0ng91AGkWvoGNk1xXkKJPkpcOP2wYV@mail.gmail.com>
References: <296C93D0-7172-4DC7-8185-1DEAAA564B4D@ciroap.org> <AANLkTik_4-oazn0ng91AGkWvoGNk1xXkKJPkpcOP2wYV@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4CDB0DC0.9080204@eff.org>

Miguel

Can you share with us the arguments why the national level was 
intentionally left out of the international mechanism? Pls.  I would 
like to see emphasis also to the national and regional level. EC should 
be done at the national, regional, and international level. Not all 
Treaties conventions are good, and our countries should not sign or 
follow those recommendation if its affects their own citizens at the 
national or regional level. For example, it is dangerous to see the 
Budapest Convention exported to other countries, as it has serious 
implications for citizen's fundamental rights.  Despite the serious 
concerns that the Budapest Convention / Council of Europe itself 
contain, the harm to third countries outside Europe, for instance, Latin 
America is dangerous.  While the EU for instance has the Ecommerce 
Directive, The Data Protection Directive, the E-Privacy Directive, 
Charter of Fundamental Rights, and other check and balance in place etc, 
many countries lack of these regulatory frameworks.

I know, it can be worst with the ITU (and the end of anonymity). Please 
read: UN rejects international cybercrime treaty
http://www.computerweekly.com/Articles/2010/04/20/240973/UN-rejects-international-cybercrime-treaty.htm
>
> 1. Although much of the discussion of enhanced cooperation at WSIS 
> turned around the narrow issue of internationalising the oversight of 
> Internet naming and numbering functions, the Tunis Agenda expresses 
> this principle far more broadly to include other substantive Internet 
> related public policy issues that require attention and resolution at 
> _all levels, particularly_ the global level.It also reminds us that 
> the ultimate objective of our cooperation is to advance a 
> people-centred, inclusive, development-oriented and non-discriminatory 
> Information Society.
>
> [COMMENT: EC has to happen at all levels, but the consultation is 
> mainly towards the global and to some extent to the regional level. 
> The national level was intentionally left out of the international 
> mechanisms]
>


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101110/20b3c0e4/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From miguel.alcaine at gmail.com  Wed Nov 10 18:15:13 2010
From: miguel.alcaine at gmail.com (Miguel Alcaine)
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 00:15:13 +0100
Subject: [governance] FOURTH DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <4CDB0DC0.9080204@eff.org>
References: <296C93D0-7172-4DC7-8185-1DEAAA564B4D@ciroap.org>
	<AANLkTik_4-oazn0ng91AGkWvoGNk1xXkKJPkpcOP2wYV@mail.gmail.com>
	<4CDB0DC0.9080204@eff.org>
Message-ID: <AANLkTinPSZkTzanweeCDKL8NQYP-ui=SCnqqLxbKOSX-@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all,

As I commented to Imran, we can even say "at all levels, particularly at the
regional and the international level", which will be perfectly in agreement
with WSIS outcome documents.

In the implementation and follow-up, many countries governments did not want
any language which may give basis to have "best practices" or peer reviews
implemented, because in practice, performance evaluation comparing countries
lead to political bargaining among and between them. In other words,
countries governments were very keen to protect their space in national
sovereignity terms. For example, read attached paras 85 and 100 of the TA.

I guess, in summary, we can make a call to have EC at all levels, and even
spell out all the levels: local, national, regional and international.
However, we can elaborate further on describing and designing EC, in detail,
for the regional and international level, but my educated guess will be that
as international CS we will not have the opportunity to do the same at the
national and local level, which might need to interface with Governments at
the Governments request and might need to be advocated at the national and
local levels.

Another consideration that I thought when referring only to international
level spelled out (while we can mention the regional level perfectly) and
leaving all others within the phrase "at all levels" is that I thought the
consultations are mainly concerned with the international level, because of
the declared goal of EC in the TA about Governments being equal in the
Internet Governance, although I recognize this is not the priority focus for
CS.

I hope this clarifies my arguments,

Best,

Miguel

*Annex*

85. *Taking into consideration the leading role of governments* in
partnership with other stakeholders in implementing the WSIS outcomes,
including the Geneva Plan of Action, at the national level, we
encouragethose governments that have not yet done so to elaborate, as
appropriate,
comprehensive, forward-looking and sustainable national e-strategies,
including ICT strategies and sectoral e-strategies as
appropriate1<http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs2/tunis/off/6rev1.html#note2>,
as an integral part of national development plans and poverty reduction
strategies, as soon as possible and before 2010.

100. *At the national level, based on the WSIS outcomes, **we
encourage**governments,
* with the participation of all stakeholders and bearing in mind the
importance of an enabling environment, to set up a national
*implementation*mechanism, in which:


   1.

   National e-strategies, where appropriate, should be an integral part of
   national development plans, including Poverty Reduction Strategies, aiming
   to contribute to the achievement of internationally agreed development goals
   and objectives, including the Millennium Development Goals.
   2.

   ICTs should be fully mainstreamed into strategies for Official
   Development Assistance (ODA) through more effective information-sharing and
   coordination among development partners, and through analysis and sharing of
   best practices and lessons learned from experience with ICT for development
   programmes.
   3.

   Existing bilateral and multilateral technical assistance programmes,
   including those under the UN Development Assistance Framework, should be
   used whenever appropriate to assist governments in their implementation
   efforts at the national level.
   4.

   Common Country Assessment reports should contain a component on ICT for
   development.





On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 10:25 PM, Katitza Rodriguez <katitza at eff.org> wrote:

>  Miguel
>
> Can you share with us the arguments why the national level was
> intentionally left out of the international mechanism? Pls.  I would like to
> see emphasis also to the national and regional level. EC should be done at
> the national, regional, and international level. Not all Treaties
> conventions are good, and our countries should not sign or follow those
> recommendation if its affects their own citizens at the national or regional
> level. For example, it is dangerous to see the Budapest Convention exported
> to other countries, as it has serious implications for citizen's fundamental
> rights.  Despite the serious concerns that the Budapest Convention / Council
> of Europe itself contain, the harm to third countries outside Europe, for
> instance, Latin America is dangerous.  While the EU for instance has the
> Ecommerce Directive, The Data Protection Directive, the E-Privacy Directive,
> Charter of Fundamental Rights, and other check and balance in place etc,
> many countries lack of these regulatory frameworks.
>
> I know, it can be worst with the ITU (and the end of anonymity). Please
> read: UN rejects international cybercrime treaty
>
> http://www.computerweekly.com/Articles/2010/04/20/240973/UN-rejects-international-cybercrime-treaty.htm
>
>
>
> 1. Although much of the discussion of enhanced cooperation at WSIS turned
> around the narrow issue of internationalising the oversight of Internet
> naming and numbering functions, the Tunis Agenda expresses this principle
> far more broadly to include other substantive Internet related public policy
> issues that require attention and resolution at *all levels, particularly*the global level.
> It also reminds us that the ultimate objective of our cooperation is to
> advance a people-centred, inclusive, development-oriented and
> non-discriminatory Information Society.
>
>
>
> [COMMENT: EC has to happen at all levels, but the consultation is mainly
> towards the global and to some extent to the regional level. The national
> level was intentionally left out of the international mechanisms]
>
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101111/35f07236/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From mariliamaciel at gmail.com  Wed Nov 10 18:24:27 2010
From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 21:24:27 -0200
Subject: [governance] FINAL? DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC12008CE@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
References: <7E0ED935-470F-451E-B072-319351CAAD94@ciroap.org>
	<4CDAB2BB.8050303@eff.org>
	<75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC12008CE@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <AANLkTimJHN6P9TiVazEGWPORM0SFp7MV8yuPw45_h9ic@mail.gmail.com>

I support the statement and I particularly liked the suggestion made by Avri
(open, accountable instead of multilateral) and by Milton on the exclusion
of “in their respective roles”.

Regarding the reference made to ACTA, I don´t think we are implying that the
effective respect for these principles (openness, transparency,
accountability, etc) will stop forum shifting. The way I understand, we are
simply calling attention to the fact that these principles have been
disregarded in other regimes/debates and that a clear message should be sent
against this disrespect, by reaffirming these principles and making them the
base of our arrangements.


On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 6:59 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:

> Katitza is right. We will not stop powerful national governments from
> pursuing their interests through smaller "clubs" of like-minded states by
> creating new, overarching governance institutions -- unless you are
> proposing that these new institutions subordinate existing states to their
> authority - an idea that might be appealing in abstract terms, but would
> require a (literally) revolutionary groundswell of global popular support to
> have any effect.
> --MM
> ________________________________________
> From: Katitza Rodriguez [katitza at eff.org]
>
> I have trouble understanding Parminder's opinion. While I agree with this
> phrase (quote below), I do not understand why he thinks that by having this
> new global policy setting, Bilateral agreements (US FTAs - other countries),
> ACTA, etc will stop from happening. Better to said: Why creating a new
>  global policy setting with binding recommendations will avoid / stop those
> agreements to happen.  The United States start using this strategy when they
> failed to incorporate some of these proposals through WIPO, so they end up
> adding those proposals through the bilateral or multi lateral agreements
> (which of course, we object).
>
> "It is now especially critical that the global community give renewed
> attention to these principles, at a time when we see danger of them being
> forgotten - for example, in that a proposed Anti-Counterfeiting Trade
> Agreement that will affect Internet users around the world (including the
> most marginalized), has been shaped almost entirely by powerful corporate
> and state actors from the global North."
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>



-- 
Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
FGV Direito Rio

Center for Technology and Society
Getulio Vargas Foundation
Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101110/46bd6793/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From katitza at eff.org  Wed Nov 10 18:38:49 2010
From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez)
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 15:38:49 -0800
Subject: [governance] FINAL? DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimJHN6P9TiVazEGWPORM0SFp7MV8yuPw45_h9ic@mail.gmail.com>
References: <7E0ED935-470F-451E-B072-319351CAAD94@ciroap.org>	<4CDAB2BB.8050303@eff.org>	<75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC12008CE@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <AANLkTimJHN6P9TiVazEGWPORM0SFp7MV8yuPw45_h9ic@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4CDB2D09.4090904@eff.org>

Parminder's intention go far beyond yours, Marilia if I understood 
correctly. But I like your framing:

If this is the case, we should called attention to the ITU and APEC. In 
my previous job, we have been even denied observer status in APEC, and 
the only way to get into the meetings was through our national 
delegations, which I have done. The country who object to our observer 
status was the same country that make troubles within the IGF. After a 
few meetings, we were able to get observer status but we have to applied 
meeting by meeting.


On 11/10/10 3:24 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote:
> Regarding the reference made to ACTA, I don´t think we are implying 
> that the effective respect for these principles (openness, 
> transparency, accountability, etc) will stop forum shifting. The way I 
> understand, we are simply calling attention to the fact that these 
> principles have been disregarded in other regimes/debates and that a 
> clear message should be sent against this disrespect, by reaffirming 
> these principles and making them the base of our arrangements. 


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

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

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

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

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


From gurstein at gmail.com  Wed Nov 10 19:11:15 2010
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 08:11:15 +0800
Subject: Multistakeholderism and Public Policy: (was) RE: [governance]
 Re: SECOND DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <93E49BCF-6B58-4DBF-9972-C7442C4F21E1@psg.com>
Message-ID: <C811913A0F124F43A7175BABE4267B34@userPC>

Avri, (and Jeanette),

I guess you know that what you are articulating is what most in the world
would call a "bug" to be found in certain rather specific (and currently
waning) political structures rather than as you seem to think, it being a
"feature".

The problem doesn't come in in the articulation of multiple "public
interests" but rather in how all of those are reconciled and turned into
public policy.   If there is no appropriate and democratic, responsible,
transparent structures for reconciliation/integration then the result is
simply the autocracy of the best connected, loudest voices, deepest
pockets--with those without such connections, loud voices or deep pockets
left more or less out in the cold (i.e. without decent health care, without
affordable housing, without useable/useful Internet access).

The latter I would assume being a usual (although in present company
regrettably infrequent) subject of interest to civil society.

Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2010 7:46 PM
To: IGC
Subject: Re: Multistakeholderism and Public Policy: (was) RE: [governance]
Re: SECOND DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation



On 9 Nov 2010, at 04:10, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:

> Perhaps you just not recognize our replies as answers? To somewhat 
> overstate my point, the "broader public interest" you are referring to 
> is a fiction. It does not exist as a clearly delimitable concern that 
> could serve as a benchmark for assessing methods of representation.


And my answer, which is slightly different though probably the same, is that
the Broader Public interest is an aggregate of the many public interests and
not one specific interest in itself.


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  Wed Nov 10 19:09:54 2010
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 08:09:54 +0800
Subject: [governance] FOURTH DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <376874.62261.qm@web33005.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <296C93D0-7172-4DC7-8185-1DEAAA564B4D@ciroap.org> <AANLkTik_4-oazn0ng91AGkWvoGNk1xXkKJPkpcOP2wYV@mail.gmail.com> <E8F18D4C-8B5B-4934-B1E0-ACA8703B2D7B@ciroap.org> <376874.62261.qm@web33005.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <099C51D4-5EAC-4998-B3B4-21A9C8B2E017@ciroap.org>

On 10/11/2010, at 11:24 PM, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote:

> My little suggestions are also, once again, just ignored

I already incorporated the first of your suggestions, by changing the reference to "intergovernmental mandate".  But the others, sorry I found hard to find a place for.  Miguel has helped to find a way to incorporate one of your other suggestions, though.

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

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

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101111/638d4a5f/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101111/638d4a5f/attachment.bin>

From mariliamaciel at gmail.com  Wed Nov 10 19:18:11 2010
From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 22:18:11 -0200
Subject: [governance] FINAL? DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <4CDB2D09.4090904@eff.org>
References: <7E0ED935-470F-451E-B072-319351CAAD94@ciroap.org>
	<4CDAB2BB.8050303@eff.org>
	<75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC12008CE@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
	<AANLkTimJHN6P9TiVazEGWPORM0SFp7MV8yuPw45_h9ic@mail.gmail.com>
	<4CDB2D09.4090904@eff.org>
Message-ID: <AANLkTim+fncpSGkMLCzPUijELAnUa9+8mBD4s+sMUdBk@mail.gmail.com>

I feel I need to say that I am supporting this draft because I believe it is
the possible consensus we are able to reach by the end of the present week.


But then I ned to ask: will the lively debate that is currently taking place
cease when we send our statement? I hope not, because the present statement
is definitely not an IGC position on EC. So the debate needs to continue,
both on what was called “core EC” and “broader conditions for EC”: how to
define it? do we need it? in which ares? how to implement it? If we don’t
have a proposal to put on the table and bargain, others will decide for us.


I believe we have plenty of great exchanges, concrete suggestions (on one
side and the other) and good starting point do advance to a more concrete
position in the near future. But we need to map what has been said about EC
so far, put them in a charter so we can visualize it.  Could the
coordinators help us do it? What would be the best way to proceed? Maybe it
is time for the wiki you guys mentioned?


Best,

Marilia


Ps:@Kati, regarding ACTA, not being aware of the intentions, this is how I
understood the paragraph, through literal reading.  I have gone through the
e-mails trying to find when the reference to ACTA was included, but was
unable to.


On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 9:38 PM, Katitza Rodriguez <katitza at eff.org> wrote:

> Parminder's intention go far beyond yours, Marilia if I understood
> correctly. But I like your framing:
>
> If this is the case, we should called attention to the ITU and APEC. In my
> previous job, we have been even denied observer status in APEC, and the only
> way to get into the meetings was through our national delegations, which I
> have done. The country who object to our observer status was the same
> country that make troubles within the IGF. After a few meetings, we were
> able to get observer status but we have to applied meeting by meeting.
>
>
>
> On 11/10/10 3:24 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote:
>
>> Regarding the reference made to ACTA, I don´t think we are implying that
>> the effective respect for these principles (openness, transparency,
>> accountability, etc) will stop forum shifting. The way I understand, we are
>> simply calling attention to the fact that these principles have been
>> disregarded in other regimes/debates and that a clear message should be sent
>> against this disrespect, by reaffirming these principles and making them the
>> base of our arrangements.
>>
>
>
> --
> 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
>
>


-- 
Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
FGV Direito Rio

Center for Technology and Society
Getulio Vargas Foundation
Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101110/3fea1572/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From fouadbajwa at gmail.com  Wed Nov 10 19:47:02 2010
From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa)
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 05:47:02 +0500
Subject: [governance] FOURTH DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinPSZkTzanweeCDKL8NQYP-ui=SCnqqLxbKOSX-@mail.gmail.com>
References: <296C93D0-7172-4DC7-8185-1DEAAA564B4D@ciroap.org>
	<AANLkTik_4-oazn0ng91AGkWvoGNk1xXkKJPkpcOP2wYV@mail.gmail.com>
	<4CDB0DC0.9080204@eff.org>
	<AANLkTinPSZkTzanweeCDKL8NQYP-ui=SCnqqLxbKOSX-@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTimY40xQmJz22VqpEoz3dDLeNwYU_Lx5LV6514j3@mail.gmail.com>

One interesting personal observation here that comes to mind with the
current statement is that do governments or business sector usually
state CS issues or what the challenges or proceedings were in the WSIS
processes with regards to CS as an important component of their
statements on such matters and in our case, EC?

It seems as if our approach is to convince governments or a certain
sector instead of clearly asserting what our views are on the issue. I
am attaching with this message a draft of the IT policy of Pakistan
that is has been sent out for comments/feedback by the govt. As you
read through this policy document (that was initially prepared with a
black box / silo approach) and then opened for comments/feedback, near
the end, you will read about the issues pertaining to critical
internet resources.

This document is the latest context in terms of a developing country,
something for the next 5-10 years. How do you see EC to effect this
country? What do you see as the social and economic implications of
this approach on the citizens of that country? Do we want
intergovernmental process lingo or do we really want to contribute
something in the form of a workable strategy? The policy document I am
sharing is an example open for a litmus test? The Pakistani govt
hasn't been part of the IGF nor a delegation has been seen by myself.
CS, tech community, academia and Private Sector members have been or a
few govt delegates on fellowships.

The concerned Ministry says it "welcomes further comments on the
revised draft policy" which may be provided by 28th of November 2010.
Comments can be provided at http://www.pcl.org.pk/policy. The draft
policy can also be viewed at the Ministry’s website
(http://moitt.gov.pk) http://www.pcl.org.pk/policy/.

I want to gain a bit of more understanding to what IGC wants out of
the EC statement instead of just putting together a statement for the
sake of it.

-- 
Regards.
--------------------------
Fouad Bajwa


On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 4:15 AM, Miguel Alcaine
<miguel.alcaine at gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> As I commented to Imran, we can even say "at all levels, particularly at the
> regional and the international level", which will be perfectly in agreement
> with WSIS outcome documents.
>
> In the implementation and follow-up, many countries governments did not want
> any language which may give basis to have "best practices" or peer reviews
> implemented, because in practice, performance evaluation comparing countries
> lead to political bargaining among and between them. In other words,
> countries governments were very keen to protect their space in national
> sovereignity terms. For example, read attached paras 85 and 100 of the TA.
>
> I guess, in summary, we can make a call to have EC at all levels, and even
> spell out all the levels: local, national, regional and international.
> However, we can elaborate further on describing and designing EC, in detail,
> for the regional and international level, but my educated guess will be that
> as international CS we will not have the opportunity to do the same at the
> national and local level, which might need to interface with Governments at
> the Governments request and might need to be advocated at the national and
> local levels.
>
> Another consideration that I thought when referring only to international
> level spelled out (while we can mention the regional level perfectly) and
> leaving all others within the phrase "at all levels" is that I thought the
> consultations are mainly concerned with the international level, because of
> the declared goal of EC in the TA about Governments being equal in the
> Internet Governance, although I recognize this is not the priority focus for
> CS.
>
> I hope this clarifies my arguments,
>
> Best,
>
> Miguel
>
> Annex
>
> 85. Taking into consideration the leading role of governments in partnership
> with other stakeholders in implementing the WSIS outcomes, including the
> Geneva Plan of Action, at the national level, we encourage those governments
> that have not yet done so to elaborate, as appropriate, comprehensive,
> forward-looking and sustainable national e-strategies, including ICT
> strategies and sectoral e-strategies as appropriate1, as an integral part of
> national development plans and poverty reduction strategies, as soon as
> possible and before 2010.
>
> 100. At the national level, based on the WSIS outcomes, we encourage
> governments, with the participation of all stakeholders and bearing in mind
> the importance of an enabling environment, to set up a national
> implementation mechanism, in which:
>
> National e-strategies, where appropriate, should be an integral part of
> national development plans, including Poverty Reduction Strategies, aiming
> to contribute to the achievement of internationally agreed development goals
> and objectives, including the Millennium Development Goals.
>
> ICTs should be fully mainstreamed into strategies for Official Development
> Assistance (ODA) through more effective information-sharing and coordination
> among development partners, and through analysis and sharing of best
> practices and lessons learned from experience with ICT for development
> programmes.
>
> Existing bilateral and multilateral technical assistance programmes,
> including those under the UN Development Assistance Framework, should be
> used whenever appropriate to assist governments in their implementation
> efforts at the national level.
>
> Common Country Assessment reports should contain a component on ICT for
> development.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 10:25 PM, Katitza Rodriguez <katitza at eff.org> wrote:
>>
>> Miguel
>>
>> Can you share with us the arguments why the national level was
>> intentionally left out of the international mechanism? Pls.  I would like to
>> see emphasis also to the national and regional level. EC should be done at
>> the national, regional, and international level. Not all Treaties
>> conventions are good, and our countries should not sign or follow those
>> recommendation if its affects their own citizens at the national or regional
>> level. For example, it is dangerous to see the Budapest Convention exported
>> to other countries, as it has serious implications for citizen's fundamental
>> rights.  Despite the serious concerns that the Budapest Convention / Council
>> of Europe itself contain, the harm to third countries outside Europe, for
>> instance, Latin America is dangerous.  While the EU for instance has the
>> Ecommerce Directive, The Data Protection Directive, the E-Privacy Directive,
>> Charter of Fundamental Rights, and other check and balance in place etc,
>> many countries lack of these regulatory frameworks.
>>
>> I know, it can be worst with the ITU (and the end of anonymity). Please
>> read: UN rejects international cybercrime treaty
>>
>> http://www.computerweekly.com/Articles/2010/04/20/240973/UN-rejects-international-cybercrime-treaty.htm
>>
>>
>>
>> 1. Although much of the discussion of enhanced cooperation at WSIS turned
>> around the narrow issue of internationalising the oversight of Internet
>> naming and numbering functions, the Tunis Agenda expresses this principle
>> far more broadly to include other substantive Internet related public policy
>> issues that require attention and resolution at all levels, particularly the
>> global level.  It also reminds us that the ultimate objective of our
>> cooperation is to advance a people-centred, inclusive, development-oriented
>> and non-discriminatory Information Society.
>>
>>
>>
>> [COMMENT: EC has to happen at all levels, but the consultation is mainly
>> towards the global and to some extent to the regional level. The national
>> level was intentionally left out of the international mechanisms]
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Pakistan_Draft_National_IT_Policy_2010.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 292878 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101111/c1e8a336/attachment.pdf>

From jeremy at ciroap.org  Wed Nov 10 22:48:58 2010
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 11:48:58 +0800
Subject: [governance] FINAL? DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=EPFoO2e15cwGRuxX8h474sawHPSjHq1_J=Xca@mail.gmail.com>
References: <7E0ED935-470F-451E-B072-319351CAAD94@ciroap.org> <2355BBFB-89C2-46CC-B2A8-A4067DD5E314@psg.com> <AANLkTimRz7xURskrb88oR67EYFFGS9ykTO1YdD5Uj=NF@mail.gmail.com> <4CDAC053.8010603@wzb.eu> <AANLkTikC7gFJqr6CpR9A4vkOi07GRmV3boM7NTJmSWhb@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTi=EPFoO2e15cwGRuxX8h474sawHPSjHq1_J=Xca@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7762FD75-6FF5-4C5F-B77B-A747448B2913@ciroap.org>

On 11/11/2010, at 12:23 AM, Paul Lehto wrote:

> In my view, this is the context or close to the preamble that sets the
> stage for understanding all the rest, and something very close to it
> should be at or near the beginning:

This is good, but I don't know whether adding it will cause the reader's eyes to glaze over before they get to the guts of our statement.  There's an internet meme called "tl;dr" which I think could apply if we add too much length to the preamble.  Also, I feel that most readers (or the ones who matter) will be well aware of this background.  What do others think?  Maybe if you could just suggest some much shorter additions/changes to the existing text, it would be easier to fit in.

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

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

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101111/92cc5d31/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101111/92cc5d31/attachment.bin>

From divina.meigs at orange.fr  Thu Nov 11 01:25:17 2010
From: divina.meigs at orange.fr (Divina MEIGS)
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 07:25:17 +0100
Subject: [governance] International conference on NWICO-WSIS and beyond
Message-ID: <C9014ADD.1A14E%divina.meigs@orange.fr>

Dear colleagues

Please find attached and below the programme of an international conference
that is going to be held in Paris on november 19th, dealing with the
NWICO-WSIS period and beyond

Best regards
Divina

 
   
    
      
 
 


Colloque international / International Colloquium
 
 
30 ans de géopolitique de la communication :
acteurs et flux, structures et fractures
 
30 years of communication geopolitics:
actors and flows, structures and divides
 
 
PROGRAMME 
 
MSH Paris-Nord - 19 novembre 2010
 
30 ans après la présentation officielle, à Belgrade, du rapport de la
Commission Mac Bride, initiée par l¹UNESCO sur le Nouvel Ordre Mondial de
l¹Information et de la Communication (NOMIC) et 5 ans après les conclusions,
à Genève, du Sommet Mondial sur la Société de l¹Information (SMSI), ce
colloque visé à dégager les enjeux théoriques et politiques majeurs du NOMIC
et du SMSI, et d¹en faire le bilan. Cette journée fait l¹objet de
contributions d¹horizons divers, et met à l¹honneur des acteurs historiques
internationaux, invités comme « grands témoins » et/ou ayant fait l¹objet
d¹interviews filmées qui constituent autant de traces laissées aux
générations futures.
 
30 years after the official presentation, in Belgrade, of the report of the
Mac Bride Commission, under the aegis of UNESCO on the New World Information
and Communication Order (NWICO) and 5 years after the conclusion, in Geneva,
of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), this colloquium will
highlight the major theoretical and political issues of NWICO and WSIS. It
seeks to draw up a balance-sheet of the issues and actors involved. The
colloquium will build on the contributions of participants and highlight
historical and international actors who will testify to their role in these
debates. Filmed interviews of key figures will be featured.
 
Le colloque sera en français et anglais / The colloquium will be in French
and English. 
 
  8h30   Ouverture / Opening
  9h       Bienvenue / Welcome address
  9h15  Table ronde / Round table  n°1  Le Nouvel Ordre Mondial de
l¹Information et de la Communication : quel bilan ? / The New World
Information and Communication Order:  un assessment  Fernando REYES MATTA
(Ancien rédacteur du rapport Mac Bride ; Communication de l¹ILET)  Kaarle
NORDENSTRENG (Ancien président de l'Organisation Internationale de
Journalistes)  Asher DÉLEON (sous réserve) (Secrétaire exécutif de la
Commission Mac Bride) Chair : Michael PALMER, Professeur, Univ. Paris 3
(CIM)   
  10h15 : Table ronde / Round table n°2  Le NOMIC : les perspectives du
³Sud² revisitées / The NWICO: ³Southern² perspectives revised Mustapha
MASMOUDI (Ancien membre de la Commission Mac Bride) Gustavo GONZALEZ (Ancien
directeur de l¹Institut de la Communication du Chili)   Roberto SAVIO
(Ancien directeur général de l¹Inter Press Service)   Chair : Patricio
TUPPER, Professeur, Univ. Paris 8 (CEMTI)
  11h15  Pause café / Coffee break
  11h30 ­ 12h30 : Panel NOMIC /NWICO  Pedro AGUIAR (Univ. Rio Janeiro) :
South-South Cooperation in Communications: the case of the Non-Aligned News
Agencies Pool (1975-80) Veva LEYE (Univ. Gent) : A discourse-theoretical
analysis of the UNESCO policy on communication and development (1975-2005)
Alan MACKENNA (Univ. of Kent, Canterbury) : The Right to Communicate from
NWICO to WSIS   
  12h30  Pause déjeuner / Lunch break
  12h30-13h: Poster session Laura RANCA (Loughborough) : U.N. agendas for
Media Development Maria Elena SPAGNOLO (Turin) : Les États-Unis et le NOMIC
  13h45 ­ 14h45 : Panel SMSI / WSIS 1  Leo VAN AUDENHOVE, Julia POHLE (Vrije
Univ., Brussels) : Discourses in International Information Society Policy
before the World Summit on the Information Society  Rolf H. WEBER (Univ.
Zurich) : From NWICO to WSIS: Development of digital divide concept  Ximena
González BROQUEN (Instituto Venezolano de Investigaciones Científicas) :
Intégration médiatique versus société de l¹information : l¹intégration en
communication    
  14h45  Pause   
  15h ­ 16h : Panel SMSI / WSIS 2  Jeremy SHTERN (Ryerson Univ., Toronto),
Normand LANDRY (McGill Univ., Montréal) : L¹héritage substantif du SMSI : la
société civile et la gouvernance mondiale de la communication   Pascal
RENAUD (Institut de Recherche pour le Développement, Paris) : L¹ICANN après
la retraite des pères fondateurs ? Enjeux pour les pays en développement Jia
XU (Tsinghua Univ., Beijing) : Next Generation Internet: a New Starting
Point for the World¹s Information and Communication Order
  16h  Pause café / Coffee break
  16h20  Table ronde / Round table n°3  Le Sommet Mondial sur la Société de
l¹Information : acquis et limites / The World Summit on the Information
Society: outcomes and limits  Mustapha MASMOUDI (Membre Commission Mac Bride
; initiateur du SMSI)  Bertrand DE LA CHAPELLE (Représentant du gouvernement
français au SMSI, phases 1&2) Françoise MASSIT-FOLEA (Programme Vox
Internet)  Chair : Divina FRAU-MEIGS, Professeure, Univ. Paris 3 (CREW)
  17h30  Conclusion & extraits video de temoignages / video extracts of
personal accounts  
 
 
        
    
   
     
   Merci de confirmer votre présence  ­   Please confirm your attendance :
jérémie.nicey at univ-paris3.fr
       
   
     
   Visitez notre site web / Visit our website : www.nomic-smsi.net or
www.nwico-wsis.net 
       
   
     
 
 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101111/f74e3f8f/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PROGRAMME_19 Nov2010.doc
Type: application/applefile
Size: 441 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101111/f74e3f8f/attachment.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PROGRAMME_19 Nov2010.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 565760 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101111/f74e3f8f/attachment.doc>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From miguel.alcaine at gmail.com  Thu Nov 11 04:44:03 2010
From: miguel.alcaine at gmail.com (Miguel Alcaine)
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 10:44:03 +0100
Subject: [governance] FINAL? DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTim+fncpSGkMLCzPUijELAnUa9+8mBD4s+sMUdBk@mail.gmail.com>
References: <7E0ED935-470F-451E-B072-319351CAAD94@ciroap.org>
	<4CDAB2BB.8050303@eff.org>
	<75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC12008CE@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
	<AANLkTimJHN6P9TiVazEGWPORM0SFp7MV8yuPw45_h9ic@mail.gmail.com>
	<4CDB2D09.4090904@eff.org>
	<AANLkTim+fncpSGkMLCzPUijELAnUa9+8mBD4s+sMUdBk@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTimpAhEriKwoFBZcF+2Hp-5pH04ODrJVjbyaCogr@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all,

I think Marialia is right. It will be very convenient to work further and
beyond the statement. I took the liberty to put in bold some of the text in
Marilia's email.

Best,

Miguel

On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 1:18 AM, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>wrote:

> I feel I need to say that I am supporting this draft because I believe it
> is the possible consensus we are able to reach by the end of the present
> week.
>
>
> *But then I ned to ask: will the lively debate that is currently taking
> place cease when we send our statement? I hope not, because the present
> statement is definitely not an IGC position on EC. So the debate needs to
> continue, both on what was called “core EC” and “broader conditions for EC”:
> how to define it? do we need it? in which ares? how to implement it? If we
> don’t have a proposal to put on the table and bargain, others will decide
> for us.*
>
> *
> *
>
> *I believe we have plenty of great exchanges, concrete suggestions (on one
> side and the other) and good starting point do advance to a more concrete
> position in the near future. But we need to map what has been said about EC
> so far, put them in a charter so we can visualize it.  Could the
> coordinators help us do it? What would be the best way to proceed? Maybe it
> is time for the wiki you guys mentioned?
> *
>
>
> Best,
>
> Marilia
>
>
> Ps:@Kati, regarding ACTA, not being aware of the intentions, this is how I
> understood the paragraph, through literal reading.  I have gone through
> the e-mails trying to find when the reference to ACTA was included, but was
> unable to.
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 9:38 PM, Katitza Rodriguez <katitza at eff.org>wrote:
>
>> Parminder's intention go far beyond yours, Marilia if I understood
>> correctly. But I like your framing:
>>
>> If this is the case, we should called attention to the ITU and APEC. In my
>> previous job, we have been even denied observer status in APEC, and the only
>> way to get into the meetings was through our national delegations, which I
>> have done. The country who object to our observer status was the same
>> country that make troubles within the IGF. After a few meetings, we were
>> able to get observer status but we have to applied meeting by meeting.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 11/10/10 3:24 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote:
>>
>>> Regarding the reference made to ACTA, I don´t think we are implying that
>>> the effective respect for these principles (openness, transparency,
>>> accountability, etc) will stop forum shifting. The way I understand, we are
>>> simply calling attention to the fact that these principles have been
>>> disregarded in other regimes/debates and that a clear message should be sent
>>> against this disrespect, by reaffirming these principles and making them the
>>> base of our arrangements.
>>>
>>
>>
>>  --
>> 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
>>
>>
>
>
>  --
> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
> FGV Direito Rio
>
> Center for Technology and Society
> Getulio Vargas Foundation
> Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101111/4fc24b6b/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From jeremy at ciroap.org  Thu Nov 11 04:30:29 2010
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (jeremy at ciroap.org)
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 17:30:29 +0800
Subject: [governance] FINAL? DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimpAhEriKwoFBZcF+2Hp-5pH04ODrJVjbyaCogr@mail.gmail.com>
References: <7E0ED935-470F-451E-B072-319351CAAD94@ciroap.org> <4CDAB2BB.8050303@eff.org> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC12008CE@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <AANLkTimJHN6P9TiVazEGWPORM0SFp7MV8yuPw45_h9ic@mail.gmail.com> <4CDB2D09.4090904@eff.org> <AANLkTim+fncpSGkMLCzPUijELAnUa9+8mBD4s+sMUdBk@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTimpAhEriKwoFBZcF+2Hp-5pH04ODrJVjbyaCogr@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <6d598b9b55d1c8473f9c5615728963a9@localhost>

On Thu, 11 Nov 2010 10:44:03 +0100, Miguel Alcaine
<miguel.alcaine at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> I think Marialia is right. It will be very convenient to work further and
> beyond the statement. I took the liberty to put in bold some of the text
> in Marilia's email.

Great, then we will make plans.  Izumi and I will consult and get back with
a suggestion.
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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


From iza at anr.org  Thu Nov 11 05:14:49 2010
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 19:14:49 +0900
Subject: [governance] FINAL? DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTim+fncpSGkMLCzPUijELAnUa9+8mBD4s+sMUdBk@mail.gmail.com>
References: <7E0ED935-470F-451E-B072-319351CAAD94@ciroap.org>
 <4CDAB2BB.8050303@eff.org> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC12008CE@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
 <AANLkTimJHN6P9TiVazEGWPORM0SFp7MV8yuPw45_h9ic@mail.gmail.com>
 <4CDB2D09.4090904@eff.org> <AANLkTim+fncpSGkMLCzPUijELAnUa9+8mBD4s+sMUdBk@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=tm5R=Scfrt87D_vqcXEVQW8Dm6OAku26wzkgq@mail.gmail.com>

Thank you Marilia for the very encouraging suggestion below.
I was thinking something similar, but not as concrete as you described.
I very much appreciate if you could take the lead to map out, not the
co-coordinators
on this excellent suggestion, hopefully ;-).

Currently I can only think of wiki as a tool most of us may feel comfortable.
As Jeremy noted, we will discuss and get back to you.

In the mean time, however, if you guys have any other suggestion to allow
us to share our work process such as writing statement, pleas let us know.
I think we need cross-platform, easy-to-use, and easy-to-setup and maintain
tools to consider.

izumi


2010/11/11 Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>:
> I feel I need to say that I am supporting this draft because I believe it is
> the possible consensus we are able to reach by the end of the present week.
>
> But then I ned to ask: will the lively debate that is currently taking place
> cease when we send our statement? I hope not, because the present statement
> is definitely not an IGC position on EC. So the debate needs to continue,
> both on what was called “core EC” and “broader conditions for EC”: how to
> define it? do we need it? in which ares? how to implement it? If we don’t
> have a proposal to put on the table and bargain, others will decide for us.
>
> I believe we have plenty of great exchanges, concrete suggestions (on one
> side and the other) and good starting point do advance to a more concrete
> position in the near future. But we need to map what has been said about EC
> so far, put them in a charter so we can visualize it.  Could the
> coordinators help us do it? What would be the best way to proceed? Maybe it
> is time for the wiki you guys mentioned?
>
> Best,
>
> Marilia
>
> Ps:@Kati, regarding ACTA, not being aware of the intentions, this is how I
> understood the paragraph, through literal reading.  I have gone through the
> e-mails trying to find when the reference to ACTA was included, but was
> unable to.
>
> On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 9:38 PM, Katitza Rodriguez <katitza at eff.org> wrote:
>>
>> Parminder's intention go far beyond yours, Marilia if I understood
>> correctly. But I like your framing:
>>
>> If this is the case, we should called attention to the ITU and APEC. In my
>> previous job, we have been even denied observer status in APEC, and the only
>> way to get into the meetings was through our national delegations, which I
>> have done. The country who object to our observer status was the same
>> country that make troubles within the IGF. After a few meetings, we were
>> able to get observer status but we have to applied meeting by meeting.
>>
>>
>> On 11/10/10 3:24 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote:
>>>
>>> Regarding the reference made to ACTA, I don´t think we are implying that
>>> the effective respect for these principles (openness, transparency,
>>> accountability, etc) will stop forum shifting. The way I understand, we are
>>> simply calling attention to the fact that these principles have been
>>> disregarded in other regimes/debates and that a clear message should be sent
>>> against this disrespect, by reaffirming these principles and making them the
>>> base of our arrangements.
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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
>>
>
>
>
> --
> 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
>



-- 
                        >> Izumi Aizu <<

          Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo

           Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,
                                  Japan
                                 * * * * *
           << Writing the Future of the History >>
                                www.anr.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 parminder at itforchange.net  Thu Nov 11 06:25:30 2010
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 16:55:30 +0530
Subject: [governance] FINAL? DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=tm5R=Scfrt87D_vqcXEVQW8Dm6OAku26wzkgq@mail.gmail.com>
References: <7E0ED935-470F-451E-B072-319351CAAD94@ciroap.org> <4CDAB2BB.8050303@eff.org> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC12008CE@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <AANLkTimJHN6P9TiVazEGWPORM0SFp7MV8yuPw45_h9ic@mail.gmail.com> <4CDB2D09.4090904@eff.org> <AANLkTim+fncpSGkMLCzPUijELAnUa9+8mBD4s+sMUdBk@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTi=tm5R=Scfrt87D_vqcXEVQW8Dm6OAku26wzkgq@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4CDBD2AA.50505@itforchange.net>


Hi All

I am still not able to understand how so many of those who are against 
any new institutional framework for evolving global IG related public 
policies, which is democratic in inclusion of all countries and 
stakeholders,  have enthusiastically supported a similar framework among 
OECD countries? I mean the OECD's Committee For Information, Computer 
and Communication Policy, which has a very active portfolio for helping 
develop Internet policies, esp those with trans-border ramification. 
Many CS members in the IGC have actively organized themselves to 
associate with the work of this OECD's institutional framework.

Why should such a framework not exist at a global level? And I do think 
that OECD's framework is not multistakeholder enough. My proposal is for 
a global framework of similar kind (to OECD's) that will help develop 
globally applicable Internet related public policies, which is what the 
'enhanced cooperation' process is about, that is much more 
multistakeholder than the existing OECD one

I request a specific response for those who have supported the OECD 
framework rather enthusiastically, and this includes most here on the 
IGC list who now oppose similar new institutional developments at the 
global level , how do they justify this opposition now, for a similar 
global institutional framework.

Unfortunately, many developing country IGC members here have gone along 
with this opposition to a global UN anchored body, which can be  no 
different from the OECD arrangement. I am able to unserstand thier stanc 
eeven more.

Should we depend on OECD to make global Internet policies. That is what 
is being said in this support for a OECD framework but opposition to a 
similar global framework one, for addressing the urgent need for global 
Interent related public policies. .

For this reason I cannot support the present draft statement. But if 
someone can give me some justification clarifying the above paradox, I 
am very much willing to listen.

Parminder


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101111/d2c4b10a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From fouadbajwa at gmail.com  Thu Nov 11 07:03:10 2010
From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa)
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 17:03:10 +0500
Subject: [governance] FINAL? DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <4CDBD2AA.50505@itforchange.net>
References: <7E0ED935-470F-451E-B072-319351CAAD94@ciroap.org>
	<4CDAB2BB.8050303@eff.org>
	<75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC12008CE@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
	<AANLkTimJHN6P9TiVazEGWPORM0SFp7MV8yuPw45_h9ic@mail.gmail.com>
	<4CDB2D09.4090904@eff.org>
	<AANLkTim+fncpSGkMLCzPUijELAnUa9+8mBD4s+sMUdBk@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTi=tm5R=Scfrt87D_vqcXEVQW8Dm6OAku26wzkgq@mail.gmail.com>
	<4CDBD2AA.50505@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <AANLkTinp1ZPA6sU7oRQio9BWJSjKX2PimMcs=XcGB3Ub@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Parminder,

I too join your concern as well as believe in what you have termed as
the paradox. I have a feeling that this statement is just for the sake
of a statement but it represents our views of how confused we are in
terms of what is really required and what really affects us in the
developing world.

It is interesting that how we even as members within IGC try to move
towards and believe in a direction that is not possible nor workable
and are looking forward to waste another 5 years discussing something
that will take no other form out of what it is at the moment now.
Either we have members whose interests oppose to why we people from
the developing world gather here in the spirit for what IGC exists for
or we have certain actors here who have backgrounds that are in
conflict of interest to the IGC charter.

An open, new and inclusive institutional framework for evolving global
IG related public policies with the opportunity to be democratic in
inclusion of all countries and stakeholders will have to be advocated
separate from existing silos like OECD and the expectation of IGF to
evolve into one?

Despite there is an OECD's Committee For Information, Computer and
Communication Policy with an active portfolio for helping develop
Internet policies (as you mentioned esp those with trans-border
ramification) I donot believe this has been totally beneficial to us
developing world countries. Its one directional policy development and
policy instruments in which no developing country has direct consent
or consensus of formulation and implementation.

Furthermore, despite the fact that many CS members in the IGC actively
associate with the work of the mentioned OECD institutional framework
and I was also present at the OECD ministerial in Seoul, I am sorry to
say that much of the work is related to the policy advocacy agenda's
of certain organizations and not wholly directed at any direct
intervention on any developing issue in our developing world. Just to
give you an idea, I couldn't even register for many days because the
Pakistan record was no where in their participants database for
participating countries.

Anyways, I had earlier sent a message on the issue with regards to
using Pakistan as a litmus test but received no response on it because
we don't want to look back and rectify what damage has already been
done and want to move into the future with policy frameworks and
institutions developed with a totally different social and economic
model in our mind.

I support your call for addressing the urgent need for global Interent
related public policies.and am disappointed with the IG current
statement on EC as it represents only views that are not reflecting
what the developing world needs but what certain minds need to see,
debate, write books and papers about wheres we are left to suffer
because an improvement could happen but the global intellect couldn't
see it.


---- Fouad Bajwa


On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 4:25 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>
> Hi All
>
> I am still not able to understand how so many of those who are against any
> new institutional framework for evolving global IG related public policies,
> which is democratic in inclusion of all countries and stakeholders,  have
> enthusiastically supported a similar framework among OECD countries? I mean
> the OECD's Committee For Information, Computer and Communication Policy,
> which has a very active portfolio for helping develop Internet policies, esp
> those with trans-border ramification. Many CS members in the IGC have
> actively organized themselves to associate with the work of this OECD's
> institutional framework.
>
> Why should such a framework not exist at a global level? And I do think that
> OECD's framework is not multistakeholder enough. My proposal is for a global
> framework of similar kind (to OECD's) that will help develop globally
> applicable Internet related public policies, which is what the 'enhanced
> cooperation' process is about, that is much more multistakeholder than the
> existing OECD one
>
> I request a specific response for those who have supported the OECD
> framework rather enthusiastically, and this includes most here on the IGC
> list who now oppose similar new institutional developments at the global
> level , how do they justify this opposition now, for a similar global
> institutional framework.
>
> Unfortunately, many developing country IGC members here have gone along with
> this opposition to a global UN anchored body, which can be  no different
> from the OECD arrangement. I am able to unserstand thier stanc eeven more.
>
> Should we depend on OECD to make global Internet policies. That is what is
> being said in this support for a OECD framework but opposition to a similar
> global framework one, for addressing the urgent need for global Interent
> related public policies. .
>
> For this reason I cannot support the present draft statement. But if someone
> can give me some justification clarifying the above paradox, I am very much
> willing to listen.
>
> 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 b.schombe at gmail.com  Thu Nov 11 07:10:04 2010
From: b.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin SCHOMBE)
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 13:10:04 +0100
Subject: [governance] FINAL? DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <4CDBD2AA.50505@itforchange.net>
References: <7E0ED935-470F-451E-B072-319351CAAD94@ciroap.org>
 <4CDAB2BB.8050303@eff.org> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC12008CE@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
 <AANLkTimJHN6P9TiVazEGWPORM0SFp7MV8yuPw45_h9ic@mail.gmail.com>
 <4CDB2D09.4090904@eff.org> <AANLkTim+fncpSGkMLCzPUijELAnUa9+8mBD4s+sMUdBk@mail.gmail.com>
 <AANLkTi=tm5R=Scfrt87D_vqcXEVQW8Dm6OAku26wzkgq@mail.gmail.com> <4CDBD2AA.50505@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <AANLkTima5V-0_DPn=dS06usr=JwkWdCaWUVx7yEvMkSN@mail.gmail.com>

Parminder concretely in the context of strengthening cooperation or to
strengthen cooperation, it would be wise for formal exchanges are planned
between the OECD and actors from other continents to harmonize our views to
build a compelling case.
I think this is also part of the delicate task of civil society entities. I
also understand that such an approach requires costs that we must certainly
raise.OECD is an ideal partner, especially for developing countries.
The process is still long, but if we have land in 2015 with force and
conviction, it would be desirable to correct any mistakes along the way from
Tunis 2005.




SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN
*COORDONNATEUR DU CENTRE AFRICAIN D'ECHANGE CULTUREL (CAFEC)
 ACADEMIE DES TIC
*COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC
*MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE
*NCUC/GNSO MEMBER (ICANN)

Téléphone mobile: +243998983491/+243811980914
email:                   b.schombe at gmail.com
blog:                     http://akimambo.unblog.fr



2010/11/11 parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>

>
> Hi All
>
> I am still not able to understand how so many of those who are against any
> new institutional framework for evolving global IG related public policies,
> which is democratic in inclusion of all countries and stakeholders,  have
> enthusiastically supported a similar framework among OECD countries? I mean
> the OECD's Committee For Information, Computer and Communication Policy,
> which has a very active portfolio for helping develop Internet policies, esp
> those with trans-border ramification. Many CS members in the IGC have
> actively organized themselves to associate with the work of this OECD's
> institutional framework.
>
> Why should such a framework not exist at a global level? And I do think
> that OECD's framework is not multistakeholder enough. My proposal is for a
> global framework of similar kind (to OECD's) that will help develop globally
> applicable Internet related public policies, which is what the 'enhanced
> cooperation' process is about, that is much more multistakeholder than the
> existing OECD one
>
> I request a specific response for those who have supported the OECD
> framework rather enthusiastically, and this includes most here on the IGC
> list who now oppose similar new institutional developments at the global
> level , how do they justify this opposition now, for a similar global
> institutional framework.
>
> Unfortunately, many developing country IGC members here have gone along
> with this opposition to a global UN anchored body, which can be  no
> different from the OECD arrangement. I am able to unserstand thier stanc
> eeven more.
>
> Should we depend on OECD to make global Internet policies. That is what is
> being said in this support for a OECD framework but opposition to a similar
> global framework one, for addressing the urgent need for global Interent
> related public policies. .
>
> For this reason I cannot support the present draft statement. But if
> someone can give me some justification clarifying the above paradox, I am
> very much willing to listen.
>
> 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101111/7cc117dc/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From williams.deirdre at gmail.com  Thu Nov 11 08:04:27 2010
From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams)
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 09:04:27 -0400
Subject: [governance] Fwd: FW: MEETING EXISTENTIAL THREATS: CRAFTING A
 CARIBBEAN CONSENSUS
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTik7Po_2G6Btw_Ppk-dBqp5eZP2LZEKUyAOWw-Ru@mail.gmail.com>
References: <941821.39742.qm@web110001.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <AANLkTik7Po_2G6Btw_Ppk-dBqp5eZP2LZEKUyAOWw-Ru@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=D+CtZXCBK-mVT9wi6jABA3Wi7N0-_VD1pFvSO@mail.gmail.com>

I think this is relevant to Caribbean members of the IGC.
Deirdre

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Ed Brandon <ed.brandon at open.uwi.edu>
Date: 11 November 2010 08:29
Subject: FW: MEETING EXISTENTIAL THREATS: CRAFTING A CARIBBEAN CONSENSUS
To: tlilist at uwichill.edu.bb


A message for the Tertiary Level Institutions Mailing List.
Please distribute to interested parties.
Apologies for cross-posting.
------------------------------------------------------------
From: Norman Girvan [norman.girvan at gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 8:34 AM
To: EPA List
Subject: MEETING EXISTENTIAL THREATS: CRAFTING A CARIBBEAN CONSENSUS

Meeting Existential Threats: Crafting a Caribbean Consensus

There is a growing sense in our region of ‘existential
threats’--threats to the viability of our societies resulting from
combined effects of economic decline, climate change and natural
disasters, and criminal violence; which challenge the ability of our
systems of regional and national governance to cope.

We believe that the time is ripe for us to move from diagnosis to
prescription and from criticism to action.

We are inviting concerned citizens, members of the public and private
sectors and civil society stakeholders from all over the Caricom
Caribbean to submit proposals. These will be synthesised into a single
document Meeting Existential Threats: A Caribbean Consensus.

The document will be used to lobby governments, opposition parties,
opinion makers, media workers, church leaders, business leaders, trade
unions, civic organisations and any organisation and anyone who is
concerned about the future of our region and believes we can,
collectively, do something about it.

Everyone who participates in preparing the document will take
responsibility for using it to educate and mobilise public opinion. We
must develop collective empowerment and collective responsibility for
our future.

Our motto should be “Make an Input; and Make a Difference.”

To submit proposals, please follow these ground rules:

*   >  Send your proposals to the EPA list
c-epas at pambazuka.org<mailto:c-epas at pambazuka.org>  so that everyone
else can see it. If you are not already on the list, please join by
going to http://lists.pambazuka.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/c-epas.
Please do not send it to any individual on the Steering Committee; as
other people on the list will not see them.
*   >  Your proposals should be as concrete and practical as possible.
Try and relate them to changes in any one or more of: structures,
institutions, policies, laws, measures, actions, paradigms; and
located under regional governance, national governance, sustainable
development, and social well-being (more details below).
*   >  You do not have to say something about all of these, just where
you think you can add value.
*   >  Make each proposal in bullet point.
*   >  Keep it short—no long treatises please! Limit each proposal to
one concise sentence. Add a separate explanatory note if necessary.
These can always be published in an Annex.
*   >  Do not repeat proposals that have already been made by someone
else. Please keep track of what’s already been submitted.
*   >  Avoid the temptation to send a long list of proposals. Be
realistic about what we can accomplish in the first round.
*   >  If you have already made a proposal in one of the messages to
this list; please re-package it in the indicated format and send it
again.
*   >  Locate your proposal(s) in one or more of the following categories.

                 A. REGIONAL GOVERNANCE
(i)  Addressing Caricom’s crippling deficiencies in leadership and
structures for strategising, decision-making and
decision-implementation (ii) securing genuine people participation in
the regional integration process (iii) developing mutual trust among
Caribbean peoples and states and strengthening the collective sense of
Caribbean identity, self-esteem and self-confidence, (iv) securing a
unified foreign relations policy and foreign economic policy to
maximise Caricom's influence in international affairs

B.   NATIONAL GOVERNANCE
(i)Promoting a culture and mechanisms of long-term strategising -
transcending the political gamesmanship associated with the five year
electoral cycle (ii) securing inclusive and participatory involvement
of Caribbean peoples in politics and government decision-making
processes, (iii) securing greater transparency and accountability in
national governance

C.   SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
(i)  Strategies of and pathways to Caribbean sustainable development
(including agriculture, food sovereignty, and energy) (ii) disaster
prevention, disaster mitigation and adaptation to climate change
(iii) environmental awareness and environmental education

D.   SOCAL WELL-BEING
(i)  Measures to end exclusion and promote social and gender equity
and empowerment of youth (ii) addressing crime and violence

FINALLY, SEND THIS CALL FOR PROPOSALS TO ALL CARIBBEAN INVIDIDUALS AND
ORGANIZATIONS WHO YOU THINK WILL WANT TO “MAKE AN INPUT AND MAKE A
DIFFERENCE”.THE DEADLINE FOR SUBMITTING PROPOSALS IS DECEMBER 15,
2010.


Looking forward to hearing from you!

Steering Committee

1.  1.   Norman Girvan (Conv.), Trinidad and Tobago/Jamaica
2.  2.   David Abdulla, Trinidad and Tobago
3.  3.   Flavia Cherry, St. Lucia
4.  4.   Dicky Crawford, Jamaica
5.  5.   Patsy Lewis, Jamaica/Grenada
6.  6.   Sunity Maharaj, Trinidad and Tobago
7.  7.   Shantal Munro-Knight, Barbados
8.  8.   Cecil Ryan, St Vincent
9.  9.   Alissa Trotz, Canada/Guyana
10. 1    Judith Wedderburn, Jamaica
Drafting Committee

1.  1.   Annita Montoute, (Coord.), Trinidad and Tobago/St Lucia
2.  2.   Georgia Donaldson, Trinidad and Tobago/Jamaica
3.  3.   Alexander Girvan, Trinidad and Tobago/Jamaica
4.  4.   Anthony Morgan, Canada/Jamaica

For background information, go to
http://www.normangirvan.info/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/existential-threats.pdf
and also view messages at
http://lists.pambazuka.org/pipermail/c-epas/
About the EPA list

1.   To post a message to the entire list (subject to moderation) email it
to:

c-epas at pambazuka.org<mailto:c-epas at pambazuka.org>

2.   To change your email address, subscribe / unsubscribe; go to:

http://lists.pambazuka.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/c-epas

3.   To view all the messages circulated to this list so far by go to:
http://lists.pambazuka.org/pipermail/c-epas/. Please note that the
messages are public and anyone can view them by going to that address.




--
Norman Girvan
Professorial Research Fellow
Instittute of International Relations
University of the West Indies
Trinidad & Tobago
Internet http://normangirvan.info
Twitter http://twitter.com/normangirvan
--------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list, send an 'unsubscribe' request to
tlilist at uwichill.edu.bb



-- 
“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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101111/2d73d05d/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From parminder at itforchange.net  Thu Nov 11 08:13:48 2010
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 18:43:48 +0530
Subject: [governance] FINAL? DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTima5V-0_DPn=dS06usr=JwkWdCaWUVx7yEvMkSN@mail.gmail.com>
References: <7E0ED935-470F-451E-B072-319351CAAD94@ciroap.org> <4CDAB2BB.8050303@eff.org> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC12008CE@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <AANLkTimJHN6P9TiVazEGWPORM0SFp7MV8yuPw45_h9ic@mail.gmail.com> <4CDB2D09.4090904@eff.org> <AANLkTim+fncpSGkMLCzPUijELAnUa9+8mBD4s+sMUdBk@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTi=tm5R=Scfrt87D_vqcXEVQW8Dm6OAku26wzkgq@mail.gmail.com> <4CDBD2AA.50505@itforchange.net> <AANLkTima5V-0_DPn=dS06usr=JwkWdCaWUVx7yEvMkSN@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4CDBEC0C.7070204@itforchange.net>

Baudouin

All Partnership with -OECD, with the US, with EU - are fine.

My question however is specific

What is the problem with the IGC asking for a global institutional 
framework for developing Internet related public policies that includes 
all countries, and their stakeholders, of a similar kind that that OECD/ 
CoE already has?

This question is especially to seen in the context of the fact that IGC 
members have enthusiastically supported and engaged with the mentioned 
OECD framework.

Why is the need of participation of developing countries, with their all 
stakeholders, not considered relevant or important. That is the simple 
thing that I am seeking with my EC related proposal.

Parminder



On Thursday 11 November 2010 05:40 PM, Baudouin SCHOMBE wrote:
>
> Parminder concretely in the context of strengthening cooperation or to 
> strengthen cooperation, it would be wise for formal exchanges are 
> planned between the OECD and actors from other continents to harmonize 
> our views to build a compelling case.
> I think this is also part of the delicate task of civil society 
> entities. I also understand that such an approach requires costs that 
> we must certainly raise.OECD is an ideal partner, especially for 
> developing countries.
> The process is still long, but if we have land in 2015 with force and 
> conviction, it would be desirable to correct any mistakes along the 
> way from Tunis 2005.
>
>
>
>
> SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN
> *COORDONNATEUR DU CENTRE AFRICAIN D'ECHANGE CULTUREL (CAFEC)
>  ACADEMIE DES TIC
> *COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC
> *MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE
> *NCUC/GNSO MEMBER (ICANN)
>
> Téléphone mobile: +243998983491/+243811980914
> email: b.schombe at gmail.com <mailto:b.schombe at gmail.com>
> blog: http://akimambo.unblog.fr <http://akimambo.unblog.fr/>
>
>
>
> 2010/11/11 parminder <parminder at itforchange.net 
> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>>
>
>
>     Hi All
>
>     I am still not able to understand how so many of those who are
>     against any new institutional framework for evolving global IG
>     related public policies, which is democratic in inclusion of all
>     countries and stakeholders,  have enthusiastically supported a
>     similar framework among OECD countries? I mean the OECD's
>     Committee For Information, Computer and Communication Policy,
>     which has a very active portfolio for helping develop Internet
>     policies, esp those with trans-border ramification. Many CS
>     members in the IGC have actively organized themselves to associate
>     with the work of this OECD's institutional framework.
>
>     Why should such a framework not exist at a global level? And I do
>     think that OECD's framework is not multistakeholder enough. My
>     proposal is for a global framework of similar kind (to OECD's)
>     that will help develop globally applicable Internet related public
>     policies, which is what the 'enhanced cooperation' process is
>     about, that is much more multistakeholder than the existing OECD one
>
>     I request a specific response for those who have supported the
>     OECD framework rather enthusiastically, and this includes most
>     here on the IGC list who now oppose similar new institutional
>     developments at the global level , how do they justify this
>     opposition now, for a similar global institutional framework.
>
>     Unfortunately, many developing country IGC members here have gone
>     along with this opposition to a global UN anchored body, which can
>     be  no different from the OECD arrangement. I am able to
>     unserstand thier stanc eeven more.
>
>     Should we depend on OECD to make global Internet policies. That is
>     what is being said in this support for a OECD framework but
>     opposition to a similar global framework one, for addressing the
>     urgent need for global Interent related public policies. .
>
>     For this reason I cannot support the present draft statement. But
>     if someone can give me some justification clarifying the above
>     paradox, I am very much willing to listen.
>
>     Parminder
>
>
>
>     ____________________________________________________________
>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>     To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>     <mailto:governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org>
>
>     For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>     Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101111/cfb96f42/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From avri at psg.com  Thu Nov 11 08:25:39 2010
From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 08:25:39 -0500
Subject: [governance] FINAL? DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <4CDBEC0C.7070204@itforchange.net>
References: <7E0ED935-470F-451E-B072-319351CAAD94@ciroap.org> <4CDAB2BB.8050303@eff.org> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC12008CE@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <AANLkTimJHN6P9TiVazEGWPORM0SFp7MV8yuPw45_h9ic@mail.gmail.com> <4CDB2D09.4090904@eff.org> <AANLkTim+fncpSGkMLCzPUijELAnUa9+8mBD4s+sMUdBk@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTi=tm5R=Scfrt87D_vqcXEVQW8Dm6OAku26wzkgq@mail.gmail.com> <4CDBD2AA.50505@itforchange.net> <AANLkTima5V-0_DPn=dS06usr=JwkWdCaWUVx7yEvMkSN@mail.gmail.com> <4CDBEC0C.7070204@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <E03619A8-7D9C-4439-91E2-B7DE2964007C@psg.com>

Hi,

I don't think anyone is saying that regional setup like the COE should not be setup elsewhere, especially if the people in the regions think it is necessary.  The OECD setup is a new thing and I would personally like to know more before we use it as an example for other activities. 

But setting up a centralized institutional framework on global level, especially affiliated with the UN or the UN system, just does not seem appropriate at this time and seems to me to be be just the sort of thing we escaped having happen at the ITU.  I do not see why we would start advocating that in the IGC.

a.

On 11 Nov 2010, at 08:13, parminder wrote:

> Baudouin
> 
> All Partnership with -OECD, with the US, with EU - are fine. 
> 
> My question however is specific
> 
> What is the problem with the IGC asking for a global institutional framework for developing Internet related public policies that includes all countries, and their stakeholders, of a similar kind that that OECD/ CoE already has?
> 
> This question is especially to seen in the context of the fact that IGC members have enthusiastically supported and engaged with the mentioned OECD framework. 
> 
> Why is the need of participation of developing countries, with their all stakeholders, not considered relevant or important. That is the simple thing that I am seeking with my EC related proposal.
> 
> Parminder 
> 
> 
> 
> On Thursday 11 November 2010 05:40 PM, Baudouin SCHOMBE wrote:
>> Parminder concretely in the context of strengthening cooperation or to strengthen cooperation, it would be wise for formal exchanges are planned between the OECD and actors from other continents to harmonize our views to build a compelling case.
>> I think this is also part of the delicate task of civil society entities. I also understand that such an approach requires costs that we must certainly raise.OECD is an ideal partner, especially for developing countries.
>> The process is still long, but if we have land in 2015 with force and conviction, it would be desirable to correct any mistakes along the way from Tunis 2005.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN
>> *COORDONNATEUR DU CENTRE AFRICAIN D'ECHANGE CULTUREL (CAFEC)
>>  ACADEMIE DES TIC
>> *COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC
>> *MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE
>> *NCUC/GNSO MEMBER (ICANN)
>>  
>> Téléphone mobile: +243998983491/+243811980914
>> email:                   b.schombe at gmail.com
>> blog:                     http://akimambo.unblog.fr
>>  
>> 
>> 
>> 2010/11/11 parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
>> 
>> Hi All
>> 
>> I am still not able to understand how so many of those who are against any new institutional framework for evolving global IG related public policies, which is democratic in inclusion of all countries and stakeholders,  have enthusiastically supported a similar framework among OECD countries? I mean the OECD's Committee For Information, Computer and Communication Policy, which has a very active portfolio for helping develop Internet policies, esp those with trans-border ramification. Many CS members in the IGC have actively organized themselves to associate with the work of this OECD's institutional framework.
>> 
>> Why should such a framework not exist at a global level? And I do think that OECD's framework is not multistakeholder enough. My proposal is for a global framework of similar kind (to OECD's) that will help develop globally applicable Internet related public policies, which is what the 'enhanced cooperation' process is about, that is much more multistakeholder than the existing OECD one
>> 
>> I request a specific response for those who have supported the OECD framework rather enthusiastically, and this includes most here on the IGC list who now oppose similar new institutional developments at the global level , how do they justify this opposition now, for a similar global institutional framework.
>> 
>> Unfortunately, many developing country IGC members here have gone along with this opposition to a global UN anchored body, which can be  no different from the OECD arrangement. I am able to unserstand thier stanc eeven more. 
>> 
>> Should we depend on OECD to make global Internet policies. That is what is being said in this support for a OECD framework but opposition to a similar global framework one, for addressing the urgent need for global Interent related public policies. .
>> 
>> For this reason I cannot support the present draft statement. But if someone can give me some justification clarifying the above paradox, I am very much willing to listen.
>> 
>> 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

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

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

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

From jlfullsack at orange.fr  Thu Nov 11 08:30:35 2010
From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK)
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 14:30:35 +0100 (CET)
Subject: [governance] FINAL? DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <4CDBD2AA.50505@itforchange.net>
References: <7E0ED935-470F-451E-B072-319351CAAD94@ciroap.org>
 <4CDAB2BB.8050303@eff.org>
 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC12008CE@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
 <AANLkTimJHN6P9TiVazEGWPORM0SFp7MV8yuPw45_h9ic@mail.gmail.com>
 <4CDB2D09.4090904@eff.org>
 <AANLkTim+fncpSGkMLCzPUijELAnUa9+8mBD4s+sMUdBk@mail.gmail.com>
 <AANLkTi=tm5R=Scfrt87D_vqcXEVQW8Dm6OAku26wzkgq@mail.gmail.com>
 <4CDBD2AA.50505@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <11150218.132844.1289482235885.JavaMail.www@wwinf2223>


I share both Parminder's questioning and deep disappointment about the positions expressed by the majority of the list mailers.

I remember very well our long debates and wording sessions during the PrepComs for our Geneva Declaration. With a handful of other friends in the C&T Group, I was working on CS implication and recommendations in international cooperation. I submitted proposals in this theme which is closely related to development theme and issues. In this working group multilateralisme was one of our commonly agreed principles as it was finally expressed in our Declaration after C&T and Plenary consent. 

Now multilateralism in any of its expessions is banned from CS language, not only by the "CommIntern" members, but also by other ones even coming from DCs ! When will we be forced to revise our Declaration for the sake of consistency and credibility ?  This leads us straight to a very disturbing situation where CS is losing its values just because of a dozen neolibs and some oversized egos.

I do hope that there will be a group of members -hopefully with Parminder- that will resist to this worrying evolution and build on values rather than on interests.

Best 

Jean-Louis Fullsack
CSDPTT



> Message du 11/11/10 12:26
> De : "parminder" 
> A : governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Copie à : 
> Objet : Re: [governance] FINAL? DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
> 
> 
> Hi All
> 
> I am still not able to understand how so many of those who are against any new institutional framework for evolving global IG related public policies, which is democratic in inclusion of all countries and stakeholders,  have enthusiastically supported a similar framework among OECD countries? I mean the OECD's Committee For Information, Computer and Communication Policy, which has a very active portfolio for helping develop Internet policies, esp those with trans-border ramification. Many CS members in the IGC have actively organized themselves to associate with the work of this OECD's institutional framework.
> 
> Why should such a framework not exist at a global level? And I do think that OECD's framework is not multistakeholder enough. My proposal is for a global framework of similar kind (to OECD's) that will help develop globally applicable Internet related public policies, which is what the 'enhanced cooperation' process is about, that is much more multistakeholder than the existing OECD one
> 
> I request a specific response for those who have supported the OECD framework rather enthusiastically, and this includes most here on the IGC list who now oppose similar new institutional developments at the global level , how do they justify this opposition now, for a similar global institutional framework.
> 
> Unfortunately, many developing country IGC members here have gone along with this opposition to a global UN anchored body, which can be  no different from the OECD arrangement. I am able to unserstand thier stanc eeven more. 
> 
> Should we depend on OECD to make global Internet policies. That is what is being said in this support for a OECD framework but opposition to a similar global framework one, for addressing the urgent need for global Interent related public policies. .
> 
> For this reason I cannot support the present draft statement. But if someone can give me some justification clarifying the above paradox, I am very much willing to listen.
> 
> Parminder 
> 
>  
> 
>
> [ message-footer.txt (0.4 Ko) ]
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101111/0781d71f/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From avri at psg.com  Thu Nov 11 08:47:55 2010
From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 08:47:55 -0500
Subject: [governance] FINAL? DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <11150218.132844.1289482235885.JavaMail.www@wwinf2223>
References: <7E0ED935-470F-451E-B072-319351CAAD94@ciroap.org> <4CDAB2BB.8050303@eff.org> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC12008CE@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <AANLkTimJHN6P9TiVazEGWPORM0SFp7MV8yuPw45_h9ic@mail.gmail.com> <4CDB2D09.4090904@eff.org> <AANLkTim+fncpSGkMLCzPUijELAnUa9+8mBD4s+sMUdBk@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTi=tm5R=Scfrt87D_vqcXEVQW8Dm6OAku26wzkgq@mail.gmail.com> <4CDBD2AA.50505@itforchange.net> <11150218.132844.1289482235885.JavaMail.www@wwinf2223>
Message-ID: <7465D85E-D17C-4F4C-8C39-9194A88D989F@psg.com>

Hi,

Ok, I understand that you think anyone who disagrees with Parminder is a neolib "CommIntern" member, with a big ego.

But what interests are you accusing them (or is it all of us who disagree) with having?

a.


On 11 Nov 2010, at 08:30, Jean-Louis FULLSACK wrote:

> 
> I share both Parminder's questioning and deep disappointment about the positions expressed by the majority of the list mailers.
> 
> I remember very well our long debates and wording sessions during the PrepComs for our Geneva Declaration. With a handful of other friends in the C&T Group, I was working on CS implication and recommendations in international cooperation. I submitted proposals in this theme which is closely related to development theme and issues. In this working group multilateralisme was one of our commonly agreed principles as it was finally expressed in our Declaration after C&T and Plenary consent. 
> 
> Now multilateralism in any of its expessions is banned from CS language, not only by the "CommIntern" members, but also by other ones even coming from DCs ! When will we be forced to revise our Declaration for the sake of consistency and credibility ?  This leads us straight to a very disturbing situation where CS is losing its values just because of a dozen neolibs and some oversized egos.
> 
> I do hope that there will be a group of members -hopefully with Parminder- that will resist to this worrying evolution and build on values rather than on interests.
> 
> Best 
> 
> Jean-Louis Fullsack
> CSDPTT
> 
> 
> 
> > Message du 11/11/10 12:26
> > De : "parminder" 
> > A : governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > Copie à : 
> > Objet : Re: [governance] FINAL? DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
> > 
> > 
> > Hi All
> > 
> > I am still not able to understand how so many of those who are against any new institutional framework for evolving global IG related public policies, which is democratic in inclusion of all countries and stakeholders,  have enthusiastically supported a similar framework among OECD countries? I mean the OECD's Committee For Information, Computer and Communication Policy, which has a very active portfolio for helping develop Internet policies, esp those with trans-border ramification. Many CS members in the IGC have actively organized themselves to associate with the work of this OECD's institutional framework.
> > 
> > Why should such a framework not exist at a global level? And I do think that OECD's framework is not multistakeholder enough. My proposal is for a global framework of similar kind (to OECD's) that will help develop globally applicable Internet related public policies, which is what the 'enhanced cooperation' process is about, that is much more multistakeholder than the existing OECD one
> > 
> > I request a specific response for those who have supported the OECD framework rather enthusiastically, and this includes most here on the IGC list who now oppose similar new institutional developments at the global level , how do they justify this opposition now, for a similar global institutional framework.
> > 
> > Unfortunately, many developing country IGC members here have gone along with this opposition to a global UN anchored body, which can be  no different from the OECD arrangement. I am able to unserstand thier stanc eeven more. 
> > 
> > Should we depend on OECD to make global Internet policies. That is what is being said in this support for a OECD framework but opposition to a similar global framework one, for addressing the urgent need for global Interent related public policies. .
> > 
> > For this reason I cannot support the present draft statement. But if someone can give me some justification clarifying the above paradox, I am very much willing to listen.
> > 
> > Parminder 
> > 
> >  
> > 
> >
> > [ message-footer.txt (0.4 Ko) ]
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

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

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

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

From mariliamaciel at gmail.com  Thu Nov 11 08:49:19 2010
From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 11:49:19 -0200
Subject: [governance] FINAL? DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <4CDBD2AA.50505@itforchange.net>
References: <7E0ED935-470F-451E-B072-319351CAAD94@ciroap.org>
	<4CDAB2BB.8050303@eff.org>
	<75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC12008CE@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
	<AANLkTimJHN6P9TiVazEGWPORM0SFp7MV8yuPw45_h9ic@mail.gmail.com>
	<4CDB2D09.4090904@eff.org>
	<AANLkTim+fncpSGkMLCzPUijELAnUa9+8mBD4s+sMUdBk@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTi=tm5R=Scfrt87D_vqcXEVQW8Dm6OAku26wzkgq@mail.gmail.com>
	<4CDBD2AA.50505@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=58OxGruUcN7juAZ=dO9+XGXKE4P0ccmXUxF-t@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Parminder,

I could never follow the process in OECD as close as it deserved, but your
e-mail has really caught my attention.
I would like to learn more about this arrangement in OECD. Could you (or
anyone else on the list) please share some resources?

Thank you.
Marília

On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 9:25 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>wrote:

>
> Hi All
>
> I am still not able to understand how so many of those who are against any
> new institutional framework for evolving global IG related public policies,
> which is democratic in inclusion of all countries and stakeholders,  have
> enthusiastically supported a similar framework among OECD countries? I mean
> the OECD's Committee For Information, Computer and Communication Policy,
> which has a very active portfolio for helping develop Internet policies, esp
> those with trans-border ramification. Many CS members in the IGC have
> actively organized themselves to associate with the work of this OECD's
> institutional framework.
>
> Why should such a framework not exist at a global level? And I do think
> that OECD's framework is not multistakeholder enough. My proposal is for a
> global framework of similar kind (to OECD's) that will help develop globally
> applicable Internet related public policies, which is what the 'enhanced
> cooperation' process is about, that is much more multistakeholder than the
> existing OECD one
>
> I request a specific response for those who have supported the OECD
> framework rather enthusiastically, and this includes most here on the IGC
> list who now oppose similar new institutional developments at the global
> level , how do they justify this opposition now, for a similar global
> institutional framework.
>
> Unfortunately, many developing country IGC members here have gone along
> with this opposition to a global UN anchored body, which can be  no
> different from the OECD arrangement. I am able to unserstand thier stanc
> eeven more.
>
> Should we depend on OECD to make global Internet policies. That is what is
> being said in this support for a OECD framework but opposition to a similar
> global framework one, for addressing the urgent need for global Interent
> related public policies. .
>
> For this reason I cannot support the present draft statement. But if
> someone can give me some justification clarifying the above paradox, I am
> very much willing to listen.
>
> 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
>



-- 
Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
FGV Direito Rio

Center for Technology and Society
Getulio Vargas Foundation
Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101111/5d6e57ae/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From b.schombe at gmail.com  Thu Nov 11 09:21:45 2010
From: b.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin SCHOMBE)
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 15:21:45 +0100
Subject: [governance] FINAL? DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=58OxGruUcN7juAZ=dO9+XGXKE4P0ccmXUxF-t@mail.gmail.com>
References: <7E0ED935-470F-451E-B072-319351CAAD94@ciroap.org>
 <4CDAB2BB.8050303@eff.org> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC12008CE@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
 <AANLkTimJHN6P9TiVazEGWPORM0SFp7MV8yuPw45_h9ic@mail.gmail.com>
 <4CDB2D09.4090904@eff.org> <AANLkTim+fncpSGkMLCzPUijELAnUa9+8mBD4s+sMUdBk@mail.gmail.com>
 <AANLkTi=tm5R=Scfrt87D_vqcXEVQW8Dm6OAku26wzkgq@mail.gmail.com>
 <4CDBD2AA.50505@itforchange.net> <AANLkTi=58OxGruUcN7juAZ=dO9+XGXKE4P0ccmXUxF-t@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTikuJ6S9=cOFT3TC2Aa=eV6vX7GcF1Dd02TWZJyy@mail.gmail.com>

I think, Marilia,  your suggestion also deserves attention.
Not having a stable internet connection because of technical problems
(electricity cuts frequently...), Jean Louis and Parminder could help us in
providing these elements of the OECD so that we could enjoy all the ins and
outs of these documents.
We are at a critical stage in our evolution and I think it would be
desirable to keep us all constructive whatever our differences.
Écouter
Lire phonétiquement


 Baudouin

2010/11/11 Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>

> Dear Parminder,
>
> I could never follow the process in OECD as close as it deserved, but your
> e-mail has really caught my attention.
> I would like to learn more about this arrangement in OECD. Could you (or
> anyone else on the list) please share some resources?
>
> Thank you.
> Marília
>
> On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 9:25 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>wrote:
>
>>
>> Hi All
>>
>> I am still not able to understand how so many of those who are against any
>> new institutional framework for evolving global IG related public policies,
>> which is democratic in inclusion of all countries and stakeholders,  have
>> enthusiastically supported a similar framework among OECD countries? I mean
>> the OECD's Committee For Information, Computer and Communication Policy,
>> which has a very active portfolio for helping develop Internet policies, esp
>> those with trans-border ramification. Many CS members in the IGC have
>> actively organized themselves to associate with the work of this OECD's
>> institutional framework.
>>
>> Why should such a framework not exist at a global level? And I do think
>> that OECD's framework is not multistakeholder enough. My proposal is for a
>> global framework of similar kind (to OECD's) that will help develop globally
>> applicable Internet related public policies, which is what the 'enhanced
>> cooperation' process is about, that is much more multistakeholder than the
>> existing OECD one
>>
>> I request a specific response for those who have supported the OECD
>> framework rather enthusiastically, and this includes most here on the IGC
>> list who now oppose similar new institutional developments at the global
>> level , how do they justify this opposition now, for a similar global
>> institutional framework.
>>
>> Unfortunately, many developing country IGC members here have gone along
>> with this opposition to a global UN anchored body, which can be  no
>> different from the OECD arrangement. I am able to unserstand thier stanc
>> eeven more.
>>
>> Should we depend on OECD to make global Internet policies. That is what is
>> being said in this support for a OECD framework but opposition to a similar
>> global framework one, for addressing the urgent need for global Interent
>> related public policies. .
>>
>> For this reason I cannot support the present draft statement. But if
>> someone can give me some justification clarifying the above paradox, I am
>> very much willing to listen.
>>
>> 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
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
> FGV Direito Rio
>
> Center for Technology and Society
> Getulio Vargas Foundation
> Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101111/457564c6/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From mariliamaciel at gmail.com  Thu Nov 11 09:28:34 2010
From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 12:28:34 -0200
Subject: [governance] FINAL? DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <E03619A8-7D9C-4439-91E2-B7DE2964007C@psg.com>
References: <7E0ED935-470F-451E-B072-319351CAAD94@ciroap.org>
	<4CDAB2BB.8050303@eff.org>
	<75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC12008CE@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
	<AANLkTimJHN6P9TiVazEGWPORM0SFp7MV8yuPw45_h9ic@mail.gmail.com>
	<4CDB2D09.4090904@eff.org>
	<AANLkTim+fncpSGkMLCzPUijELAnUa9+8mBD4s+sMUdBk@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTi=tm5R=Scfrt87D_vqcXEVQW8Dm6OAku26wzkgq@mail.gmail.com>
	<4CDBD2AA.50505@itforchange.net>
	<AANLkTima5V-0_DPn=dS06usr=JwkWdCaWUVx7yEvMkSN@mail.gmail.com>
	<4CDBEC0C.7070204@itforchange.net>
	<E03619A8-7D9C-4439-91E2-B7DE2964007C@psg.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTinCacxbq7GJ31yXhaqOBWxe3qENM+FFqWJD5b5D@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Avri,


 You said that

"setting up a centralized institutional framework on global level,
especially affiliated with the UN or the UN system, just does not seem
appropriate at this time and seems to me to be be just the sort of thing we
escaped having happen at the ITU.  I do not see why we would start
advocating that in the IGC".

In my opinion:



- T*he IG regime needs to produce policy and coordinate regulation* on
substantive matters (access, privacy, etc). The *IGF is the only forum where
substantive issues are discussed, but the way it is structured (which is a
feature, not a bug, and should not be changed) makes it impossible for the
IGF to perform this role.* There is noise and there is not a “membership”,
which generates problems with legitimacy. But the IGF needs to be considered
when we talk about EC because *the substantive inputs to draft policy and
regulation need to come from the IGF*



- *We do not necessarely need to create new centralized structures to draft
policy*. We do have a multistakeholder structure in place, the MAG
(functioning under UN). If the election of its members was made more
transparent, then its role could be changed, so it could receive input from
the IGF and have competence to perform the task of proposing policy and
regulation. MAG could also have an important role with coordinating with
other organizations to perform its tasks.



Leaving out the details of the propsal (ex: number of MAG members, etc), *do
you think the above is something you could agree with?*



I get the feeling from this conversation that sometimes we disagree because
we are mixing up different “parts” of our proposal, that is why I proposed
to map the positions that have been put forth on the list, so we can have a
clearer idea of which are exactly our agreements and disagreements.



Best,

Marília


On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 11:25 AM, Avri Doria <avri at psg.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I don't think anyone is saying that regional setup like the COE should not
> be setup elsewhere, especially if the people in the regions think it is
> necessary.  The OECD setup is a new thing and I would personally like to
> know more before we use it as an example for other activities.
>
> But setting up a centralized institutional framework on global level,
> especially affiliated with the UN or the UN system, just does not seem
> appropriate at this time and seems to me to be be just the sort of thing we
> escaped having happen at the ITU.  I do not see why we would start
> advocating that in the IGC.
>
> a.
>
> On 11 Nov 2010, at 08:13, parminder wrote:
>
> > Baudouin
> >
> > All Partnership with -OECD, with the US, with EU - are fine.
> >
> > My question however is specific
> >
> > What is the problem with the IGC asking for a global institutional
> framework for developing Internet related public policies that includes all
> countries, and their stakeholders, of a similar kind that that OECD/ CoE
> already has?
> >
> > This question is especially to seen in the context of the fact that IGC
> members have enthusiastically supported and engaged with the mentioned OECD
> framework.
> >
> > Why is the need of participation of developing countries, with their all
> stakeholders, not considered relevant or important. That is the simple thing
> that I am seeking with my EC related proposal.
> >
> > Parminder
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thursday 11 November 2010 05:40 PM, Baudouin SCHOMBE wrote:
> >> Parminder concretely in the context of strengthening cooperation or to
> strengthen cooperation, it would be wise for formal exchanges are planned
> between the OECD and actors from other continents to harmonize our views to
> build a compelling case.
> >> I think this is also part of the delicate task of civil society
> entities. I also understand that such an approach requires costs that we
> must certainly raise.OECD is an ideal partner, especially for developing
> countries.
> >> The process is still long, but if we have land in 2015 with force and
> conviction, it would be desirable to correct any mistakes along the way from
> Tunis 2005.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN
> >> *COORDONNATEUR DU CENTRE AFRICAIN D'ECHANGE CULTUREL (CAFEC)
> >>  ACADEMIE DES TIC
> >> *COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC
> >> *MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE
> >> *NCUC/GNSO MEMBER (ICANN)
> >>
> >> Téléphone mobile: +243998983491/+243811980914
> >> email:                   b.schombe at gmail.com
> >> blog:                     http://akimambo.unblog.fr
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 2010/11/11 parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
> >>
> >> Hi All
> >>
> >> I am still not able to understand how so many of those who are against
> any new institutional framework for evolving global IG related public
> policies, which is democratic in inclusion of all countries and
> stakeholders,  have enthusiastically supported a similar framework among
> OECD countries? I mean the OECD's Committee For Information, Computer and
> Communication Policy, which has a very active portfolio for helping develop
> Internet policies, esp those with trans-border ramification. Many CS members
> in the IGC have actively organized themselves to associate with the work of
> this OECD's institutional framework.
> >>
> >> Why should such a framework not exist at a global level? And I do think
> that OECD's framework is not multistakeholder enough. My proposal is for a
> global framework of similar kind (to OECD's) that will help develop globally
> applicable Internet related public policies, which is what the 'enhanced
> cooperation' process is about, that is much more multistakeholder than the
> existing OECD one
> >>
> >> I request a specific response for those who have supported the OECD
> framework rather enthusiastically, and this includes most here on the IGC
> list who now oppose similar new institutional developments at the global
> level , how do they justify this opposition now, for a similar global
> institutional framework.
> >>
> >> Unfortunately, many developing country IGC members here have gone along
> with this opposition to a global UN anchored body, which can be  no
> different from the OECD arrangement. I am able to unserstand thier stanc
> eeven more.
> >>
> >> Should we depend on OECD to make global Internet policies. That is what
> is being said in this support for a OECD framework but opposition to a
> similar global framework one, for addressing the urgent need for global
> Interent related public policies. .
> >>
> >> For this reason I cannot support the present draft statement. But if
> someone can give me some justification clarifying the above paradox, I am
> very much willing to listen.
> >>
> >> 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
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>



-- 
Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
FGV Direito Rio

Center for Technology and Society
Getulio Vargas Foundation
Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101111/a0befe72/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From katitza at eff.org  Thu Nov 11 09:33:40 2010
From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez)
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 06:33:40 -0800
Subject: [governance] FINAL? DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinCacxbq7GJ31yXhaqOBWxe3qENM+FFqWJD5b5D@mail.gmail.com>
References: <7E0ED935-470F-451E-B072-319351CAAD94@ciroap.org>	<4CDAB2BB.8050303@eff.org>	<75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC12008CE@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>	<AANLkTimJHN6P9TiVazEGWPORM0SFp7MV8yuPw45_h9ic@mail.gmail.com>	<4CDB2D09.4090904@eff.org>	<AANLkTim+fncpSGkMLCzPUijELAnUa9+8mBD4s+sMUdBk@mail.gmail.com>	<AANLkTi=tm5R=Scfrt87D_vqcXEVQW8Dm6OAku26wzkgq@mail.gmail.com>	<4CDBD2AA.50505@itforchange.net>	<AANLkTima5V-0_DPn=dS06usr=JwkWdCaWUVx7yEvMkSN@mail.gmail.com>	<4CDBEC0C.7070204@itforchange.net>	<E03619A8-7D9C-4439-91E2-B7DE2964007C@psg.com> <AANLkTinCacxbq7GJ31yXhaqOBWxe3qENM+FFqWJD5b5D@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4CDBFEC4.7090101@eff.org>

I definitely disagree.  I have strong critics about the unintended 
consequence of moving forward that proposal, specially within the 
privacy/cybercrime arena.


On 11/11/10 6:28 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote:
>
> Dear Avri,
>
>
> You said that
>
> "setting up a centralized institutional framework on global level, 
> especially affiliated with the UN or the UN system, just does not seem 
> appropriate at this time and seems to me to be be just the sort of 
> thing we escaped having happen at the ITU.  I do not see why we would 
> start advocating that in the IGC".
>
> In my opinion:
>
> - T*he IG regime needs to produce policy and coordinate regulation* on 
> substantive matters (access, privacy, etc). The *IGF is the only forum 
> where substantive issues are discussed, but the way it is structured 
> (which is a feature, not a bug, and should not be changed) makes it 
> impossible for the IGF to perform this role.* There is noise and there 
> is not a "membership", which generates problems with legitimacy. But 
> the IGF needs to be considered when we talk about EC because *the 
> substantive inputs to draft policy and regulation need to come from 
> the IGF*
>
> - *We do not necessarely need to create new centralized structures to 
> draft policy*. We do have a multistakeholder structure in place, the 
> MAG (functioning under UN). If the election of its members was made 
> more transparent, then its role could be changed, so it could receive 
> input from the IGF and have competence to perform the task of 
> proposing policy and regulation. MAG could also have an important role 
> with coordinating with other organizations to perform its tasks.
>
> Leaving out the details of the propsal (ex: number of MAG members, 
> etc), *do you think the above is something you could agree with?*
>
> I get the feeling from this conversation that sometimes we disagree 
> because we are mixing up different "parts" of our proposal, that is 
> why I proposed to map the positions that have been put forth on the 
> list, so we can have a clearer idea of which are exactly our 
> agreements and disagreements.
>
> Best,
>
> Marília
>
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 11:25 AM, Avri Doria <avri at psg.com 
> <mailto:avri at psg.com>> wrote:
>
>     Hi,
>
>     I don't think anyone is saying that regional setup like the COE
>     should not be setup elsewhere, especially if the people in the
>     regions think it is necessary.  The OECD setup is a new thing and
>     I would personally like to know more before we use it as an
>     example for other activities.
>
>     But setting up a centralized institutional framework on global
>     level, especially affiliated with the UN or the UN system, just
>     does not seem appropriate at this time and seems to me to be be
>     just the sort of thing we escaped having happen at the ITU.  I do
>     not see why we would start advocating that in the IGC.
>
>     a.
>
>     On 11 Nov 2010, at 08:13, parminder wrote:
>
>     > Baudouin
>     >
>     > All Partnership with -OECD, with the US, with EU - are fine.
>     >
>     > My question however is specific
>     >
>     > What is the problem with the IGC asking for a global
>     institutional framework for developing Internet related public
>     policies that includes all countries, and their stakeholders, of a
>     similar kind that that OECD/ CoE already has?
>     >
>     > This question is especially to seen in the context of the fact
>     that IGC members have enthusiastically supported and engaged with
>     the mentioned OECD framework.
>     >
>     > Why is the need of participation of developing countries, with
>     their all stakeholders, not considered relevant or important. That
>     is the simple thing that I am seeking with my EC related proposal.
>     >
>     > Parminder
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > On Thursday 11 November 2010 05:40 PM, Baudouin SCHOMBE wrote:
>     >> Parminder concretely in the context of strengthening
>     cooperation or to strengthen cooperation, it would be wise for
>     formal exchanges are planned between the OECD and actors from
>     other continents to harmonize our views to build a compelling case.
>     >> I think this is also part of the delicate task of civil society
>     entities. I also understand that such an approach requires costs
>     that we must certainly raise.OECD is an ideal partner, especially
>     for developing countries.
>     >> The process is still long, but if we have land in 2015 with
>     force and conviction, it would be desirable to correct any
>     mistakes along the way from Tunis 2005.
>     >>
>     >>
>     >>
>     >> SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN
>     >> *COORDONNATEUR DU CENTRE AFRICAIN D'ECHANGE CULTUREL (CAFEC)
>     >>  ACADEMIE DES TIC
>     >> *COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC
>     >> *MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE
>     >> *NCUC/GNSO MEMBER (ICANN)
>     >>
>     >> Téléphone mobile: +243998983491/+243811980914
>     >> email: b.schombe at gmail.com <mailto:b.schombe at gmail.com>
>     >> blog: http://akimambo.unblog.fr
>     >>
>     >>
>     >>
>     >> 2010/11/11 parminder <parminder at itforchange.net
>     <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>>
>     >>
>     >> Hi All
>     >>
>     >> I am still not able to understand how so many of those who are
>     against any new institutional framework for evolving global IG
>     related public policies, which is democratic in inclusion of all
>     countries and stakeholders,  have enthusiastically supported a
>     similar framework among OECD countries? I mean the OECD's
>     Committee For Information, Computer and Communication Policy,
>     which has a very active portfolio for helping develop Internet
>     policies, esp those with trans-border ramification. Many CS
>     members in the IGC have actively organized themselves to associate
>     with the work of this OECD's institutional framework.
>     >>
>     >> Why should such a framework not exist at a global level? And I
>     do think that OECD's framework is not multistakeholder enough. My
>     proposal is for a global framework of similar kind (to OECD's)
>     that will help develop globally applicable Internet related public
>     policies, which is what the 'enhanced cooperation' process is
>     about, that is much more multistakeholder than the existing OECD one
>     >>
>     >> I request a specific response for those who have supported the
>     OECD framework rather enthusiastically, and this includes most
>     here on the IGC list who now oppose similar new institutional
>     developments at the global level , how do they justify this
>     opposition now, for a similar global institutional framework.
>     >>
>     >> Unfortunately, many developing country IGC members here have
>     gone along with this opposition to a global UN anchored body,
>     which can be  no different from the OECD arrangement. I am able to
>     unserstand thier stanc eeven more.
>     >>
>     >> Should we depend on OECD to make global Internet policies. That
>     is what is being said in this support for a OECD framework but
>     opposition to a similar global framework one, for addressing the
>     urgent need for global Interent related public policies. .
>     >>
>     >> For this reason I cannot support the present draft statement.
>     But if someone can give me some justification clarifying the above
>     paradox, I am very much willing to listen.
>     >>
>     >> Parminder
>     >>
>     >>
>     >>
>     >> ____________________________________________________________
>     >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     >> governance at lists.cpsr.org <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>     >> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>     <mailto:governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org>
>     >>
>     >> For all list information and functions, see:
>     >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>     >>
>     >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>     >>
>     > ____________________________________________________________
>     > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     > governance at lists.cpsr.org <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>     > To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>     <mailto:governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org>
>     >
>     > For all list information and functions, see:
>     > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>     >
>     > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>     ____________________________________________________________
>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>     To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>     <mailto:governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org>
>
>     For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>     Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
> FGV Direito Rio
>
> Center for Technology and Society
> Getulio Vargas Foundation
> Rio de Janeiro - Brazil


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

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101111/0fc068c8/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From parminder at itforchange.net  Thu Nov 11 09:34:10 2010
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 20:04:10 +0530
Subject: [governance] FINAL? DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <E03619A8-7D9C-4439-91E2-B7DE2964007C@psg.com>
References: <7E0ED935-470F-451E-B072-319351CAAD94@ciroap.org> <4CDAB2BB.8050303@eff.org> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC12008CE@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <AANLkTimJHN6P9TiVazEGWPORM0SFp7MV8yuPw45_h9ic@mail.gmail.com> <4CDB2D09.4090904@eff.org> <AANLkTim+fncpSGkMLCzPUijELAnUa9+8mBD4s+sMUdBk@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTi=tm5R=Scfrt87D_vqcXEVQW8Dm6OAku26wzkgq@mail.gmail.com> <4CDBD2AA.50505@itforchange.net> <AANLkTima5V-0_DPn=dS06usr=JwkWdCaWUVx7yEvMkSN@mail.gmail.com> <4CDBEC0C.7070204@itforchange.net> <E03619A8-7D9C-4439-91E2-B7DE2964007C@psg.com>
Message-ID: <4CDBFEE2.7080308@itforchange.net>



On Thursday 11 November 2010 06:55 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I don't think anyone is saying that regional setup like the COE should not be setup elsewhere, especially if the people in the regions think it is necessary.
Simply setting such regional entities is not the issue. The issue is 
that due to the essentially global nature of the Internet, and the 
collective economic and political muscle of the developed countries, 
OECD/ CoE policies become the default global ones. Cyber crime treaty is 
an existing example, ACTA and emergent one, and more are going to 
follow. Can you please address this issue, and its democratic 
implications. The only way to address this most pressing problem is to 
develop similar globally democratic institutional frameworks, and that 
was always the rationale of the EC process. The logic if it is simple, I 
think.

> The OECD setup is a new thing and I would personally like to know more before we use it as an example for other activities.
>    
You did however approve of the OECD model in your email a few days back. 
Why policy models used by rich countries are not subject to same 
scrutiny as the proposed global ones, which would include developing 
countries. BTW you can see the Committee for Information, Computer and 
Communication Policy website at 
http://www.oecd.org/department/0,3355,en_2649_34223_1_1_1_1_1,00.html  
and see the range of Internet policy issues they are working on.

We are just asking to get developing countries also on to such / similar 
frameworks. You  in essence are saying this is not required. And I can 
not understand your justification for this.

Parminder


> But setting up a centralized institutional framework on global level, especially affiliated with the UN or the UN system, just does not seem appropriate at this time and seems to me to be be just the sort of thing we escaped having happen at the ITU.  I do not see why we would start advocating that in the IGC.
>
> a.
>
> On 11 Nov 2010, at 08:13, parminder wrote:
>
>    
>> Baudouin
>>
>> All Partnership with -OECD, with the US, with EU - are fine.
>>
>> My question however is specific
>>
>> What is the problem with the IGC asking for a global institutional framework for developing Internet related public policies that includes all countries, and their stakeholders, of a similar kind that that OECD/ CoE already has?
>>
>> This question is especially to seen in the context of the fact that IGC members have enthusiastically supported and engaged with the mentioned OECD framework.
>>
>> Why is the need of participation of developing countries, with their all stakeholders, not considered relevant or important. That is the simple thing that I am seeking with my EC related proposal.
>>
>> Parminder
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thursday 11 November 2010 05:40 PM, Baudouin SCHOMBE wrote:
>>      
>>> Parminder concretely in the context of strengthening cooperation or to strengthen cooperation, it would be wise for formal exchanges are planned between the OECD and actors from other continents to harmonize our views to build a compelling case.
>>> I think this is also part of the delicate task of civil society entities. I also understand that such an approach requires costs that we must certainly raise.OECD is an ideal partner, especially for developing countries.
>>> The process is still long, but if we have land in 2015 with force and conviction, it would be desirable to correct any mistakes along the way from Tunis 2005.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN
>>> *COORDONNATEUR DU CENTRE AFRICAIN D'ECHANGE CULTUREL (CAFEC)
>>>   ACADEMIE DES TIC
>>> *COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC
>>> *MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE
>>> *NCUC/GNSO MEMBER (ICANN)
>>>
>>> Téléphone mobile: +243998983491/+243811980914
>>> email:                   b.schombe at gmail.com
>>> blog:                     http://akimambo.unblog.fr
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2010/11/11 parminder<parminder at itforchange.net>
>>>
>>> Hi All
>>>
>>> I am still not able to understand how so many of those who are against any new institutional framework for evolving global IG related public policies, which is democratic in inclusion of all countries and stakeholders,  have enthusiastically supported a similar framework among OECD countries? I mean the OECD's Committee For Information, Computer and Communication Policy, which has a very active portfolio for helping develop Internet policies, esp those with trans-border ramification. Many CS members in the IGC have actively organized themselves to associate with the work of this OECD's institutional framework.
>>>
>>> Why should such a framework not exist at a global level? And I do think that OECD's framework is not multistakeholder enough. My proposal is for a global framework of similar kind (to OECD's) that will help develop globally applicable Internet related public policies, which is what the 'enhanced cooperation' process is about, that is much more multistakeholder than the existing OECD one
>>>
>>> I request a specific response for those who have supported the OECD framework rather enthusiastically, and this includes most here on the IGC list who now oppose similar new institutional developments at the global level , how do they justify this opposition now, for a similar global institutional framework.
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, many developing country IGC members here have gone along with this opposition to a global UN anchored body, which can be  no different from the OECD arrangement. I am able to unserstand thier stanc eeven more.
>>>
>>> Should we depend on OECD to make global Internet policies. That is what is being said in this support for a OECD framework but opposition to a similar global framework one, for addressing the urgent need for global Interent related public policies. .
>>>
>>> For this reason I cannot support the present draft statement. But if someone can give me some justification clarifying the above paradox, I am very much willing to listen.
>>>
>>> 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
>>      
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>       governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>       governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>       http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>    
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101111/50c74306/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From mariliamaciel at gmail.com  Thu Nov 11 09:35:23 2010
From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 12:35:23 -0200
Subject: [governance] FINAL? DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <4CDBFEC4.7090101@eff.org>
References: <7E0ED935-470F-451E-B072-319351CAAD94@ciroap.org>
	<4CDAB2BB.8050303@eff.org>
	<75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC12008CE@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
	<AANLkTimJHN6P9TiVazEGWPORM0SFp7MV8yuPw45_h9ic@mail.gmail.com>
	<4CDB2D09.4090904@eff.org>
	<AANLkTim+fncpSGkMLCzPUijELAnUa9+8mBD4s+sMUdBk@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTi=tm5R=Scfrt87D_vqcXEVQW8Dm6OAku26wzkgq@mail.gmail.com>
	<4CDBD2AA.50505@itforchange.net>
	<AANLkTima5V-0_DPn=dS06usr=JwkWdCaWUVx7yEvMkSN@mail.gmail.com>
	<4CDBEC0C.7070204@itforchange.net>
	<E03619A8-7D9C-4439-91E2-B7DE2964007C@psg.com>
	<AANLkTinCacxbq7GJ31yXhaqOBWxe3qENM+FFqWJD5b5D@mail.gmail.com>
	<4CDBFEC4.7090101@eff.org>
Message-ID: <AANLkTimOvJrDQqsW7_TW53awYxU1Lqw94ba9B5x3kzdK@mail.gmail.com>

Is this an disagreement *with the structure* (IGF producing input for
policy, MAG with role on policy drafting) or *with the issues* that would be
tackled? I used the issues as examples. Could you clarify the exact point of
disagreement and the reason?
Marilia

On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 12:33 PM, Katitza Rodriguez <katitza at eff.org> wrote:

>  I definitely disagree.  I have strong critics about the unintended
> consequence of moving forward that proposal, specially within the
> privacy/cybercrime arena.
>
>
> On 11/11/10 6:28 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote:
>
> Dear Avri,
>
>
>  You said that
>
> "setting up a centralized institutional framework on global level,
> especially affiliated with the UN or the UN system, just does not seem
> appropriate at this time and seems to me to be be just the sort of thing we
> escaped having happen at the ITU.  I do not see why we would start
> advocating that in the IGC".
>
> In my opinion:
>
>
>
> - T*he IG regime needs to produce policy and coordinate regulation* on
> substantive matters (access, privacy, etc). The *IGF is the only forum
> where substantive issues are discussed, but the way it is structured (which
> is a feature, not a bug, and should not be changed) makes it impossible for
> the IGF to perform this role.* There is noise and there is not a
> “membership”, which generates problems with legitimacy. But the IGF needs to
> be considered when we talk about EC because *the substantive inputs to
> draft policy and regulation need to come from the IGF*
>
>
>
> - *We do not necessarely need to create new centralized structures to
> draft policy*. We do have a multistakeholder structure in place, the MAG
> (functioning under UN). If the election of its members was made more
> transparent, then its role could be changed, so it could receive input from
> the IGF and have competence to perform the task of proposing policy and
> regulation. MAG could also have an important role with coordinating with
> other organizations to perform its tasks.
>
>
>
> Leaving out the details of the propsal (ex: number of MAG members, etc), *do
> you think the above is something you could agree with?*
>
>
>
> I get the feeling from this conversation that sometimes we disagree because
> we are mixing up different “parts” of our proposal, that is why I proposed
> to map the positions that have been put forth on the list, so we can have a
> clearer idea of which are exactly our agreements and disagreements.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Marília
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 11:25 AM, Avri Doria <avri at psg.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I don't think anyone is saying that regional setup like the COE should not
>> be setup elsewhere, especially if the people in the regions think it is
>> necessary.  The OECD setup is a new thing and I would personally like to
>> know more before we use it as an example for other activities.
>>
>> But setting up a centralized institutional framework on global level,
>> especially affiliated with the UN or the UN system, just does not seem
>> appropriate at this time and seems to me to be be just the sort of thing we
>> escaped having happen at the ITU.  I do not see why we would start
>> advocating that in the IGC.
>>
>> a.
>>
>> On 11 Nov 2010, at 08:13, parminder wrote:
>>
>> > Baudouin
>> >
>> > All Partnership with -OECD, with the US, with EU - are fine.
>> >
>> > My question however is specific
>> >
>> > What is the problem with the IGC asking for a global institutional
>> framework for developing Internet related public policies that includes all
>> countries, and their stakeholders, of a similar kind that that OECD/ CoE
>> already has?
>> >
>> > This question is especially to seen in the context of the fact that IGC
>> members have enthusiastically supported and engaged with the mentioned OECD
>> framework.
>> >
>> > Why is the need of participation of developing countries, with their all
>> stakeholders, not considered relevant or important. That is the simple thing
>> that I am seeking with my EC related proposal.
>> >
>> > Parminder
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thursday 11 November 2010 05:40 PM, Baudouin SCHOMBE wrote:
>> >> Parminder concretely in the context of strengthening cooperation or to
>> strengthen cooperation, it would be wise for formal exchanges are planned
>> between the OECD and actors from other continents to harmonize our views to
>> build a compelling case.
>> >> I think this is also part of the delicate task of civil society
>> entities. I also understand that such an approach requires costs that we
>> must certainly raise.OECD is an ideal partner, especially for developing
>> countries.
>> >> The process is still long, but if we have land in 2015 with force and
>> conviction, it would be desirable to correct any mistakes along the way from
>> Tunis 2005.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN
>> >> *COORDONNATEUR DU CENTRE AFRICAIN D'ECHANGE CULTUREL (CAFEC)
>> >>  ACADEMIE DES TIC
>> >> *COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC
>> >> *MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE
>> >> *NCUC/GNSO MEMBER (ICANN)
>> >>
>> >> Téléphone mobile: +243998983491/+243811980914
>> >> email:                   b.schombe at gmail.com
>> >> blog:                     http://akimambo.unblog.fr
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> 2010/11/11 parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
>> >>
>> >> Hi All
>> >>
>> >> I am still not able to understand how so many of those who are against
>> any new institutional framework for evolving global IG related public
>> policies, which is democratic in inclusion of all countries and
>> stakeholders,  have enthusiastically supported a similar framework among
>> OECD countries? I mean the OECD's Committee For Information, Computer and
>> Communication Policy, which has a very active portfolio for helping develop
>> Internet policies, esp those with trans-border ramification. Many CS members
>> in the IGC have actively organized themselves to associate with the work of
>> this OECD's institutional framework.
>> >>
>> >> Why should such a framework not exist at a global level? And I do think
>> that OECD's framework is not multistakeholder enough. My proposal is for a
>> global framework of similar kind (to OECD's) that will help develop globally
>> applicable Internet related public policies, which is what the 'enhanced
>> cooperation' process is about, that is much more multistakeholder than the
>> existing OECD one
>> >>
>> >> I request a specific response for those who have supported the OECD
>> framework rather enthusiastically, and this includes most here on the IGC
>> list who now oppose similar new institutional developments at the global
>> level , how do they justify this opposition now, for a similar global
>> institutional framework.
>> >>
>> >> Unfortunately, many developing country IGC members here have gone along
>> with this opposition to a global UN anchored body, which can be  no
>> different from the OECD arrangement. I am able to unserstand thier stanc
>> eeven more.
>> >>
>> >> Should we depend on OECD to make global Internet policies. That is what
>> is being said in this support for a OECD framework but opposition to a
>> similar global framework one, for addressing the urgent need for global
>> Interent related public policies. .
>> >>
>> >> For this reason I cannot support the present draft statement. But if
>> someone can give me some justification clarifying the above paradox, I am
>> very much willing to listen.
>> >>
>> >> 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
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
> FGV Direito Rio
>
> Center for Technology and Society
> Getulio Vargas Foundation
> Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
>
>
>
> --
> Katitza Rodriguez
> International Rights Director
> Electronic Frontier Foundation
> katitza at eff.orgkatitza@datos-personales.org (personal email)
>
> Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990
>
>


-- 
Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
FGV Direito Rio

Center for Technology and Society
Getulio Vargas Foundation
Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101111/e8a0627b/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From mariliamaciel at gmail.com  Thu Nov 11 09:41:05 2010
From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 12:41:05 -0200
Subject: [governance] FINAL? DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=tm5R=Scfrt87D_vqcXEVQW8Dm6OAku26wzkgq@mail.gmail.com>
References: <7E0ED935-470F-451E-B072-319351CAAD94@ciroap.org>
	<4CDAB2BB.8050303@eff.org>
	<75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC12008CE@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
	<AANLkTimJHN6P9TiVazEGWPORM0SFp7MV8yuPw45_h9ic@mail.gmail.com>
	<4CDB2D09.4090904@eff.org>
	<AANLkTim+fncpSGkMLCzPUijELAnUa9+8mBD4s+sMUdBk@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTi=tm5R=Scfrt87D_vqcXEVQW8Dm6OAku26wzkgq@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTinTH61Ts3OwXkUTRke+icZO50pMNc+go_trKBrL@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Izumi and all,

I cannot take the lead on the mapping alone due time constraints, but I do
offer to work side by side with you and Jeremy and others interested to
perform this task.

Marilia

On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 8:14 AM, Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org> wrote:

> Thank you Marilia for the very encouraging suggestion below.
> I was thinking something similar, but not as concrete as you described.
> I very much appreciate if you could take the lead to map out, not the
> co-coordinators
> on this excellent suggestion, hopefully ;-).
>
> Currently I can only think of wiki as a tool most of us may feel
> comfortable.
> As Jeremy noted, we will discuss and get back to you.
>
> In the mean time, however, if you guys have any other suggestion to allow
> us to share our work process such as writing statement, pleas let us know.
> I think we need cross-platform, easy-to-use, and easy-to-setup and maintain
> tools to consider.
>
> izumi
>
>
> 2010/11/11 Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>:
> > I feel I need to say that I am supporting this draft because I believe it
> is
> > the possible consensus we are able to reach by the end of the present
> week.
> >
> > But then I ned to ask: will the lively debate that is currently taking
> place
> > cease when we send our statement? I hope not, because the present
> statement
> > is definitely not an IGC position on EC. So the debate needs to continue,
> > both on what was called “core EC” and “broader conditions for EC”: how to
> > define it? do we need it? in which ares? how to implement it? If we don’t
> > have a proposal to put on the table and bargain, others will decide for
> us.
> >
> > I believe we have plenty of great exchanges, concrete suggestions (on one
> > side and the other) and good starting point do advance to a more concrete
> > position in the near future. But we need to map what has been said about
> EC
> > so far, put them in a charter so we can visualize it.  Could the
> > coordinators help us do it? What would be the best way to proceed? Maybe
> it
> > is time for the wiki you guys mentioned?
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Marilia
> >
> > Ps:@Kati, regarding ACTA, not being aware of the intentions, this is how
> I
> > understood the paragraph, through literal reading.  I have gone through
> the
> > e-mails trying to find when the reference to ACTA was included, but was
> > unable to.
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 9:38 PM, Katitza Rodriguez <katitza at eff.org>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Parminder's intention go far beyond yours, Marilia if I understood
> >> correctly. But I like your framing:
> >>
> >> If this is the case, we should called attention to the ITU and APEC. In
> my
> >> previous job, we have been even denied observer status in APEC, and the
> only
> >> way to get into the meetings was through our national delegations, which
> I
> >> have done. The country who object to our observer status was the same
> >> country that make troubles within the IGF. After a few meetings, we were
> >> able to get observer status but we have to applied meeting by meeting.
> >>
> >>
> >> On 11/10/10 3:24 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Regarding the reference made to ACTA, I don´t think we are implying
> that
> >>> the effective respect for these principles (openness, transparency,
> >>> accountability, etc) will stop forum shifting. The way I understand, we
> are
> >>> simply calling attention to the fact that these principles have been
> >>> disregarded in other regimes/debates and that a clear message should be
> sent
> >>> against this disrespect, by reaffirming these principles and making
> them the
> >>> base of our arrangements.
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> 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
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > 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
> >
>
>
>
> --
>                         >> Izumi Aizu <<
>
>           Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo
>
>            Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,
>                                   Japan
>                                  * * * * *
>            << Writing the Future of the History >>
>                                 www.anr.org
>



-- 
Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
FGV Direito Rio

Center for Technology and Society
Getulio Vargas Foundation
Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101111/8ef6f973/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From parminder at itforchange.net  Thu Nov 11 09:41:35 2010
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 20:11:35 +0530
Subject: [governance] FINAL? DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinCacxbq7GJ31yXhaqOBWxe3qENM+FFqWJD5b5D@mail.gmail.com>
References: <7E0ED935-470F-451E-B072-319351CAAD94@ciroap.org>	<4CDAB2BB.8050303@eff.org>	<75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC12008CE@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>	<AANLkTimJHN6P9TiVazEGWPORM0SFp7MV8yuPw45_h9ic@mail.gmail.com>	<4CDB2D09.4090904@eff.org>	<AANLkTim+fncpSGkMLCzPUijELAnUa9+8mBD4s+sMUdBk@mail.gmail.com>	<AANLkTi=tm5R=Scfrt87D_vqcXEVQW8Dm6OAku26wzkgq@mail.gmail.com>	<4CDBD2AA.50505@itforchange.net>	<AANLkTima5V-0_DPn=dS06usr=JwkWdCaWUVx7yEvMkSN@mail.gmail.com>	<4CDBEC0C.7070204@itforchange.net>	<E03619A8-7D9C-4439-91E2-B7DE2964007C@psg.com> <AANLkTinCacxbq7GJ31yXhaqOBWxe3qENM+FFqWJD5b5D@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4CDC009F.6090600@itforchange.net>

Marilia

It may be useful to note that the same people here who are opposing any 
new institutional developments under the EC rubric, are the ones who 
oppose any kind of movement towards IGF being able to give any kinds of 
recommendations.

So they are not confused at all between different parts of our proposal 
(EC/ IGF) at all. They are either generally against public policy 
regimes globally, or are content with those that include only developed 
countries (OECD) and leave out developing countries.

I dont think in any other global civil society group such kind of open 
discrimination could have been countenanced.

Parminder

On Thursday 11 November 2010 07:58 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote:
>
> Dear Avri,
>
>
> You said that
>
> "setting up a centralized institutional framework on global level, 
> especially affiliated with the UN or the UN system, just does not seem 
> appropriate at this time and seems to me to be be just the sort of 
> thing we escaped having happen at the ITU.  I do not see why we would 
> start advocating that in the IGC".
>
> In my opinion:
>
> - T*he IG regime needs to produce policy and coordinate regulation* on 
> substantive matters (access, privacy, etc). The *IGF is the only forum 
> where substantive issues are discussed, but the way it is structured 
> (which is a feature, not a bug, and should not be changed) makes it 
> impossible for the IGF to perform this role.* There is noise and there 
> is not a “membership”, which generates problems with legitimacy. But 
> the IGF needs to be considered when we talk about EC because *the 
> substantive inputs to draft policy and regulation need to come from 
> the IGF*
>
> - *We do not necessarely need to create new centralized structures to 
> draft policy*. We do have a multistakeholder structure in place, the 
> MAG (functioning under UN). If the election of its members was made 
> more transparent, then its role could be changed, so it could receive 
> input from the IGF and have competence to perform the task of 
> proposing policy and regulation. MAG could also have an important role 
> with coordinating with other organizations to perform its tasks.
>
> Leaving out the details of the propsal (ex: number of MAG members, 
> etc), *do you think the above is something you could agree with?*
>
> I get the feeling from this conversation that sometimes we disagree 
> because we are mixing up different “parts” of our proposal, that is 
> why I proposed to map the positions that have been put forth on the 
> list, so we can have a clearer idea of which are exactly our 
> agreements and disagreements.
>
> Best,
>
> Marília
>
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 11:25 AM, Avri Doria <avri at psg.com 
> <mailto:avri at psg.com>> wrote:
>
>     Hi,
>
>     I don't think anyone is saying that regional setup like the COE
>     should not be setup elsewhere, especially if the people in the
>     regions think it is necessary.  The OECD setup is a new thing and
>     I would personally like to know more before we use it as an
>     example for other activities.
>
>     But setting up a centralized institutional framework on global
>     level, especially affiliated with the UN or the UN system, just
>     does not seem appropriate at this time and seems to me to be be
>     just the sort of thing we escaped having happen at the ITU.  I do
>     not see why we would start advocating that in the IGC.
>
>     a.
>
>     On 11 Nov 2010, at 08:13, parminder wrote:
>
>     > Baudouin
>     >
>     > All Partnership with -OECD, with the US, with EU - are fine.
>     >
>     > My question however is specific
>     >
>     > What is the problem with the IGC asking for a global
>     institutional framework for developing Internet related public
>     policies that includes all countries, and their stakeholders, of a
>     similar kind that that OECD/ CoE already has?
>     >
>     > This question is especially to seen in the context of the fact
>     that IGC members have enthusiastically supported and engaged with
>     the mentioned OECD framework.
>     >
>     > Why is the need of participation of developing countries, with
>     their all stakeholders, not considered relevant or important. That
>     is the simple thing that I am seeking with my EC related proposal.
>     >
>     > Parminder
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > On Thursday 11 November 2010 05:40 PM, Baudouin SCHOMBE wrote:
>     >> Parminder concretely in the context of strengthening
>     cooperation or to strengthen cooperation, it would be wise for
>     formal exchanges are planned between the OECD and actors from
>     other continents to harmonize our views to build a compelling case.
>     >> I think this is also part of the delicate task of civil society
>     entities. I also understand that such an approach requires costs
>     that we must certainly raise.OECD is an ideal partner, especially
>     for developing countries.
>     >> The process is still long, but if we have land in 2015 with
>     force and conviction, it would be desirable to correct any
>     mistakes along the way from Tunis 2005.
>     >>
>     >>
>     >>
>     >> SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN
>     >> *COORDONNATEUR DU CENTRE AFRICAIN D'ECHANGE CULTUREL (CAFEC)
>     >>  ACADEMIE DES TIC
>     >> *COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC
>     >> *MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE
>     >> *NCUC/GNSO MEMBER (ICANN)
>     >>
>     >> Téléphone mobile: +243998983491/+243811980914
>     >> email: b.schombe at gmail.com <mailto:b.schombe at gmail.com>
>     >> blog: http://akimambo.unblog.fr
>     >>
>     >>
>     >>
>     >> 2010/11/11 parminder <parminder at itforchange.net
>     <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>>
>     >>
>     >> Hi All
>     >>
>     >> I am still not able to understand how so many of those who are
>     against any new institutional framework for evolving global IG
>     related public policies, which is democratic in inclusion of all
>     countries and stakeholders,  have enthusiastically supported a
>     similar framework among OECD countries? I mean the OECD's
>     Committee For Information, Computer and Communication Policy,
>     which has a very active portfolio for helping develop Internet
>     policies, esp those with trans-border ramification. Many CS
>     members in the IGC have actively organized themselves to associate
>     with the work of this OECD's institutional framework.
>     >>
>     >> Why should such a framework not exist at a global level? And I
>     do think that OECD's framework is not multistakeholder enough. My
>     proposal is for a global framework of similar kind (to OECD's)
>     that will help develop globally applicable Internet related public
>     policies, which is what the 'enhanced cooperation' process is
>     about, that is much more multistakeholder than the existing OECD one
>     >>
>     >> I request a specific response for those who have supported the
>     OECD framework rather enthusiastically, and this includes most
>     here on the IGC list who now oppose similar new institutional
>     developments at the global level , how do they justify this
>     opposition now, for a similar global institutional framework.
>     >>
>     >> Unfortunately, many developing country IGC members here have
>     gone along with this opposition to a global UN anchored body,
>     which can be  no different from the OECD arrangement. I am able to
>     unserstand thier stanc eeven more.
>     >>
>     >> Should we depend on OECD to make global Internet policies. That
>     is what is being said in this support for a OECD framework but
>     opposition to a similar global framework one, for addressing the
>     urgent need for global Interent related public policies. .
>     >>
>     >> For this reason I cannot support the present draft statement.
>     But if someone can give me some justification clarifying the above
>     paradox, I am very much willing to listen.
>     >>
>     >> Parminder
>     >>
>     >>
>     >>
>     >> ____________________________________________________________
>     >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     >> governance at lists.cpsr.org <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>     >> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>     <mailto:governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org>
>     >>
>     >> For all list information and functions, see:
>     >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>     >>
>     >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>     >>
>     > ____________________________________________________________
>     > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     > governance at lists.cpsr.org <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>     > To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>     <mailto:governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org>
>     >
>     > For all list information and functions, see:
>     > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>     >
>     > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>     ____________________________________________________________
>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>     To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>     <mailto:governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org>
>
>     For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>     Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
> FGV Direito Rio
>
> Center for Technology and Society
> Getulio Vargas Foundation
> Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101111/d9a57c02/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From katitza at eff.org  Thu Nov 11 09:43:57 2010
From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez)
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 06:43:57 -0800
Subject: [governance] FINAL? DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <4CDC009F.6090600@itforchange.net>
References: <7E0ED935-470F-451E-B072-319351CAAD94@ciroap.org>	<4CDAB2BB.8050303@eff.org>	<75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC12008CE@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>	<AANLkTimJHN6P9TiVazEGWPORM0SFp7MV8yuPw45_h9ic@mail.gmail.com>	<4CDB2D09.4090904@eff.org>	<AANLkTim+fncpSGkMLCzPUijELAnUa9+8mBD4s+sMUdBk@mail.gmail.com>	<AANLkTi=tm5R=Scfrt87D_vqcXEVQW8Dm6OAku26wzkgq@mail.gmail.com>	<4CDBD2AA.50505@itforchange.net>	<AANLkTima5V-0_DPn=dS06usr=JwkWdCaWUVx7yEvMkSN@mail.gmail.com>	<4CDBEC0C.7070204@itforchange.net>	<E03619A8-7D9C-4439-91E2-B7DE2964007C@psg.com> <AANLkTinCacxbq7GJ31yXhaqOBWxe3qENM+FFqWJD5b5D@mail.gmail.com> <4CDC009F.6090600@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <4CDC012D.4090204@eff.org>

I think you are wrong Parminder. I will need to map all your answers and 
reply to you properly.

On 11/11/10 6:41 AM, parminder wrote:
> Marilia
>
> It may be useful to note that the same people here who are opposing 
> any new institutional developments under the EC rubric, are the ones 
> who oppose any kind of movement towards IGF being able to give any 
> kinds of recommendations.
>
> So they are not confused at all between different parts of our 
> proposal (EC/ IGF) at all. They are either generally against public 
> policy regimes globally, or are content with those that include only 
> developed countries (OECD) and leave out developing countries.
>
> I dont think in any other global civil society group such kind of open 
> discrimination could have been countenanced.
>
> Parminder
>
> On Thursday 11 November 2010 07:58 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote:
>>
>> Dear Avri,
>>
>>
>> You said that
>>
>> "setting up a centralized institutional framework on global level, 
>> especially affiliated with the UN or the UN system, just does not 
>> seem appropriate at this time and seems to me to be be just the sort 
>> of thing we escaped having happen at the ITU.  I do not see why we 
>> would start advocating that in the IGC".
>>
>> In my opinion:
>>
>> - T*he IG regime needs to produce policy and coordinate regulation* 
>> on substantive matters (access, privacy, etc). The *IGF is the only 
>> forum where substantive issues are discussed, but the way it is 
>> structured (which is a feature, not a bug, and should not be changed) 
>> makes it impossible for the IGF to perform this role.* There is noise 
>> and there is not a “membership”, which generates problems with 
>> legitimacy. But the IGF needs to be considered when we talk about EC 
>> because *the substantive inputs to draft policy and regulation need 
>> to come from the IGF*
>>
>> - *We do not necessarely need to create new centralized structures to 
>> draft policy*. We do have a multistakeholder structure in place, the 
>> MAG (functioning under UN). If the election of its members was made 
>> more transparent, then its role could be changed, so it could receive 
>> input from the IGF and have competence to perform the task of 
>> proposing policy and regulation. MAG could also have an important 
>> role with coordinating with other organizations to perform its tasks.
>>
>> Leaving out the details of the propsal (ex: number of MAG members, 
>> etc), *do you think the above is something you could agree with?*
>>
>> I get the feeling from this conversation that sometimes we disagree 
>> because we are mixing up different “parts” of our proposal, that is 
>> why I proposed to map the positions that have been put forth on the 
>> list, so we can have a clearer idea of which are exactly our 
>> agreements and disagreements.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Marília
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 11:25 AM, Avri Doria <avri at psg.com 
>> <mailto:avri at psg.com>> wrote:
>>
>>     Hi,
>>
>>     I don't think anyone is saying that regional setup like the COE
>>     should not be setup elsewhere, especially if the people in the
>>     regions think it is necessary.  The OECD setup is a new thing and
>>     I would personally like to know more before we use it as an
>>     example for other activities.
>>
>>     But setting up a centralized institutional framework on global
>>     level, especially affiliated with the UN or the UN system, just
>>     does not seem appropriate at this time and seems to me to be be
>>     just the sort of thing we escaped having happen at the ITU.  I do
>>     not see why we would start advocating that in the IGC.
>>
>>     a.
>>
>>     On 11 Nov 2010, at 08:13, parminder wrote:
>>
>>     > Baudouin
>>     >
>>     > All Partnership with -OECD, with the US, with EU - are fine.
>>     >
>>     > My question however is specific
>>     >
>>     > What is the problem with the IGC asking for a global
>>     institutional framework for developing Internet related public
>>     policies that includes all countries, and their stakeholders, of
>>     a similar kind that that OECD/ CoE already has?
>>     >
>>     > This question is especially to seen in the context of the fact
>>     that IGC members have enthusiastically supported and engaged with
>>     the mentioned OECD framework.
>>     >
>>     > Why is the need of participation of developing countries, with
>>     their all stakeholders, not considered relevant or important.
>>     That is the simple thing that I am seeking with my EC related
>>     proposal.
>>     >
>>     > Parminder
>>     >
>>     >
>>     >
>>     > On Thursday 11 November 2010 05:40 PM, Baudouin SCHOMBE wrote:
>>     >> Parminder concretely in the context of strengthening
>>     cooperation or to strengthen cooperation, it would be wise for
>>     formal exchanges are planned between the OECD and actors from
>>     other continents to harmonize our views to build a compelling case.
>>     >> I think this is also part of the delicate task of civil
>>     society entities. I also understand that such an approach
>>     requires costs that we must certainly raise.OECD is an ideal
>>     partner, especially for developing countries.
>>     >> The process is still long, but if we have land in 2015 with
>>     force and conviction, it would be desirable to correct any
>>     mistakes along the way from Tunis 2005.
>>     >>
>>     >>
>>     >>
>>     >> SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN
>>     >> *COORDONNATEUR DU CENTRE AFRICAIN D'ECHANGE CULTUREL (CAFEC)
>>     >>  ACADEMIE DES TIC
>>     >> *COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC
>>     >> *MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE
>>     >> *NCUC/GNSO MEMBER (ICANN)
>>     >>
>>     >> Téléphone mobile: +243998983491/+243811980914
>>     >> email: b.schombe at gmail.com <mailto:b.schombe at gmail.com>
>>     >> blog: http://akimambo.unblog.fr
>>     >>
>>     >>
>>     >>
>>     >> 2010/11/11 parminder <parminder at itforchange.net
>>     <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>>
>>     >>
>>     >> Hi All
>>     >>
>>     >> I am still not able to understand how so many of those who are
>>     against any new institutional framework for evolving global IG
>>     related public policies, which is democratic in inclusion of all
>>     countries and stakeholders,  have enthusiastically supported a
>>     similar framework among OECD countries? I mean the OECD's
>>     Committee For Information, Computer and Communication Policy,
>>     which has a very active portfolio for helping develop Internet
>>     policies, esp those with trans-border ramification. Many CS
>>     members in the IGC have actively organized themselves to
>>     associate with the work of this OECD's institutional framework.
>>     >>
>>     >> Why should such a framework not exist at a global level? And I
>>     do think that OECD's framework is not multistakeholder enough. My
>>     proposal is for a global framework of similar kind (to OECD's)
>>     that will help develop globally applicable Internet related
>>     public policies, which is what the 'enhanced cooperation' process
>>     is about, that is much more multistakeholder than the existing
>>     OECD one
>>     >>
>>     >> I request a specific response for those who have supported the
>>     OECD framework rather enthusiastically, and this includes most
>>     here on the IGC list who now oppose similar new institutional
>>     developments at the global level , how do they justify this
>>     opposition now, for a similar global institutional framework.
>>     >>
>>     >> Unfortunately, many developing country IGC members here have
>>     gone along with this opposition to a global UN anchored body,
>>     which can be  no different from the OECD arrangement. I am able
>>     to unserstand thier stanc eeven more.
>>     >>
>>     >> Should we depend on OECD to make global Internet policies.
>>     That is what is being said in this support for a OECD framework
>>     but opposition to a similar global framework one, for addressing
>>     the urgent need for global Interent related public policies. .
>>     >>
>>     >> For this reason I cannot support the present draft statement.
>>     But if someone can give me some justification clarifying the
>>     above paradox, I am very much willing to listen.
>>     >>
>>     >> Parminder
>>     >>
>>     >>
>>     >>
>>     >> ____________________________________________________________
>>     >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     >> governance at lists.cpsr.org <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>>     >> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>     >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>     <mailto:governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org>
>>     >>
>>     >> For all list information and functions, see:
>>     >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>     >>
>>     >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>     >>
>>     > ____________________________________________________________
>>     > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     > governance at lists.cpsr.org <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>>     > To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>     > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>     <mailto:governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org>
>>     >
>>     > For all list information and functions, see:
>>     > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>     >
>>     > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>     ____________________________________________________________
>>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>>     To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>     <mailto:governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org>
>>
>>     For all list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>
>>     Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
>> FGV Direito Rio
>>
>> Center for Technology and Society
>> Getulio Vargas Foundation
>> Rio de Janeiro - Brazil


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

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101111/d2b9a357/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From parminder at itforchange.net  Thu Nov 11 09:47:32 2010
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 20:17:32 +0530
Subject: [governance] FINAL? DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <4CDBFEC4.7090101@eff.org>
References: <7E0ED935-470F-451E-B072-319351CAAD94@ciroap.org>	<4CDAB2BB.8050303@eff.org>	<75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC12008CE@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>	<AANLkTimJHN6P9TiVazEGWPORM0SFp7MV8yuPw45_h9ic@mail.gmail.com>	<4CDB2D09.4090904@eff.org>	<AANLkTim+fncpSGkMLCzPUijELAnUa9+8mBD4s+sMUdBk@mail.gmail.com>	<AANLkTi=tm5R=Scfrt87D_vqcXEVQW8Dm6OAku26wzkgq@mail.gmail.com>	<4CDBD2AA.50505@itforchange.net>	<AANLkTima5V-0_DPn=dS06usr=JwkWdCaWUVx7yEvMkSN@mail.gmail.com>	<4CDBEC0C.7070204@itforchange.net>	<E03619A8-7D9C-4439-91E2-B7DE2964007C@psg.com> <AANLkTinCacxbq7GJ31yXhaqOBWxe3qENM+FFqWJD5b5D@mail.gmail.com> <4CDBFEC4.7090101@eff.org>
Message-ID: <4CDC0204.2020808@itforchange.net>



On Thursday 11 November 2010 08:03 PM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote:
> I definitely disagree.  I have strong critics about the unintended 
> consequence of moving forward that proposal, specially within the 
> privacy/cybercrime arena.

Katitza,

You are against even a fully multistakeholder structure take up global 
Internet policy related work, as suggested by Marcilia, but do not seem 
to be  against similar work by the OECD, where isnt even really much 
multistakeholderism at all. Why is it so?

Why developed country gov dominated policy frameworks are acceptable 
while the proposed relatively more MS policy framework but which also 
include developing countries not so?


Parminder
>
>
> On 11/11/10 6:28 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote:
>>
>> Dear Avri,
>>
>>
>> You said that
>>
>> "setting up a centralized institutional framework on global level, 
>> especially affiliated with the UN or the UN system, just does not 
>> seem appropriate at this time and seems to me to be be just the sort 
>> of thing we escaped having happen at the ITU.  I do not see why we 
>> would start advocating that in the IGC".
>>
>> In my opinion:
>>
>> - T*he IG regime needs to produce policy and coordinate regulation* 
>> on substantive matters (access, privacy, etc). The *IGF is the only 
>> forum where substantive issues are discussed, but the way it is 
>> structured (which is a feature, not a bug, and should not be changed) 
>> makes it impossible for the IGF to perform this role.* There is noise 
>> and there is not a "membership", which generates problems with 
>> legitimacy. But the IGF needs to be considered when we talk about EC 
>> because *the substantive inputs to draft policy and regulation need 
>> to come from the IGF*
>>
>> - *We do not necessarely need to create new centralized structures to 
>> draft policy*. We do have a multistakeholder structure in place, the 
>> MAG (functioning under UN). If the election of its members was made 
>> more transparent, then its role could be changed, so it could receive 
>> input from the IGF and have competence to perform the task of 
>> proposing policy and regulation. MAG could also have an important 
>> role with coordinating with other organizations to perform its tasks.
>>
>> Leaving out the details of the propsal (ex: number of MAG members, 
>> etc), *do you think the above is something you could agree with?*
>>
>> I get the feeling from this conversation that sometimes we disagree 
>> because we are mixing up different "parts" of our proposal, that is 
>> why I proposed to map the positions that have been put forth on the 
>> list, so we can have a clearer idea of which are exactly our 
>> agreements and disagreements.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Marília
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 11:25 AM, Avri Doria <avri at psg.com 
>> <mailto:avri at psg.com>> wrote:
>>
>>     Hi,
>>
>>     I don't think anyone is saying that regional setup like the COE
>>     should not be setup elsewhere, especially if the people in the
>>     regions think it is necessary.  The OECD setup is a new thing and
>>     I would personally like to know more before we use it as an
>>     example for other activities.
>>
>>     But setting up a centralized institutional framework on global
>>     level, especially affiliated with the UN or the UN system, just
>>     does not seem appropriate at this time and seems to me to be be
>>     just the sort of thing we escaped having happen at the ITU.  I do
>>     not see why we would start advocating that in the IGC.
>>
>>     a.
>>
>>     On 11 Nov 2010, at 08:13, parminder wrote:
>>
>>     > Baudouin
>>     >
>>     > All Partnership with -OECD, with the US, with EU - are fine.
>>     >
>>     > My question however is specific
>>     >
>>     > What is the problem with the IGC asking for a global
>>     institutional framework for developing Internet related public
>>     policies that includes all countries, and their stakeholders, of
>>     a similar kind that that OECD/ CoE already has?
>>     >
>>     > This question is especially to seen in the context of the fact
>>     that IGC members have enthusiastically supported and engaged with
>>     the mentioned OECD framework.
>>     >
>>     > Why is the need of participation of developing countries, with
>>     their all stakeholders, not considered relevant or important.
>>     That is the simple thing that I am seeking with my EC related
>>     proposal.
>>     >
>>     > Parminder
>>     >
>>     >
>>     >
>>     > On Thursday 11 November 2010 05:40 PM, Baudouin SCHOMBE wrote:
>>     >> Parminder concretely in the context of strengthening
>>     cooperation or to strengthen cooperation, it would be wise for
>>     formal exchanges are planned between the OECD and actors from
>>     other continents to harmonize our views to build a compelling case.
>>     >> I think this is also part of the delicate task of civil
>>     society entities. I also understand that such an approach
>>     requires costs that we must certainly raise.OECD is an ideal
>>     partner, especially for developing countries.
>>     >> The process is still long, but if we have land in 2015 with
>>     force and conviction, it would be desirable to correct any
>>     mistakes along the way from Tunis 2005.
>>     >>
>>     >>
>>     >>
>>     >> SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN
>>     >> *COORDONNATEUR DU CENTRE AFRICAIN D'ECHANGE CULTUREL (CAFEC)
>>     >>  ACADEMIE DES TIC
>>     >> *COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC
>>     >> *MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE
>>     >> *NCUC/GNSO MEMBER (ICANN)
>>     >>
>>     >> Téléphone mobile: +243998983491/+243811980914
>>     >> email: b.schombe at gmail.com <mailto:b.schombe at gmail.com>
>>     >> blog: http://akimambo.unblog.fr
>>     >>
>>     >>
>>     >>
>>     >> 2010/11/11 parminder <parminder at itforchange.net
>>     <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>>
>>     >>
>>     >> Hi All
>>     >>
>>     >> I am still not able to understand how so many of those who are
>>     against any new institutional framework for evolving global IG
>>     related public policies, which is democratic in inclusion of all
>>     countries and stakeholders,  have enthusiastically supported a
>>     similar framework among OECD countries? I mean the OECD's
>>     Committee For Information, Computer and Communication Policy,
>>     which has a very active portfolio for helping develop Internet
>>     policies, esp those with trans-border ramification. Many CS
>>     members in the IGC have actively organized themselves to
>>     associate with the work of this OECD's institutional framework.
>>     >>
>>     >> Why should such a framework not exist at a global level? And I
>>     do think that OECD's framework is not multistakeholder enough. My
>>     proposal is for a global framework of similar kind (to OECD's)
>>     that will help develop globally applicable Internet related
>>     public policies, which is what the 'enhanced cooperation' process
>>     is about, that is much more multistakeholder than the existing
>>     OECD one
>>     >>
>>     >> I request a specific response for those who have supported the
>>     OECD framework rather enthusiastically, and this includes most
>>     here on the IGC list who now oppose similar new institutional
>>     developments at the global level , how do they justify this
>>     opposition now, for a similar global institutional framework.
>>     >>
>>     >> Unfortunately, many developing country IGC members here have
>>     gone along with this opposition to a global UN anchored body,
>>     which can be  no different from the OECD arrangement. I am able
>>     to unserstand thier stanc eeven more.
>>     >>
>>     >> Should we depend on OECD to make global Internet policies.
>>     That is what is being said in this support for a OECD framework
>>     but opposition to a similar global framework one, for addressing
>>     the urgent need for global Interent related public policies. .
>>     >>
>>     >> For this reason I cannot support the present draft statement.
>>     But if someone can give me some justification clarifying the
>>     above paradox, I am very much willing to listen.
>>     >>
>>     >> Parminder
>>     >>
>>     >>
>>     >>
>>     >> ____________________________________________________________
>>     >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     >> governance at lists.cpsr.org <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>>     >> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>     >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>     <mailto:governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org>
>>     >>
>>     >> For all list information and functions, see:
>>     >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>     >>
>>     >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>     >>
>>     > ____________________________________________________________
>>     > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     > governance at lists.cpsr.org <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>>     > To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>     > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>     <mailto:governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org>
>>     >
>>     > For all list information and functions, see:
>>     > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>     >
>>     > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>     ____________________________________________________________
>>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>>     To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>     <mailto:governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org>
>>
>>     For all list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>
>>     Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
>> FGV Direito Rio
>>
>> Center for Technology and Society
>> Getulio Vargas Foundation
>> Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
>
>
> -- 
> Katitza Rodriguez
> International Rights Director
> Electronic Frontier Foundation
> katitza at eff.org
> katitza at datos-personales.org  (personal email)
>
> Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101111/561a609a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From avri at psg.com  Thu Nov 11 10:02:48 2010
From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 10:02:48 -0500
Subject: [governance] FINAL? DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinCacxbq7GJ31yXhaqOBWxe3qENM+FFqWJD5b5D@mail.gmail.com>
References: <7E0ED935-470F-451E-B072-319351CAAD94@ciroap.org> <4CDAB2BB.8050303@eff.org> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC12008CE@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <AANLkTimJHN6P9TiVazEGWPORM0SFp7MV8yuPw45_h9ic@mail.gmail.com> <4CDB2D09.4090904@eff.org> <AANLkTim+fncpSGkMLCzPUijELAnUa9+8mBD4s+sMUdBk@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTi=tm5R=Scfrt87D_vqcXEVQW8Dm6OAku26wzkgq@mail.gmail.com> <4CDBD2AA.50505@itforchange.net> <AANLkTima5V-0_DPn=dS06usr=JwkWdCaWUVx7yEvMkSN@mail.gmail.com> <4CDBEC0C.7070204@itforchange.net> <E03619A8-7D9C-4439-91E2-B7DE2964007C@psg.com> <AANLkTinCacxbq7GJ31yXhaqOBWxe3qENM+FFqWJD5b5D@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <67DB48EE-C7C8-48F8-BB73-2C48D6C0D05B@psg.com>

Hi,

While I still refrain from making direct comments about what I think the IGF should or should not do (my contract with them ends at the end of the month), I do see the IGF as an existing international framework whose role, scope, and MAG are still under review by the CSTD and others.

As I have stated earlier, i have issues with any notion of active prescriptive oversight, though have no issues with other forms of reactive/passive oversight mechanisms.  I also have issues with any centralized oversight for all thinks IG, or an international framework that is not open, accountable, transparent and inclusive.


a.

On 11 Nov 2010, at 09:28, Marilia Maciel wrote:

> Dear Avri,
> 
> 
> 
> You said that
> 
> "setting up a centralized institutional framework on global level, especially affiliated with the UN or the UN system, just does not seem appropriate at this time and seems to me to be be just the sort of thing we escaped having happen at the ITU.  I do not see why we would start advocating that in the IGC".
> 
> In my opinion:
> 
>  
> - The IG regime needs to produce policy and coordinate regulation on substantive matters (access, privacy, etc). The IGF is the only forum where substantive issues are discussed, but the way it is structured (which is a feature, not a bug, and should not be changed) makes it impossible for the IGF to perform this role. There is noise and there is not a “membership”, which generates problems with legitimacy. But the IGF needs to be considered when we talk about EC because the substantive inputs to draft policy and regulation need to come from the IGF
> 
>  
> - We do not necessarely need to create new centralized structures to draft policy. We do have a multistakeholder structure in place, the MAG (functioning under UN). If the election of its members was made more transparent, then its role could be changed, so it could receive input from the IGF and have competence to perform the task of proposing policy and regulation. MAG could also have an important role with coordinating with other organizations to perform its tasks.
> 
>  
> Leaving out the details of the propsal (ex: number of MAG members, etc), do you think the above is something you could agree with?
> 
>  
> I get the feeling from this conversation that sometimes we disagree because we are mixing up different “parts” of our proposal, that is why I proposed to map the positions that have been put forth on the list, so we can have a clearer idea of which are exactly our agreements and disagreements.
> 
>  
> Best,
> 
> Marília
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 11:25 AM, Avri Doria <avri at psg.com> wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I don't think anyone is saying that regional setup like the COE should not be setup elsewhere, especially if the people in the regions think it is necessary.  The OECD setup is a new thing and I would personally like to know more before we use it as an example for other activities.
> 
> But setting up a centralized institutional framework on global level, especially affiliated with the UN or the UN system, just does not seem appropriate at this time and seems to me to be be just the sort of thing we escaped having happen at the ITU.  I do not see why we would start advocating that in the IGC.
> 
> a.
> 
> On 11 Nov 2010, at 08:13, parminder wrote:
> 
> > Baudouin
> >
> > All Partnership with -OECD, with the US, with EU - are fine.
> >
> > My question however is specific
> >
> > What is the problem with the IGC asking for a global institutional framework for developing Internet related public policies that includes all countries, and their stakeholders, of a similar kind that that OECD/ CoE already has?
> >
> > This question is especially to seen in the context of the fact that IGC members have enthusiastically supported and engaged with the mentioned OECD framework.
> >
> > Why is the need of participation of developing countries, with their all stakeholders, not considered relevant or important. That is the simple thing that I am seeking with my EC related proposal.
> >
> > Parminder
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thursday 11 November 2010 05:40 PM, Baudouin SCHOMBE wrote:
> >> Parminder concretely in the context of strengthening cooperation or to strengthen cooperation, it would be wise for formal exchanges are planned between the OECD and actors from other continents to harmonize our views to build a compelling case.
> >> I think this is also part of the delicate task of civil society entities. I also understand that such an approach requires costs that we must certainly raise.OECD is an ideal partner, especially for developing countries.
> >> The process is still long, but if we have land in 2015 with force and conviction, it would be desirable to correct any mistakes along the way from Tunis 2005.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN
> >> *COORDONNATEUR DU CENTRE AFRICAIN D'ECHANGE CULTUREL (CAFEC)
> >>  ACADEMIE DES TIC
> >> *COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC
> >> *MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE
> >> *NCUC/GNSO MEMBER (ICANN)
> >>
> >> Téléphone mobile: +243998983491/+243811980914
> >> email:                   b.schombe at gmail.com
> >> blog:                     http://akimambo.unblog.fr
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 2010/11/11 parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
> >>
> >> Hi All
> >>
> >> I am still not able to understand how so many of those who are against any new institutional framework for evolving global IG related public policies, which is democratic in inclusion of all countries and stakeholders,  have enthusiastically supported a similar framework among OECD countries? I mean the OECD's Committee For Information, Computer and Communication Policy, which has a very active portfolio for helping develop Internet policies, esp those with trans-border ramification. Many CS members in the IGC have actively organized themselves to associate with the work of this OECD's institutional framework.
> >>
> >> Why should such a framework not exist at a global level? And I do think that OECD's framework is not multistakeholder enough. My proposal is for a global framework of similar kind (to OECD's) that will help develop globally applicable Internet related public policies, which is what the 'enhanced cooperation' process is about, that is much more multistakeholder than the existing OECD one
> >>
> >> I request a specific response for those who have supported the OECD framework rather enthusiastically, and this includes most here on the IGC list who now oppose similar new institutional developments at the global level , how do they justify this opposition now, for a similar global institutional framework.
> >>
> >> Unfortunately, many developing country IGC members here have gone along with this opposition to a global UN anchored body, which can be  no different from the OECD arrangement. I am able to unserstand thier stanc eeven more.
> >>
> >> Should we depend on OECD to make global Internet policies. That is what is being said in this support for a OECD framework but opposition to a similar global framework one, for addressing the urgent need for global Interent related public policies. .
> >>
> >> For this reason I cannot support the present draft statement. But if someone can give me some justification clarifying the above paradox, I am very much willing to listen.
> >>
> >> 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
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
> FGV Direito Rio
> 
> Center for Technology and Society
> Getulio Vargas Foundation
> Rio de Janeiro - Brazil

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

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

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

From avri at psg.com  Thu Nov 11 10:18:44 2010
From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 10:18:44 -0500
Subject: [governance] FINAL? DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <4CDBFEE2.7080308@itforchange.net>
References: <7E0ED935-470F-451E-B072-319351CAAD94@ciroap.org> <4CDAB2BB.8050303@eff.org> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC12008CE@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <AANLkTimJHN6P9TiVazEGWPORM0SFp7MV8yuPw45_h9ic@mail.gmail.com> <4CDB2D09.4090904@eff.org> <AANLkTim+fncpSGkMLCzPUijELAnUa9+8mBD4s+sMUdBk@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTi=tm5R=Scfrt87D_vqcXEVQW8Dm6OAku26wzkgq@mail.gmail.com> <4CDBD2AA.50505@itforchange.net> <AANLkTima5V-0_DPn=dS06usr=JwkWdCaWUVx7yEvMkSN@mail.gmail.com> <4CDBEC0C.7070204@itforchange.net> <E03619A8-7D9C-4439-91E2-B7DE2964007C@psg.com> <4CDBFEE2.7080308@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <8D26EB46-5E60-4320-A0C3-09CD894BEEE1@psg.com>


On 11 Nov 2010, at 09:34, parminder wrote:

> 
> We are just asking to get developing countries also on to such / similar frameworks. You  in essence are saying this is not required. And I can not understand your justification for this. 


Not sure I am saying that.

I agree with wording that supporting such things when appropriate.

I think the work in the OECD can be matched by work in other international bodies, perhaps a CIS based effort  or a G77 based effort. I don't know whether they would be open to an approach similar to what is possibly going on the OECD, but I think it might be appropriate - not for me to say. 
 
What I do think (avoiding that word believe - though i think all thought is essentially belief based) is necessary is that the open, accountable, transparent and inclusive process should first be applied to every existing group that is out there making policy that may or may not affect IG, before creating any new centralized overarching entities.

a.



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

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

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

From parminder at itforchange.net  Thu Nov 11 11:03:40 2010
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 21:33:40 +0530
Subject: [governance] FINAL? DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <8D26EB46-5E60-4320-A0C3-09CD894BEEE1@psg.com>
References: <7E0ED935-470F-451E-B072-319351CAAD94@ciroap.org> <4CDAB2BB.8050303@eff.org> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC12008CE@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <AANLkTimJHN6P9TiVazEGWPORM0SFp7MV8yuPw45_h9ic@mail.gmail.com> <4CDB2D09.4090904@eff.org> <AANLkTim+fncpSGkMLCzPUijELAnUa9+8mBD4s+sMUdBk@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTi=tm5R=Scfrt87D_vqcXEVQW8Dm6OAku26wzkgq@mail.gmail.com> <4CDBD2AA.50505@itforchange.net> <AANLkTima5V-0_DPn=dS06usr=JwkWdCaWUVx7yEvMkSN@mail.gmail.com> <4CDBEC0C.7070204@itforchange.net> <E03619A8-7D9C-4439-91E2-B7DE2964007C@psg.com> <4CDBFEE2.7080308@itforchange.net> <8D26EB46-5E60-4320-A0C3-09CD894BEEE1@psg.com>
Message-ID: <4CDC13DC.2050601@itforchange.net>

Jeremy

I suggest we remove all the (4) options in our draft statement vis a vis 
institutional developments under the Enhanced Cooperation rubric 
(because I dont see how we can recommend that such new institutional 
development  is optional) and put in which to me is a very fair and 
specific recommendation

    The IGC strongly recommends that the existing institutional
    framework within the OECD (we can name the Information, Computer and
    Communication Policy Committee) (and also CoE?) designed to help
    develop Internet public policies be taken as a model and similar
    institutional framework be developed for globally applicable
    Internet related public policies (Tunis Agenda) under the UN, with
    participation of all countries and stakeholders. This new 'body'
    will examine all critical Internet policy related areas, develop
    policy frameworks, give detailed policy recommendations, and help
    negotiate treaties etc in different areas of Internet policies.

What is good for the OECD must certainly be good for the whole world.

A very large number of the people discussing this issue on the IGC list 
are engaged with this OECD institutional framework, therefore I cannot 
see  why this new proposal for inclusion in the draft should not be 
acceptable to them .

Parminder


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101111/faa93a5a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From yehudakatz at mailinator.com  Thu Nov 11 11:07:12 2010
From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (Yehuda Katz)
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 08:07:12 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [governance] Annals of National Security - as to 'enhanced
 cooperation'
Message-ID: <sympa.1289491409.93353.469@lists.cpsr.org>

I have read your thread(s) "DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation" 
IMO, it is a matter of Perspective, those of 'Small Power' [CS-Faction(s)] and
those of Super Powers [USA, China, etc. ...]. Although 'enhanced cooperation'
addresses Social Service matters, I don't feel you are reaching into the "meat"
of the overall governmental situation(s), that of Super Powers concerns. 

I submit this essay article for your read, to broaden your awareness of the
type of Super Power mind-set and perspective Governments engage in. (or
perhapes, just a reminder)
-

The New Yorker 
Annals of National Security
The Online Threat
Should we be worried about a cyber war?
by Seymour M. Hersh 
November 1, 2010

Art. Ref.:
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/11/01/101101fa_fact_hersh

Read more http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/11/01/101101fa_fact_hersh?

printable=true#ixzz14zJduzKT

Print:
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/11/01/101101fa_fact_hersh?printable=true

---

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

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

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


From lmcknigh at syr.edu  Thu Nov 11 11:22:05 2010
From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight)
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 11:22:05 -0500
Subject: [governance] FINAL? DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=58OxGruUcN7juAZ=dO9+XGXKE4P0ccmXUxF-t@mail.gmail.com>
References: <7E0ED935-470F-451E-B072-319351CAAD94@ciroap.org>
	<4CDAB2BB.8050303@eff.org>
	<75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC12008CE@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
	<AANLkTimJHN6P9TiVazEGWPORM0SFp7MV8yuPw45_h9ic@mail.gmail.com>
	<4CDB2D09.4090904@eff.org>
	<AANLkTim+fncpSGkMLCzPUijELAnUa9+8mBD4s+sMUdBk@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTi=tm5R=Scfrt87D_vqcXEVQW8Dm6OAku26wzkgq@mail.gmail.com>
	<4CDBD2AA.50505@itforchange.net>,<AANLkTi=58OxGruUcN7juAZ=dO9+XGXKE4P0ccmXUxF-t@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006E09@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>

Hi,

Wading in.

1st re OECD: I agree it is way more important than commonly recognized, partly because they keep a relatively low profile as 'the rich countries club' as as an early/long-range policy formulation and discussion shop.  mainly working on other parts of the world economy.

2nd re why OECD doesn't open up membership further: basically it comes down to getting things done, which is hard enough with 30 member states and as we all know very slow, cumbersome and difficult if reconciling 200+ national viewpoints.  

3rd Parminder is completely correct to point out that policies affecting the Internet have originated - or have been facilitated - by OECD efforts.  For example when seeking to reform ICANN's closed/arbitrary (ie opposite of 'open transparent and accountable') procedures for gTLDs last decade, I didn't waste a lot of time at ICANN meetings, instead I sought to appear before OECD's ICCP and ask them to study the issue. Which they did and followed with recommendations that ICANN become - more open transparent and accountable in its policymaking processes. So if you're unhappy with gTLDs being for sale, it is (partly) my, Milton's and OECD's fault. 

4th Parminder's question on why it is ok for CS folks to be happy that they wedged open a little the OECD processes to include a Civil Society Information Society Advisory Committee - great question.  I'm happy because it is progress, one institution at a time - even if frankly the time and cost burden on cs in participating means that I personally haven't been able to participate actively or attend any meetings these past few years.  But it is a step in the right direction.  And the CS orgs which have carried the load I believe have done a good job at representing broader CS, partly or especially because - they know that broader CS will not be invited regularly into this club.

As for where developing countries might seek instead to gather and engage in similar activities, great question especially at this G-20 summit time.  In general the G-20 shares the OECD characteristic of being small enough in membership to be manageable within its scope; it also shares the OECD's characteristic of being an exclusive club, one of great importance to the world economy.  The BRICs have their seats of power at this table; but rest of world....is not invited.  

So re-creating an OECD-like public policy discussion forum is no small task and requires a small and very smart core staff to do the work which member countries have to pay for.  I don;t see the political will or $ for that.  I do see a number of UN-related entities like UNCTAD, ITU-D, UN-GAID, which probably think that is what they are doing but not at least in my view with the impact of OECD.  Note OECD makes recommendations and is quite explicit in favor of democratically elected governments, and open markets. In fact if you don't practice both you need not apply. Actually noone should apply since they aren't accepting new members.  But note OECD does try to share data and work results freely, their website is a treasure trove.

Returning to EC statement and IGF's evolution, what I oppose is folks claiming we live in the best of all possible IG worlds now and who fear all changes....some of whom are same folks who resisted for years discussions of complete no-brainer topics like discussing Critical Internet Resources at IGF. 

So personally I am strongly sympathetic to Parminder's core point - at least in my view - of enhanced cooperation needing to be really and truly engaged at this time , without assuming CS must be as diplomatically polite as other groups at the table, because we are not.

Lee
________________________________________
From: Marilia Maciel [mariliamaciel at gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2010 8:49 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: Re: [governance] FINAL? DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation

Dear Parminder,

I could never follow the process in OECD as close as it deserved, but your e-mail has really caught my attention.
I would like to learn more about this arrangement in OECD. Could you (or anyone else on the list) please share some resources?

Thank you.
Marília

On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 9:25 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net<mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:

Hi All

I am still not able to understand how so many of those who are against any new institutional framework for evolving global IG related public policies, which is democratic in inclusion of all countries and stakeholders,  have enthusiastically supported a similar framework among OECD countries? I mean the OECD's Committee For Information, Computer and Communication Policy, which has a very active portfolio for helping develop Internet policies, esp those with trans-border ramification. Many CS members in the IGC have actively organized themselves to associate with the work of this OECD's institutional framework.

Why should such a framework not exist at a global level? And I do think that OECD's framework is not multistakeholder enough. My proposal is for a global framework of similar kind (to OECD's) that will help develop globally applicable Internet related public policies, which is what the 'enhanced cooperation' process is about, that is much more multistakeholder than the existing OECD one

I request a specific response for those who have supported the OECD framework rather enthusiastically, and this includes most here on the IGC list who now oppose similar new institutional developments at the global level , how do they justify this opposition now, for a similar global institutional framework.

Unfortunately, many developing country IGC members here have gone along with this opposition to a global UN anchored body, which can be  no different from the OECD arrangement. I am able to unserstand thier stanc eeven more.

Should we depend on OECD to make global Internet policies. That is what is being said in this support for a OECD framework but opposition to a similar global framework one, for addressing the urgent need for global Interent related public policies. .

For this reason I cannot support the present draft statement. But if someone can give me some justification clarifying the above paradox, I am very much willing to listen.

Parminder



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

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

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



--
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

From jeremy at ciroap.org  Thu Nov 11 11:26:26 2010
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 00:26:26 +0800
Subject: [governance] FINAL? DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <4CDC13DC.2050601@itforchange.net>
References: <7E0ED935-470F-451E-B072-319351CAAD94@ciroap.org> <4CDAB2BB.8050303@eff.org> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC12008CE@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <AANLkTimJHN6P9TiVazEGWPORM0SFp7MV8yuPw45_h9ic@mail.gmail.com> <4CDB2D09.4090904@eff.org> <AANLkTim+fncpSGkMLCzPUijELAnUa9+8mBD4s+sMUdBk@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTi=tm5R=Scfrt87D_vqcXEVQW8Dm6OAku26wzkgq@mail.gmail.com> <4CDBD2AA.50505@itforchange.net> <AANLkTima5V-0_DPn=dS06usr=JwkWdCaWUVx7yEvMkSN@mail.gmail.com> <4CDBEC0C.7070204@itforchange.net> <E03619A8-7D9C-4439-91E2-B7DE2964007C@psg.com> <4CDBFEE2.7080308@itforchange.net> <8D26EB46-5E60-4320-A0C3-09CD894BEEE1@psg.com> <4CDC13DC.2050601@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <1C623DB6-793C-4A92-BDAE-5D0C53E0971B@ciroap.org>

With some trepidation, because there hasn't been a proper chance to discuss this, I've added a reference to the OECD in the version that I'm now putting to a consensus call (but without deleting the other options).  I can't delay the consensus call any longer, because I'm leaving on an overseas flight tomorrow.

On 12/11/2010, at 12:03 AM, parminder wrote:

> Jeremy
> 
> I suggest we remove all the (4) options in our draft statement vis a vis institutional developments under the Enhanced Cooperation rubric (because I dont see how we can recommend that such new institutional development  is optional) and put in which to me is a very fair and specific recommendation
> 
> The IGC strongly recommends that the existing institutional framework within the OECD (we can name the Information, Computer and Communication Policy Committee) (and also CoE?) designed to help develop Internet public policies be taken as a model and similar institutional framework be developed for globally applicable Internet related public policies (Tunis Agenda) under the UN, with participation of all countries and stakeholders. This new 'body' will examine all critical Internet policy related areas, develop policy frameworks, give detailed policy recommendations, and help negotiate treaties etc in different areas of Internet policies. 
> 
> What is good for the OECD must certainly be good for the whole world. 
> 
> A very large number of the people discussing this issue on the IGC list are engaged with this OECD institutional framework, therefore I cannot see  why this new proposal for inclusion in the draft should not be acceptable to 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

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

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

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101112/035ffde6/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101112/035ffde6/attachment.bin>

From katitza at eff.org  Thu Nov 11 11:39:21 2010
From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez)
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 08:39:21 -0800
Subject: [governance] FINAL? DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <1C623DB6-793C-4A92-BDAE-5D0C53E0971B@ciroap.org>
References: <7E0ED935-470F-451E-B072-319351CAAD94@ciroap.org> <4CDAB2BB.8050303@eff.org> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC12008CE@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <AANLkTimJHN6P9TiVazEGWPORM0SFp7MV8yuPw45_h9ic@mail.gmail.com> <4CDB2D09.4090904@eff.org> <AANLkTim+fncpSGkMLCzPUijELAnUa9+8mBD4s+sMUdBk@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTi=tm5R=Scfrt87D_vqcXEVQW8Dm6OAku26wzkgq@mail.gmail.com> <4CDBD2AA.50505@itforchange.net> <AANLkTima5V-0_DPn=dS06usr=JwkWdCaWUVx7yEvMkSN@mail.gmail.com> <4CDBEC0C.7070204@itforchange.net> <E03619A8-7D9C-4439-91E2-B7DE2964007C@psg.com> <4CDBFEE2.7080308@itforchange.net> <8D26EB46-5E60-4320-A0C3-09CD894BEEE1@psg.com> <4CDC13DC.2050601@itforchange.net> <1C623DB6-793C-4A92-BDAE-5D0C53E0971B@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <4CDC1C39.8010100@eff.org>

You can not rush the consensus Jeremy! There are even mistakes in the 
statements. OECD is not a norm setting. I am working on my email. Sorry 
but it is 8:30 am here in San Francisco. So please wait one hour.

On 11/11/10 8:26 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> With some trepidation, because there hasn't been a proper chance to 
> discuss this, I've added a reference to the OECD in the version that 
> I'm now putting to a consensus call (but without deleting the other 
> options).  I can't delay the consensus call any longer, because I'm 
> leaving on an overseas flight tomorrow.
>
> On 12/11/2010, at 12:03 AM, parminder wrote:
>
>> Jeremy
>>
>> I suggest we remove all the (4) options in our draft statement vis a 
>> vis institutional developments under the Enhanced Cooperation rubric 
>> (because I dont see how we can recommend that such new institutional 
>> development  is optional) and put in which to me is a very fair and 
>> specific recommendation
>>
>>     The IGC strongly recommends that the existing institutional
>>     framework within the OECD (we can name the Information, Computer
>>     and Communication Policy Committee) (and also CoE?) designed to
>>     help develop Internet public policies be taken as a model and
>>     similar institutional framework be developed for globally
>>     applicable Internet related public policies (Tunis Agenda) under
>>     the UN, with participation of all countries and stakeholders.
>>     This new 'body' will examine all critical Internet policy related
>>     areas, develop policy frameworks, give detailed policy
>>     recommendations, and help negotiate treaties etc in different
>>     areas of Internet policies.
>>
>> What is good for the OECD must certainly be good for the whole world.
>>
>> A very large number of the people discussing this issue on the IGC 
>> list are engaged with this OECD institutional framework, therefore I 
>> cannot see  why this new proposal for inclusion in the draft should 
>> not be acceptable to them .
>>
>> Parminder
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> governance at lists.cpsr.org <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 
>> <mailto:governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org>
>>
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
> -- 
>
> *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.
>


-- 
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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101111/885c87e1/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From katitza at eff.org  Thu Nov 11 12:05:32 2010
From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez)
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 09:05:32 -0800
Subject: [governance] Part 1 - About OECD
Message-ID: <4CDC225C.7010201@eff.org>

Greetings


Disclaimer: I have been the Liaison for Civil Society at the OECD-ICCP 
Committee since its creation until April 2010 when I changed my job, and 
I move to EFF. I am sharing this information with those who are 
interested to learn more about OECD.


     The OECD is an international organization of thirty countries that 
accept the principles of representative democracy and free market 
economy. The organization provides a setting in which governments can 
compare policy experiences, seek answers to common problems; identify 
good practices, and co-ordinate domestic and international policies.


The OECD-ICCP Committee is the primary committee for OECD 
decision-making concerning specific Information Society policy. The 
OECD-ICCP publishes books, statistics, working papers and reference 
materials. Of particular interest to civil society groups in the IT 
field are the /OECD Communications Outloo/k and /OECD Information 
Technology Outlook/. These reports contain forecasts and analysis of the 
communications and information technology industries in OECD member 
countries and non-member economies.

The OECD-ICCP has also developed a series of policy guidelines of 
particular interest to civil society organizations working on Internet 
policy. These initiatives include the OECD Policy Guidance on 
Convergence and Next Generation Networks, Access to Research Data, 
Protecting and Empowering Consumers in Communication Services, Consumer 
Protection in E-commerce, Privacy and Security as well as recent 
recommendations in such areas as mobile commerce, RFID, access to public 
information, critical information infrastructure, online dispute 
resolution, among others.


It's false to think of OECD as governing all things Internet -it does 
not and it can not.

  - OECD does not try to cover all Internet policy issues (at least for 
now), and it does not try to cover all aspects of the Internet. The ICCP 
works on the economic aspect of policy development for the issues that 
its member countries are interested in working on.


- OECD sees itself as being very different in scope to IGF; it does not 
see itself as engaging in IG or social issues; it does not have 
norm-setting power (nor help us Treaties) lathough it's policy reports 
are very influential). It does not see itself as the exclusive voice on 
an issue; for instance, it defers to WIPO on IP issues etc.



*Why CSISAC members (http://csisac.org/members.php) decided to join CSISAC?
*

The main purpose of the CSISAC is to contribute constructively to the 
policy work of the OECD-ICCP and to promote the exchange of information 
between the OECD and the civil society participants in the information 
technology field. Information from the OECD will provide civil society 
participants with a stronger empirical basis to make policy assessments; 
inputs into research and policy development from civil society will 
provide the OECD with the essential perspective of stakeholders "at the 
receiving end" of policy. Strengthening the relationship between civil 
society and the OECD will lead to better-informed and more widely 
accepted policy frameworks.


The CSISAC includes the CSISAC Membership, the CSISAC Steering 
Committee, and the CSISAC Liaison . The OECD Steering Committee reads as 
follows:

Karen BANKS, Association For Progressive Communications

Anna FIELDER, Privacy International, Consumer Focus

Gwen HINZE, EFF

Jaiok KIM, Consumer Korea

Meryem MARZOUKI, EDRI

Rashmi RANGNATH from Public Knowledge

Marc ROTENBERG, EPIC Executive Director

Cristos VELASCO, NACPEC

Tony VETTER, International Institute for Sustainable Development

The *Working Party on the Information Economy (WPIE)*focuses on digital 
content, ICT diffusion to business, ICT-enabled offshoring, ICT skills 
and employment and the publication of the OECD Information Technology 
Outlook, and ICTs and the Environment.

*_CSISAC issues_*: Balanced Intellectual Property Policies, Digital 
Inclusion, Employment, ICT & The Environment, Access to Knowledge, 
Privacy & Transparency, Freedom of Expression, Pluralistic Media, and 
Consumer Protection.

The *Working Party on Information Security and Privacy (WPISP)*develops 
policy options to sustain trust, information security and privacy in the 
global networked society.

**

*_CSISAC issues_*: Privacy & Transparency, Consumer Protection, and 
Internet Governance.

The *Working Party on Communications and Infrastructure Services Policy 
(WPCISP**)*reviews telecommunications and Internet policy (regulatory 
reform, convergence of telecommunication, Internet, cable television and 
broadcasting networks).

*_CSISAC issues_*: Balanced Intellectual Property Policies, Privacy & 
Data Protection, Consumer Rights, Internet Governance, Network 
Neutrality, and Digital Inclusion.



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

[1] The term "ICCP Committee" includes the Working Parties of the Committee.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101111/cc8f2da5/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From dogwallah at gmail.com  Thu Nov 11 13:10:37 2010
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 21:10:37 +0300
Subject: [governance] FINAL? DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <4CDC1C39.8010100@eff.org>
References: <7E0ED935-470F-451E-B072-319351CAAD94@ciroap.org>
	<4CDAB2BB.8050303@eff.org>
	<75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC12008CE@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
	<AANLkTimJHN6P9TiVazEGWPORM0SFp7MV8yuPw45_h9ic@mail.gmail.com>
	<4CDB2D09.4090904@eff.org>
	<AANLkTim+fncpSGkMLCzPUijELAnUa9+8mBD4s+sMUdBk@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTi=tm5R=Scfrt87D_vqcXEVQW8Dm6OAku26wzkgq@mail.gmail.com>
	<4CDBD2AA.50505@itforchange.net>
	<AANLkTima5V-0_DPn=dS06usr=JwkWdCaWUVx7yEvMkSN@mail.gmail.com>
	<4CDBEC0C.7070204@itforchange.net>
	<E03619A8-7D9C-4439-91E2-B7DE2964007C@psg.com>
	<4CDBFEE2.7080308@itforchange.net>
	<8D26EB46-5E60-4320-A0C3-09CD894BEEE1@psg.com>
	<4CDC13DC.2050601@itforchange.net>
	<1C623DB6-793C-4A92-BDAE-5D0C53E0971B@ciroap.org>
	<4CDC1C39.8010100@eff.org>
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=3tPT=iX33YHE0UQ2LkrdvUV1qxEJi5d3G0DKf@mail.gmail.com>

Jeremy, i think that the oecd reference is unneeded, and was not
discussed, and as such it should not go into the statement. I realise
that you have released the poll, but if i were you, i would cancel
that poll and just make a consensus call on list on the text that
actually has been discussed.  Adding text at the last minute with zero
chance to discuss it is just an invitation for folk to appeal.
Sometimes, less is actually more. Rgds, mctim

On 11/11/10, Katitza Rodriguez <katitza at eff.org> wrote:
> You can not rush the consensus Jeremy! There are even mistakes in the
> statements. OECD is not a norm setting. I am working on my email. Sorry
> but it is 8:30 am here in San Francisco. So please wait one hour.
>
> On 11/11/10 8:26 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>> With some trepidation, because there hasn't been a proper chance to
>> discuss this, I've added a reference to the OECD in the version that
>> I'm now putting to a consensus call (but without deleting the other
>> options).  I can't delay the consensus call any longer, because I'm
>> leaving on an overseas flight tomorrow.
>>
>> On 12/11/2010, at 12:03 AM, parminder wrote:
>>
>>> Jeremy
>>>
>>> I suggest we remove all the (4) options in our draft statement vis a
>>> vis institutional developments under the Enhanced Cooperation rubric
>>> (because I dont see how we can recommend that such new institutional
>>> development  is optional) and put in which to me is a very fair and
>>> specific recommendation
>>>
>>>     The IGC strongly recommends that the existing institutional
>>>     framework within the OECD (we can name the Information, Computer
>>>     and Communication Policy Committee) (and also CoE?) designed to
>>>     help develop Internet public policies be taken as a model and
>>>     similar institutional framework be developed for globally
>>>     applicable Internet related public policies (Tunis Agenda) under
>>>     the UN, with participation of all countries and stakeholders.
>>>     This new 'body' will examine all critical Internet policy related
>>>     areas, develop policy frameworks, give detailed policy
>>>     recommendations, and help negotiate treaties etc in different
>>>     areas of Internet policies.
>>>
>>> What is good for the OECD must certainly be good for the whole world.
>>>
>>> A very large number of the people discussing this issue on the IGC
>>> list are engaged with this OECD institutional framework, therefore I
>>> cannot see  why this new proposal for inclusion in the draft should
>>> not be acceptable to them .
>>>
>>> Parminder
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>> <mailto:governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org>
>>>
>>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>>
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>> --
>>
>> *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.
>>
>
>
> --
> 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
>
>

-- 
Sent from my mobile device

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 lmcknigh at syr.edu  Thu Nov 11 13:25:36 2010
From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight)
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 13:25:36 -0500
Subject: [governance] FINAL? DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=3tPT=iX33YHE0UQ2LkrdvUV1qxEJi5d3G0DKf@mail.gmail.com>
References: <7E0ED935-470F-451E-B072-319351CAAD94@ciroap.org>
	<4CDAB2BB.8050303@eff.org>
	<75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC12008CE@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
	<AANLkTimJHN6P9TiVazEGWPORM0SFp7MV8yuPw45_h9ic@mail.gmail.com>
	<4CDB2D09.4090904@eff.org>
	<AANLkTim+fncpSGkMLCzPUijELAnUa9+8mBD4s+sMUdBk@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTi=tm5R=Scfrt87D_vqcXEVQW8Dm6OAku26wzkgq@mail.gmail.com>
	<4CDBD2AA.50505@itforchange.net>
	<AANLkTima5V-0_DPn=dS06usr=JwkWdCaWUVx7yEvMkSN@mail.gmail.com>
	<4CDBEC0C.7070204@itforchange.net>
	<E03619A8-7D9C-4439-91E2-B7DE2964007C@psg.com>
	<4CDBFEE2.7080308@itforchange.net>
	<8D26EB46-5E60-4320-A0C3-09CD894BEEE1@psg.com>
	<4CDC13DC.2050601@itforchange.net>
	<1C623DB6-793C-4A92-BDAE-5D0C53E0971B@ciroap.org>
	<4CDC1C39.8010100@eff.org>,<AANLkTi=3tPT=iX33YHE0UQ2LkrdvUV1qxEJi5d3G0DKf@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006E11@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>

oecd does set norms  and recommend best practices - eg the 1st calls for privacy protection for info systems pretty much anywhere was done at oecd 30+ years back...I didn;t see anything egregiously incorrect in the passing reference to OECD.

and we were talking about oecd just before the call, so given time constraints all around I am fine with this going ahead, with us perhaps encouraging our co-ordiators to fix any typos, after the consensus call 
________________________________________
From: McTim [dogwallah at gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2010 1:10 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Katitza Rodriguez
Subject: Re: [governance] FINAL? DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation

Jeremy, i think that the oecd reference is unneeded, and was not
discussed, and as such it should not go into the statement. I realise
that you have released the poll, but if i were you, i would cancel
that poll and just make a consensus call on list on the text that
actually has been discussed.  Adding text at the last minute with zero
chance to discuss it is just an invitation for folk to appeal.
Sometimes, less is actually more. Rgds, mctim

On 11/11/10, Katitza Rodriguez <katitza at eff.org> wrote:
> You can not rush the consensus Jeremy! There are even mistakes in the
> statements. OECD is not a norm setting. I am working on my email. Sorry
> but it is 8:30 am here in San Francisco. So please wait one hour.
>
> On 11/11/10 8:26 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>> With some trepidation, because there hasn't been a proper chance to
>> discuss this, I've added a reference to the OECD in the version that
>> I'm now putting to a consensus call (but without deleting the other
>> options).  I can't delay the consensus call any longer, because I'm
>> leaving on an overseas flight tomorrow.
>>
>> On 12/11/2010, at 12:03 AM, parminder wrote:
>>
>>> Jeremy
>>>
>>> I suggest we remove all the (4) options in our draft statement vis a
>>> vis institutional developments under the Enhanced Cooperation rubric
>>> (because I dont see how we can recommend that such new institutional
>>> development  is optional) and put in which to me is a very fair and
>>> specific recommendation
>>>
>>>     The IGC strongly recommends that the existing institutional
>>>     framework within the OECD (we can name the Information, Computer
>>>     and Communication Policy Committee) (and also CoE?) designed to
>>>     help develop Internet public policies be taken as a model and
>>>     similar institutional framework be developed for globally
>>>     applicable Internet related public policies (Tunis Agenda) under
>>>     the UN, with participation of all countries and stakeholders.
>>>     This new 'body' will examine all critical Internet policy related
>>>     areas, develop policy frameworks, give detailed policy
>>>     recommendations, and help negotiate treaties etc in different
>>>     areas of Internet policies.
>>>
>>> What is good for the OECD must certainly be good for the whole world.
>>>
>>> A very large number of the people discussing this issue on the IGC
>>> list are engaged with this OECD institutional framework, therefore I
>>> cannot see  why this new proposal for inclusion in the draft should
>>> not be acceptable to them .
>>>
>>> Parminder
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>> <mailto:governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org>
>>>
>>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>>
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>> --
>>
>> *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.
>>
>
>
> --
> 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
>
>

--
Sent from my mobile device

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 katitza at eff.org  Thu Nov 11 13:37:38 2010
From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez)
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 10:37:38 -0800
Subject: [governance] FINAL? DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006E11@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
References: <7E0ED935-470F-451E-B072-319351CAAD94@ciroap.org>	<4CDAB2BB.8050303@eff.org>	<75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC12008CE@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>	<AANLkTimJHN6P9TiVazEGWPORM0SFp7MV8yuPw45_h9ic@mail.gmail.com>	<4CDB2D09.4090904@eff.org>	<AANLkTim+fncpSGkMLCzPUijELAnUa9+8mBD4s+sMUdBk@mail.gmail.com>	<AANLkTi=tm5R=Scfrt87D_vqcXEVQW8Dm6OAku26wzkgq@mail.gmail.com>	<4CDBD2AA.50505@itforchange.net>	<AANLkTima5V-0_DPn=dS06usr=JwkWdCaWUVx7yEvMkSN@mail.gmail.com>	<4CDBEC0C.7070204@itforchange.net>	<E03619A8-7D9C-4439-91E2-B7DE2964007C@psg.com>	<4CDBFEE2.7080308@itforchange.net>	<8D26EB46-5E60-4320-A0C3-09CD894BEEE1@psg.com>	<4CDC13DC.2050601@itforchange.net>	<1C623DB6-793C-4A92-BDAE-5D0C53E0971B@ciroap.org>	<4CDC1C39.8010100@eff.org>,<AANLkTi=3tPT=iX33YHE0UQ2LkrdvUV1qxEJi5d3G0DKf@mail.gmail.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006E11@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <4CDC37F2.7060605@eff.org>

The 1980 OECD Privacy Guidelines are guidelines, softlaw. They were used 
as a model framework. And yes, they were successful. But it was not a 
norm setting. That is why there is a lot of tension with the Council of 
Europe (Convention 108) which is really a truly legally binding Treaty.

I will not appeal any call fyi, but I did not like the process of 
entering a new text in the last moment. I never see that before.. I 
think is not a nice style.


On 11/11/10 10:25 AM, Lee W McKnight wrote:
> oecd does set norms  and recommend best practices - eg the 1st calls for privacy protection for info systems pretty much anywhere was done at oecd 30+ years back...I didn;t see anything egregiously incorrect in the passing reference to OECD.
>
> and we were talking about oecd just before the call, so given time constraints all around I am fine with this going ahead, with us perhaps encouraging our co-ordiators to fix any typos, after the consensus call
> ________________________________________
> From: McTim [dogwallah at gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2010 1:10 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Katitza Rodriguez
> Subject: Re: [governance] FINAL? DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
>
> Jeremy, i think that the oecd reference is unneeded, and was not
> discussed, and as such it should not go into the statement. I realise
> that you have released the poll, but if i were you, i would cancel
> that poll and just make a consensus call on list on the text that
> actually has been discussed.  Adding text at the last minute with zero
> chance to discuss it is just an invitation for folk to appeal.
> Sometimes, less is actually more. Rgds, mctim
>
> On 11/11/10, Katitza Rodriguez<katitza at eff.org>  wrote:
>> You can not rush the consensus Jeremy! There are even mistakes in the
>> statements. OECD is not a norm setting. I am working on my email. Sorry
>> but it is 8:30 am here in San Francisco. So please wait one hour.
>>
>> On 11/11/10 8:26 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>>> With some trepidation, because there hasn't been a proper chance to
>>> discuss this, I've added a reference to the OECD in the version that
>>> I'm now putting to a consensus call (but without deleting the other
>>> options).  I can't delay the consensus call any longer, because I'm
>>> leaving on an overseas flight tomorrow.
>>>
>>> On 12/11/2010, at 12:03 AM, parminder wrote:
>>>
>>>> Jeremy
>>>>
>>>> I suggest we remove all the (4) options in our draft statement vis a
>>>> vis institutional developments under the Enhanced Cooperation rubric
>>>> (because I dont see how we can recommend that such new institutional
>>>> development  is optional) and put in which to me is a very fair and
>>>> specific recommendation
>>>>
>>>>      The IGC strongly recommends that the existing institutional
>>>>      framework within the OECD (we can name the Information, Computer
>>>>      and Communication Policy Committee) (and also CoE?) designed to
>>>>      help develop Internet public policies be taken as a model and
>>>>      similar institutional framework be developed for globally
>>>>      applicable Internet related public policies (Tunis Agenda) under
>>>>      the UN, with participation of all countries and stakeholders.
>>>>      This new 'body' will examine all critical Internet policy related
>>>>      areas, develop policy frameworks, give detailed policy
>>>>      recommendations, and help negotiate treaties etc in different
>>>>      areas of Internet policies.
>>>>
>>>> What is good for the OECD must certainly be good for the whole world.
>>>>
>>>> A very large number of the people discussing this issue on the IGC
>>>> list are engaged with this OECD institutional framework, therefore I
>>>> cannot see  why this new proposal for inclusion in the draft should
>>>> not be acceptable to them .
>>>>
>>>> Parminder
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org<mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>>> <mailto:governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org>
>>>>
>>>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>>>
>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>> --
>>>
>>> *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.
>>>
>>
>> --
>> 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
>>
>>
> --
> Sent from my mobile device
>
> 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


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

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

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

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

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


From katitza at eff.org  Thu Nov 11 13:44:10 2010
From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez)
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 10:44:10 -0800
Subject: [governance] Part II - About a single centralized structure + APEC
In-Reply-To: <4CDC225C.7010201@eff.org>
References: <4CDC225C.7010201@eff.org>
Message-ID: <4CDC397A.3010306@eff.org>

Since the call has already being made, I will continue sharing my 
thoughts on the list.

A few thoughts about a single centralized structure for Internet 
Governance and Internet policy that was proposed in some emails. I 
believe is dangerous; I'd prefer to see it split between different 
regulatory and policy bodies. While there is a cost to follow different 
spaces, I believe is less than having a single centralized structure. 
Having a single centralize structure is likely to be a lobbying target; 
particularly so if the new body has norm-setting power - everyone who 
has something to gain will have the incentive to spend time and money 
lobbying there to influence policy or norm-setting in a way that suits 
their interests.

Civil society is likely to lose out in that world; we usually don't have 
equivalent time or financial resources compared to other stakeholders, 
so we can't "lobby" as effectively, and we usually don't have the 
ability to engage with policymakers as closely as other stakeholders. 
The concern is regulatory capture - regulators will often be influenced 
by those views that they hear the most (and with a-symmetric resources, 
that is more likely to be industry or govt and not civil society views). 
I do not believe this discussion is about developing country framework 
vs developed country frameworks (at least not from a public interest 
point of view). Instead it's about the scope of the new authority and 
creating "a single point of failure".

I do not like the broad scope either. On the cybersecurity / cybercrime 
front, we can loose that battle completely. Just see which countries are 
requesting what?
http://www.computerweekly.com/Articles/2010/04/20/240973/UN-rejects-international-cybercrime-treaty.htm 


About other Internet Policy Organizations:

There are several organizations dealing with Internet Policy. One 
similar to the "model of the OECD" is APEC. I consider APEC a dangerous 
space, at least on privacy (and may be copyright).

Observer status to APEC is restrictive, and countries like China/US 
might used veto powers to avoid some civil society participants to join 
this meetings. Latin American countries members of APEC are: Peru, 
Mexico and Chile.  Since the meetings are confidential, even if one 
country opposed to an observer status application, the application is 
rejected. I consider APEC really dangerous and I think is quite 
organization. I think, APEC is a close, non-transparent, non inclusive 
organizations.

There are tensions (in my opinion) between those  OECD/APEC, although 
they said they "cooperate" . For instance, on privacy, the OECD is 
placed as a better place for privacy discussion because it has the 
European countries (with strong privacy safeguards) and the United 
States in the other hand. While in APEC is mostly driven by United 
States and its allies (including Mexico). However, you also have the 
Council of Europe (and Convention 108) which does similar work. And in 
some way you see different approaches to the same issue from different 
point of views.

There has been a lot of critics to ITU, Council of Europe for the close, 
non-transparent, non inclusive, organizations. So I will not enter into 
detail there.

Note: I do understand the sentiment of Parminder of the lack of a 
research policy institutes in developing countries that can tackle some 
internet policy issues. A place that is open transparent, and inclusive. 
I do not believe that a broad-in-scope is a good idea, nor a global 
one.   We need regional concerted agendas. For instance, in Latin 
America, may be ELAC is trying to solve this vacuum. Valeria Betancourt, 
APC is the liaison for civil society in ELAC in Latin America, and I 
would like to hear from here how ELAC works, the scope of its mandate, 
the work they do, etc...

But I fully agree with Lee (which I will quote: " So re-creating an 
OECD-like public policy discussion forum is no small task and requires a 
small and very smart core staff to do the work which member countries 
have to pay for. I don;t see the political will or $ for that. I do see 
a number of UN-related entities like UNCTAD, ITU-D, UN-GAID, which 
probably think that is what they are doing but not at least in my view 
with the impact of OECD."

In addition, I fear any possibility of create a new or enhanced space 
for discussing global cybercrime/cybersecurity issues.
http://www.computerweekly.com/Articles/2010/04/20/240973/UN-rejects-international-cybercrime-treaty.htm


<1> Accountability Project 
http://www.hunton.com/files/tbl_s47Details%5CFileUpload265%5C2962%5CBruening_APEC_BNA_Oct-2010.pdf
<2>http://www.privacyinternational.org/article.shtml?cmd[347]=x-347-566294







-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101111/b8496a49/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From mueller at syr.edu  Thu Nov 11 14:02:08 2010
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 14:02:08 -0500
Subject: [governance] Part II - About a single centralized structure +
In-Reply-To: <4CDC397A.3010306@eff.org>
References: <4CDC225C.7010201@eff.org> <4CDC397A.3010306@eff.org>
Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC108D98E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>

I strongly agree with Katitza's warnings about centralization of power at the global level.

On the issue of a cybercrime treaty, however, I offer a qualification: it is actually the U.S. that is more aggressive, both about cybercrime and cyberwar, and Russia is more interested in a treaty to protect itself, just as militarily weaker nations tend to favor arms control treaties whereas the ones with a military advantage do not.

I also wish to say that I just voted for the Enhanced Cooperation statement but was somewhat surprised to find the reference to OECD in there as a model for governance. I guess the statement intended to praise OECD for creating the CSISAC (civil society information society advisory committee), which is indeed a small step forward. However, the language in our statement implied both that OECD engages in global governance and that civil society would be participating equally in that governance because of CSISAC. Both implications are false: OECD really doesn't do governance, it just supplies research and analysis that states can use; and CSISAC just lets civil society into some discussions, but the actual decision making is made elsewhere on an intergovernmental basis.

--MM

From: Katitza Rodriguez [mailto:katitza at eff.org]
Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2010 1:44 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Gwen Hinze; Valeria Betancourt
Subject: [governance] Part II - About a single centralized structure + APEC

Since the call has already being made, I will continue sharing my thoughts on the list.

A few thoughts about a single centralized structure for Internet Governance and Internet policy that was proposed in some emails. I believe is dangerous; I'd prefer to see it split between different regulatory and policy bodies. While there is a cost to follow different spaces, I believe is less than having a single centralized structure. Having a single centralize structure is likely to be a lobbying target; particularly so if the new body has norm-setting power - everyone who has something to gain will have the incentive to spend time and money lobbying there to influence policy or norm-setting in a way that suits their interests.

Civil society is likely to lose out in that world; we usually don't have equivalent time or financial resources compared to other stakeholders, so we can't "lobby" as effectively, and we usually don't have the ability to engage with policymakers as closely as other stakeholders. The concern is regulatory capture - regulators will often be influenced by those views that they hear the most (and with a-symmetric resources, that is more likely to be industry or govt and not civil society views). I do not believe this discussion is about developing country framework vs developed country frameworks (at least not from a public interest point of view). Instead it's about the scope of the new authority and creating "a single point of failure".

I do not like the broad scope either. On the cybersecurity / cybercrime front, we can loose that battle completely. Just see which countries are requesting what?
http://www.computerweekly.com/Articles/2010/04/20/240973/UN-rejects-international-cybercrime-treaty.htm

About other Internet Policy Organizations:

There are several organizations dealing with Internet Policy. One similar to the "model of the OECD" is APEC. I consider APEC a dangerous space, at least on privacy (and may be copyright).

Observer status to APEC is restrictive, and countries like China/US might used veto powers to avoid some civil society participants to join this meetings. Latin American countries members of APEC are: Peru, Mexico and Chile.  Since the meetings are confidential, even if one country opposed to an observer status application, the application is rejected. I consider APEC really dangerous and I think is quite organization. I think, APEC is a close, non-transparent, non inclusive organizations.

There are tensions (in my opinion) between those  OECD/APEC, although they said they "cooperate" . For instance, on privacy, the OECD is placed as a better place for privacy discussion because it has the European countries (with strong privacy safeguards) and the United States in the other hand. While in APEC is mostly driven by United States and its allies (including Mexico). However, you also have the Council of Europe (and Convention 108) which does similar work. And in some way you see different approaches to the same issue from different point of views.

There has been a lot of critics to ITU, Council of Europe for the close, non-transparent, non inclusive, organizations. So I will not enter into detail there.

Note: I do understand the sentiment of Parminder of the lack of a research policy institutes in developing countries that can tackle some internet policy issues. A place that is open transparent, and inclusive. I do not believe that a broad-in-scope is a good idea, nor a global one.   We need regional concerted agendas. For instance, in Latin America, may be ELAC is trying to solve this vacuum. Valeria Betancourt, APC is the liaison for civil society in ELAC in Latin America, and I would like to hear from here how ELAC works, the scope of its mandate, the work they do, etc...

But I fully agree with Lee (which I will quote: " So re-creating an OECD-like public policy discussion forum is no small task and requires a small and very smart core staff to do the work which member countries have to pay for. I don;t see the political will or $ for that. I do see a number of UN-related entities like UNCTAD, ITU-D, UN-GAID, which probably think that is what they are doing but not at least in my view with the impact of OECD."

In addition, I fear any possibility of create a new or enhanced space for discussing global cybercrime/cybersecurity issues.
http://www.computerweekly.com/Articles/2010/04/20/240973/UN-rejects-international-cybercrime-treaty.htm


<1> Accountability Project http://www.hunton.com/files/tbl_s47Details%5CFileUpload265%5C2962%5CBruening_APEC_BNA_Oct-2010.pdf
<2>http://www.privacyinternational.org/article.shtml?cmd[347]=x-347-566294






-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101111/1ab6c25e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From mueller at syr.edu  Thu Nov 11 14:03:45 2010
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 14:03:45 -0500
Subject: [governance] Part 1 - About OECD
In-Reply-To: <4CDC225C.7010201@eff.org>
References: <4CDC225C.7010201@eff.org>
Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC108D98F@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>

Ah, I see Katitza makes the same point I did about OECD, only better.
Sorry for the redundancy.

From: Katitza Rodriguez [mailto:katitza at eff.org]
Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2010 12:06 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Gwen Hinze; Meryem Marzouki; Anna Fielder
Subject: [governance] Part 1 - About OECD

Greetings

Disclaimer: I have been the Liaison for Civil Society at the OECD-ICCP Committee since its creation until April 2010 when I changed my job, and I move to EFF. I am sharing this information with those who are interested to learn more about OECD.

    The OECD is an international organization of thirty countries that accept the principles of representative democracy and free market economy. The organization provides a setting in which governments can compare policy experiences, seek answers to common problems; identify good practices, and co-ordinate domestic and international policies.

The OECD-ICCP Committee is the primary committee for OECD decision-making concerning specific Information Society policy. The OECD-ICCP publishes books, statistics, working papers and reference materials. Of particular interest to civil society groups in the IT field are the OECD Communications Outlook and OECD Information Technology Outlook. These reports contain forecasts and analysis of the communications and information technology industries in OECD member countries and non-member economies.

The OECD-ICCP has also developed a series of policy guidelines of particular interest to civil society organizations working on Internet policy. These initiatives include the OECD Policy Guidance on Convergence and Next Generation Networks, Access to Research Data, Protecting and Empowering Consumers in Communication Services, Consumer Protection in E-commerce, Privacy and Security as well as recent recommendations in such areas as mobile commerce, RFID, access to public information, critical information infrastructure, online dispute resolution, among others.

It's false to think of OECD as governing all things Internet -it does not and it can not.

 - OECD does not try to cover all Internet policy issues (at least for now), and it does not try to cover all aspects of the Internet. The ICCP works on the economic aspect of policy development for the issues that its member countries are interested in working on.

- OECD sees itself as being very different in scope to IGF; it does not see itself as engaging in IG or social issues; it does not have norm-setting power (nor help us Treaties) lathough it's policy reports are very influential). It does not see itself as the exclusive voice on an issue; for instance, it defers to WIPO on IP issues etc.


Why CSISAC members (http://csisac.org/members.php) decided to join CSISAC?

The main purpose of the CSISAC is to contribute constructively to the policy work of the OECD-ICCP and to promote the exchange of information between the OECD and the civil society participants in the information technology field. Information from the OECD will provide civil society participants with a stronger empirical basis to make policy assessments; inputs into research and policy development from civil society will provide the OECD with the essential perspective of stakeholders "at the receiving end" of policy. Strengthening the relationship between civil society and the OECD will lead to better-informed and more widely accepted policy frameworks.


The CSISAC includes the CSISAC Membership, the CSISAC Steering Committee, and the CSISAC Liaison . The OECD Steering Committee reads as follows:

Karen BANKS, Association For Progressive Communications

Anna FIELDER, Privacy International, Consumer Focus

Gwen HINZE, EFF

Jaiok KIM, Consumer Korea

Meryem MARZOUKI, EDRI

Rashmi RANGNATH from Public Knowledge

Marc ROTENBERG, EPIC Executive Director

Cristos VELASCO, NACPEC

Tony VETTER, International Institute for Sustainable Development
The Working Party on the Information Economy (WPIE) focuses on digital content, ICT diffusion to business, ICT-enabled offshoring, ICT skills and employment and the publication of the OECD Information Technology Outlook, and ICTs and the Environment.

CSISAC issues: Balanced Intellectual Property Policies, Digital Inclusion, Employment, ICT & The Environment, Access to Knowledge, Privacy & Transparency, Freedom of Expression, Pluralistic Media, and Consumer Protection.

The Working Party on Information Security and Privacy (WPISP) develops policy options to sustain trust, information security and privacy in the global networked society.

CSISAC issues: Privacy & Transparency, Consumer Protection, and Internet Governance.

The Working Party on Communications and Infrastructure Services Policy  (WPCISP) reviews telecommunications and Internet policy (regulatory reform, convergence of telecommunication, Internet, cable television and broadcasting networks).

CSISAC issues: Balanced Intellectual Property Policies, Privacy & Data Protection, Consumer Rights, Internet Governance, Network Neutrality, and Digital Inclusion.




________________________________

[1] The term "ICCP Committee" includes the Working Parties of the Committee.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101111/d717888a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From jeremy at ciroap.org  Thu Nov 11 19:26:15 2010
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 08:26:15 +0800
Subject: [governance] FINAL? DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <4CDC37F2.7060605@eff.org>
References: <7E0ED935-470F-451E-B072-319351CAAD94@ciroap.org>	<4CDAB2BB.8050303@eff.org>	<75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC12008CE@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>	<AANLkTimJHN6P9TiVazEGWPORM0SFp7MV8yuPw45_h9ic@mail.gmail.com>	<4CDB2D09.4090904@eff.org>	<AANLkTim+fncpSGkMLCzPUijELAnUa9+8mBD4s+sMUdBk@mail.gmail.com>	<AANLkTi=tm5R=Scfrt87D_vqcXEVQW8Dm6OAku26wzkgq@mail.gmail.com>	<4CDBD2AA.50505@itforchange.net>	<AANLkTima5V-0_DPn=dS06usr=JwkWdCaWUVx7yEvMkSN@mail.gmail.com>	<4CDBEC0C.7070204@itforchange.net>	<E03619A8-7D9C-4439-91E2-B7DE2964007C@psg.com>	<4CDBFEE2.7080308@itforchange.net>	<8D26EB46-5E60-4320-A0C3-09CD894BEEE1@psg.com>	<4CDC13DC.2050601@itforchange.net>	<1C623DB6-793C-4A92-BDAE-5D0C53E0971B@ciroap.org>	<4CDC1C39.8010100@eff.org>,<AANLkTi=3tPT=iX33YHE0UQ2LkrdvUV1qxEJi5d3G0DKf@mail.gmail.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006E11@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4CDC37F2.7060605@eff.org>
Message-ID: <45C25438-9BE9-4795-851A-B870B0935635@ciroap.org>

On 12-Nov-2010, at 2:37 AM, Katitza Rodriguez <katitza at eff.org> wrote:

> The 1980 OECD Privacy Guidelines are guidelines, softlaw. They were  
> used as a model framework.


> I will not appeal any call fyi, but I did not like the process of  
> entering a new text in the last moment. I never see that before.. I  
> think is not a nice style.

If I didn't have a plane to catch and our deadline wasn't Monday, and  
if Parminder hadn't raised it at the last minute asking for much more  
sweeping changes than he got, then I could have done this with more  
nicety. As things stand probably neither Parminder nor McTim will  
support the statement (pure speculation), but actually that might mean  
that we've struck the perfect medium. 
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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


From aizu at anr.org  Thu Nov 11 20:22:17 2010
From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 10:22:17 +0900
Subject: [governance] FINAL? DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <45C25438-9BE9-4795-851A-B870B0935635@ciroap.org>
References: <7E0ED935-470F-451E-B072-319351CAAD94@ciroap.org>
 <4CDAB2BB.8050303@eff.org> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC12008CE@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
 <AANLkTimJHN6P9TiVazEGWPORM0SFp7MV8yuPw45_h9ic@mail.gmail.com>
 <4CDB2D09.4090904@eff.org> <AANLkTim+fncpSGkMLCzPUijELAnUa9+8mBD4s+sMUdBk@mail.gmail.com>
 <AANLkTi=tm5R=Scfrt87D_vqcXEVQW8Dm6OAku26wzkgq@mail.gmail.com>
 <4CDBD2AA.50505@itforchange.net> <AANLkTima5V-0_DPn=dS06usr=JwkWdCaWUVx7yEvMkSN@mail.gmail.com>
 <4CDBEC0C.7070204@itforchange.net> <E03619A8-7D9C-4439-91E2-B7DE2964007C@psg.com>
 <4CDBFEE2.7080308@itforchange.net> <8D26EB46-5E60-4320-A0C3-09CD894BEEE1@psg.com>
 <4CDC13DC.2050601@itforchange.net> <1C623DB6-793C-4A92-BDAE-5D0C53E0971B@ciroap.org>
 <4CDC1C39.8010100@eff.org> <AANLkTi=3tPT=iX33YHE0UQ2LkrdvUV1qxEJi5d3G0DKf@mail.gmail.com>
 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006E11@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
 <4CDC37F2.7060605@eff.org> <45C25438-9BE9-4795-851A-B870B0935635@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <AANLkTinBAbOGNDSax+pn9BqDsGFpDmVU8Q8M44B25Yb0@mail.gmail.com>

Dear list,

As Jeremy tried hard, we wanted to meet the deadline to submit our
FIRST statement to CSTD open online consultation.

As some pointed out, yes reference to OECD has not been discussed
much, and it is included as a model of one of  the options.
Not the conclusive one.

While our poll is to ask you to support the statement entirely, and we did
not have the luxury of asking you section by section, please vote
if you are more less satisfied with the current text or not, and IF you do
support it with some reservation, please express that on the list specifically
so that we can recognize if there is "rough" consensus or not, and if we feel
appropriate we may make final adjustment [at our discretion].

We also will have the physical meeting on Nov 24 and can continue the
discussion till then so that we can deliver the second and better statement,
if so agreed at the next CSTD meeting in Geneva.

I have not discussed these ideas with Jeremy specifically as he is
busy departing by now, but I think Jeremy and I can come to the
reasonable conclusion for the
statement for now and proceed to the next step. This is just the beginning,
so we hope we can refine our ideas and strategies further more.

In any case, thank you so much for the rich debate and I think it is
worth to try to collect as diverse views as possible and then understand
each other and come closer.

Of course, we are open to listen to your further suggestions and critics.

izumi

2010/11/12 Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org>:
> On 12-Nov-2010, at 2:37 AM, Katitza Rodriguez <katitza at eff.org> wrote:
>
>> The 1980 OECD Privacy Guidelines are guidelines, softlaw. They were used
>> as a model framework.
>
>
>> I will not appeal any call fyi, but I did not like the process of entering
>> a new text in the last moment. I never see that before.. I think is not a
>> nice style.
>
> If I didn't have a plane to catch and our deadline wasn't Monday, and if
> Parminder hadn't raised it at the last minute asking for much more sweeping
> changes than he got, then I could have done this with more nicety. As things
> stand probably neither Parminder nor McTim will support the statement (pure
> speculation), but actually that might mean that we've struck the perfect
> medium.____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>



-- 
                        >> Izumi Aizu <<

          Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo

           Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,
                                  Japan
                                 * * * * *
           << Writing the Future of the History >>
                                www.anr.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 jeremy at ciroap.org  Thu Nov 11 21:28:03 2010
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 10:28:03 +0800
Subject: [governance] FINAL? DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinBAbOGNDSax+pn9BqDsGFpDmVU8Q8M44B25Yb0@mail.gmail.com>
References: <7E0ED935-470F-451E-B072-319351CAAD94@ciroap.org> <4CDAB2BB.8050303@eff.org> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC12008CE@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <AANLkTimJHN6P9TiVazEGWPORM0SFp7MV8yuPw45_h9ic@mail.gmail.com> <4CDB2D09.4090904@eff.org> <AANLkTim+fncpSGkMLCzPUijELAnUa9+8mBD4s+sMUdBk@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTi=tm5R=Scfrt87D_vqcXEVQW8Dm6OAku26wzkgq@mail.gmail.com> <4CDBD2AA.50505@itforchange.net> <AANLkTima5V-0_DPn=dS06usr=JwkWdCaWUVx7yEvMkSN@mail.gmail.com> <4CDBEC0C.7070204@itforchange.net> <E03619A8-7D9C-4439-91E2-B7DE2964007C@psg.com> <4CDBFEE2.7080308@itforchange.net> <8D26EB46-5E60-4320-A0C3-09CD894BEEE1@psg.com> <4CDC13DC.2050601@itforchange.net> <1C623DB6-793C-4A92-BDAE-5D0C53E0971B@ciroap.org> <4CDC1C39.8010100@eff.org> <AANLkTi=3tPT=iX33YHE0UQ2LkrdvUV1qxEJi5d3G0DKf@mail.gmail.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006E11@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4CDC37F2.7060605@eff.org> <45C25438-9BE9-4795-851A-B870B0935635@ciroap.org> <AANLkTinBAbOGNDSax+pn9BqDsGFpDmV
 U8Q8M44B25Yb0@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <C3296E4E-6D86-410D-B967-1BCAA7E0D5A2@ciroap.org>

On 12/11/2010, at 9:22 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote:

> While our poll is to ask you to support the statement entirely, and we did
> not have the luxury of asking you section by section, please vote
> if you are more less satisfied with the current text or not, and IF you do
> support it with some reservation, please express that on the list specifically
> so that we can recognize if there is "rough" consensus or not, and if we feel
> appropriate we may make final adjustment [at our discretion].

I strongly agree.

Also, if you would like polls on future statements to be put in a more piecemeal fashion so that you can say "I agree to this part but not this part", let me know.  Technically this is possible, and in fact Izumi suggested we do that this time.

My main reason for not wanting to is that if we allow people to opt out of all the most controversial points, we can end up with a bland, lowest-common-denominator statement.  It is better (in my opinion) that those who signal agreement with the statement accept it warts and all, even if there are parts they would have preferred to leave out.

-- Jeremy (almost not here)

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

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

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

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101112/bfa55144/attachment.bin>

From katitza at eff.org  Thu Nov 11 21:50:42 2010
From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez)
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 18:50:42 -0800
Subject: [governance] Part II - About a single centralized structure +
In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC108D98E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
References: <4CDC225C.7010201@eff.org> <4CDC397A.3010306@eff.org> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC108D98E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <4CDCAB82.1030100@eff.org>

Milton,

On 11/11/10 11:02 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>
> On the issue of a cybercrime treaty, however, I offer a qualification: 
> it is actually the U.S. that is more aggressive, both about cybercrime 
> and cyberwar, and Russia is more interested in a treaty to protect 
> itself, just as militarily weaker nations tend to favor arms control 
> treaties whereas the ones with a military advantage do not.
>

I was interested on this tension (not the Russian one):

"The 12th pentennial UN Crime Congress in Salvador, Brazil, declared  a 
compromise that at least left a window open for a global agreement. A UN 
advisory committee would consider conducting a study of cybercrime, 
legislation and law enforcement. The process might bring opposing 
countries closer together and lead in some years to proposals that may 
open a way to preparatory talks for a global agreement. Such talks might 
also take years. The UN did make a firm commitment for developed 
countries to step up the assistance they gave developing countries to 
build resources to tackle cybercrime and bring national legislation up 
to date. There was unanimous agreement that this must be done urgently. 
The EU and US had refused to countenance a new treaty on cyber crime 
when there had already been one in place for 10 years. The Budapest 
Convention on Cyber Crime had been signed or ratified by 46 countries 
since it had been drafted by the Council of Europe in 2001."

I also remember a comment from Wolfgang when he cited as a policy forum 
that we should observed: "1st Committee UNGA: Ideas for a UN Treaty on 
Cybersecurity"
Does anyone have more information about this , please?

> I also wish to say that I just voted for the Enhanced Cooperation 
> statement but was somewhat surprised to find the reference to OECD in 
> there as a model for governance. I guess the statement intended to 
> praise OECD for creating the CSISAC (civil society information society 
> advisory committee), which is indeed a small step forward. However, 
> the language in our statement implied both that OECD engages in global 
> governance and that civil society would be participating equally in 
> that governance because of CSISAC. Both implications are false: OECD 
> really doesn't do governance, it just supplies research and analysis 
> that states can use; and CSISAC just lets civil society into some 
> discussions, but the actual decision making is made elsewhere on an 
> intergovernmental basis.
>

Yes, you are right here too. OECD-ICCP just did a step in the right 
direction. But it is not multi-stakeholder. We just fight to get equal 
status as business sector and the trade unions. Equal parity.  
Governments made the final decision. Also CSISAC never push for the 
creation of the OECD-ICCP. The OECD has been working on Internet Policy 
issues even before WSIS (even before I start working on this area).


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101111/811b0417/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From jeremy at ciroap.org  Fri Nov 12 05:19:18 2010
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 18:19:18 +0800
Subject: [governance] Fwd: Open consultation 24 November 2010
References: <OF299E3FC4.BA5EA903-ONC12577D9.003041BF-C12577D9.0031126B@unog.un.org>
Message-ID: <571C1014-A797-4DAB-8553-12A3264003E3@ciroap.org>

FYI

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Franziska Klopfer <Franziska.Klopfer at unctad.org>
> Date: 12 November 2010 4:56:00 PM GMT+08:00
> To: Franziska.Klopfer at unctad.org
> Cc: Malou Pasinos <Malou.Pasinos at unctad.org>
> Subject: Open consultation 24 November 2010
> 
> Dear colleagues and friends, 
>   
> On behalf of Mr. Frederic Riehl, Vice Chair of the CSTD and Chair of the CSTD Working Group on IGF, I am sending you the following message regarding the open consultation of 24 Nov 2010: 
>   
> Dear Sir/Madam, 
> 
> I have the pleasure to invite you to a consultation meeting on improvements to the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) organized by the Vice Chair of the Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD) and Chairperson of the CSTD Working Group on improvements to the IGF, which will take place on 24 November 2010 in the Centre International de Conférences Genève, 17 rue de Varembé, Geneva , Switzerland.
> 
> A draft programme of the meeting is attached. 
> 
> The Chairperson of the Working Group has been mandated to work in an open and inclusive manner. This consultation meeting therefore aims to provide a platform for all interested stakeholders to express and exchange their opinions on the subject. The discussions will also, but not exclusively, focus on the results of a questionnaire on the same issue published by the Chair on 8 November. (For more information on the questionnaire and the Working Group in general, please visit www.unctad.info/en/cstdwg ) 
> 
> Should you wish to take part in the meeting, I would kindly request you to send the attached registration form to: cstdwg-igf at unctad.org . 
> 
> Yours sincerely, 
> 
> Frédéric Riehl 
> Vice Chair of the CSTD 



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

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

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101112/e957ccf2/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Draft programme consultation meeting.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 27648 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101112/e957ccf2/attachment.doc>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101112/e957ccf2/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Registration - IGF consultation 24Nov.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 60928 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101112/e957ccf2/attachment-0001.doc>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101112/e957ccf2/attachment-0002.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101112/e957ccf2/attachment.bin>

From iza at anr.org  Fri Nov 12 20:54:54 2010
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2010 10:54:54 +0900
Subject: [governance] DRAFT IGC Response to Questionnaire on improvements
 to the IGF - due Friday
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=Q=NY8qw+Ndk+zMLL=AdnDCaxKQYY=EDw152jv@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all,

It is my (our) mistake not to consult this with you earlier. But things are
never
too late, I hope.

We have to submit our response to the Questionnaire on improvements to the
IGF
by Friday, Nov 19, for the CSTD open consultation meeting on Nov 24.

I tried to write the draft as follows. I know it's premature, but hope you
could
help refine them quickly.

Those CSTD WG nominees, please react quickly! but others, also, please.

I plan to come to the final draft on Wednesday and put it to the consensus
call,
so that we can submit it on Friday.

I also attach a Word file for convenience. If you so wish, please use the
"history" function to offer your edits.

In case we may not reach sufficient consensus, we may submit a
non-controversial version first, and then work on with you until the
meeting day and submit a revised one there aurally and with text
to CSTD secretariat. This time it's the first "informal" consultation
and the formal one will come on December and onward.

CSTD Nov 24 meeting is now announced here:
http://www.unctad.org/Templates/Page.asp?intItemID=5726&lang=1

hope this is OK with you,

izumi

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

DRAFT IGC Response to Questionnaire on improvements to the IGF
*
[Texts in Bold face are our response*]
*
*1. What do you consider the most important achievements of the first five
IGF meetings?

*IGF created the space for dialogue by all stakeholders in an open,
inclusive manner. It helped
many participants to understand the issues of their interest, as well as to
understand how other
actors understand, act and accept their issues. Emergence of Regional and
National IGF is
another achievements. Yet we still have not seen real tangible outcome
directly out of IGF process. *


2. How satisfied are you with the delivery of the results of discussions at
the IGF and the
impact they have had on developments in national, regional or international
Internet governance?
*
IGF has made a reasonable advancement of the understanding of the issues.
Yet, at national,
regional and international levels, we have mixed assessment for the impact
it brought.*

3. Which, if any, new mechanisms would you propose to improve the impact of
the IGF
discussions, in particular as regards the interaction between the IGF and
other stakeholders?
Please specify the kind of mechanism (e.g. reporting, exchanges,
recommendations, concrete
advice, etc.) and the stakeholders (e.g. intergovernmental bodies, other
fora dealing with Internet
Governance, etc.).

*One mechanism we can suggest is to come up with some form of
recommendations where
all stakeholders have [rough] consensus. It will not be binding, but could
still function as model,
reference or common framework. Working process towards achieving these rough
consensus
will create better and deeper understandings amongst different stakeholders.
*


4. In your view, what important new issues or themes concerning Internet
governance have
emerged or become important since the Tunis phase of the Summit, which
deserve more attention
in the next five years?
*
IGC feels that attention to the development agenda, issues concerning the
marginalized groups
or actors, have yet gained sufficient level of work at IGF and its outcome.
These may not be the
“new” issues, but we strongly feel they are very important.

Besides them, emergence of new technologies, tools and services, such as
cloud computing;
user-generated, SNS and online sharing services such as wiki, YouTube,
Ustream, twitter and
Facebook; DPI and behavioral targeting advertisements; wide deployment of
mobile services
including smart phones and tablet computers pose all kind of new challenges
for governance. *


5. What do you think should be the priority themes and areas of work of the
IGF during the next five years?

*Followings will be the areas of themes and works that have priorities we
think.

a) Enhancing multi-stakeholder framework within IGF.
b) Promote capacity building for developmental agenda of governance
c) Balancing the interests – to empower those of marginalized and
under-developed in all
organizations and fora dealing with Internet governance – such as ICANN,
W3C, IETF, RIRs,
ITU, WIPO, CoE, OECD, UNCTAD/CSTD and United Nations itself. *

6. How can the capacity of those groups that are not yet well represented at
the IGF be improved?
In particular, what could be done to improve the capacity of representatives
from developing countries?

*a) Establish special funding mechanism by IGF itself to help actors from
developing countries
to continuously engage in IGF and related organizations and meetings.
Fellowship works carried
out by DiploFoundation, dotAsia organization [other reference, please] and
other institutions
offer good reference for this, but they should be expanded in larger scale.
Targeting youth groups
or younger generation in profession, will have, in the long run, effective
impact.

b) Providing technical training to policy makers and policy training to
engineers will also help
close the gap(s) within the under-represented and also even
well-represented.*


7. How do you think more awareness of Internet governance issues and the IGF
process can
be raised amongst groups whose lives are affected by Internet governance but
who are not yet
part of the IGF process?

*a) Giving more weight to regional and national IGF meetings, making more
direct “links” to the
main IGF meeting will help outreach to those who have not yet involved in
IGF process. Securing
the same level of working framework of IGF, such as multi-stakeholder
composition and inclusion
of civil society groups (where such practice is relatively new or scarce)
should be maintained.

b) Ensuring a plurality of civil society voices be heard in Internet
governance processes will also
be effective in reaching out to those yet to participate.

c) Online meetings are most effective when provision is made for
participation both synchronously
(ie. in real time) and asynchronously. The remote hubs and moderators at the
Vilnius IGF made
good progress towards this direction. Using such tools as blogs, Twitter,
mailing lists, Facebook
and so on over an extended period may also increase the awareness.

d) Organizing some sessions completely online will create “level playing
field” among all participants,
and may also demonstrate the effectiveness of these tools/technologies, and
may also improve the
quality of services in turn.


e) Increase linguistic diversity. Using UN major languages other than
English at certain meetings
and occasions as main working language (translated into other UN languages)
will increase the
outreach to non-English speaking population of the globe and will give more
sense of ownership.
Currently, English is the only default working language, but we think it
does not have to be so. *


8. How, if at all, do you think that the IGF process (including the format
of the meeting, the
preparatory process, the development of the agenda, etc.) needs to change to
meet changing
circumstances and priorities?

*As we replied to the MAG questionnaire, the organizing work of IGF
primarily by MAG should
be improved. More outcome oriented direction might improve the quality and
value of IGF, but
this should be carefully exercised so as not to lose the open and free
spirit of IGF which
contributed a great deal.*

9. Do you have any other comments? (You may find it useful to refer to the
Note by the
Secretary-General on the continuation of the Internet Governance Forum
(document A/65/78 – E/2010/68) or to the contributions made in the formal
consultations held
online and during the IGF meeting in Sharm El Sheikh, Egypt in 2009
(http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/2009-igf-sharm-el-sheikh/review-process)).

*[ANY COMMENTS? ]*

--------------------------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101113/e821be14/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Draft_IGCResponse_CSTD_IGFQnre_Nov13.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 36352 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101113/e821be14/attachment.doc>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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 Nov 12 22:28:38 2010
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 22:28:38 -0500
Subject: [governance] DRAFT IGC Response to Questionnaire on improvements
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=Q=NY8qw+Ndk+zMLL=AdnDCaxKQYY=EDw152jv@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTi=Q=NY8qw+Ndk+zMLL=AdnDCaxKQYY=EDw152jv@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTinn2Y7Z3w1S6upV4AdAFzZm05x_o8ELUzXcEgHC@mail.gmail.com>

Pretty good reply overall.

I would strike "Yet we still have not seen real tangible outcome
directly out of IGF process."

As there are not supposed to be real tangible outcomes, are there??

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel


On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 8:54 PM, Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org> wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> It is my (our) mistake not to consult this with you earlier. But things are
> never
> too late, I hope.
>
> We have to submit our response to the Questionnaire on improvements to the
> IGF
> by Friday, Nov 19, for the CSTD open consultation meeting on Nov 24.
>
> I tried to write the draft as follows. I know it's premature, but hope you
> could
> help refine them quickly.
>
> Those CSTD WG nominees, please react quickly! but others, also, please.
>
> I plan to come to the final draft on Wednesday and put it to the consensus
> call,
> so that we can submit it on Friday.
>
> I also attach a Word file for convenience. If you so wish, please use the
> "history" function to offer your edits.
>
> In case we may not reach sufficient consensus, we may submit a
> non-controversial version first, and then work on with you until the
> meeting day and submit a revised one there aurally and with text
> to CSTD secretariat. This time it's the first "informal" consultation
> and the formal one will come on December and onward.
>
> CSTD Nov 24 meeting is now announced here:
> http://www.unctad.org/Templates/Page.asp?intItemID=5726&lang=1
>
> hope this is OK with you,
>
> izumi
>
> ----------------
>
> DRAFT IGC Response to Questionnaire on improvements to the IGF
>
> [Texts in Bold face are our response]
>
> 1. What do you consider the most important achievements of the first five
> IGF meetings?
>
> IGF created the space for dialogue by all stakeholders in an open, inclusive
> manner. It helped
> many participants to understand the issues of their interest, as well as to
> understand how other
> actors understand, act and accept their issues. Emergence of Regional and
> National IGF is
> another achievements. Yet we still have not seen real tangible outcome
> directly out of IGF process.
>
>
> 2. How satisfied are you with the delivery of the results of discussions at
> the IGF and the
> impact they have had on developments in national, regional or international
> Internet governance?
>
> IGF has made a reasonable advancement of the understanding of the issues.
> Yet, at national,
> regional and international levels, we have mixed assessment for the impact
> it brought.
>
> 3. Which, if any, new mechanisms would you propose to improve the impact of
> the IGF
> discussions, in particular as regards the interaction between the IGF and
> other stakeholders?
> Please specify the kind of mechanism (e.g. reporting, exchanges,
> recommendations, concrete
> advice, etc.) and the stakeholders (e.g. intergovernmental bodies, other
> fora dealing with Internet
> Governance, etc.).
>
> One mechanism we can suggest is to come up with some form of recommendations
> where
> all stakeholders have [rough] consensus. It will not be binding, but could
> still function as model,
> reference or common framework. Working process towards achieving these rough
> consensus
> will create better and deeper understandings amongst different stakeholders.
>
>
> 4. In your view, what important new issues or themes concerning Internet
> governance have
> emerged or become important since the Tunis phase of the Summit, which
> deserve more attention
> in the next five years?
>
> IGC feels that attention to the development agenda, issues concerning the
> marginalized groups
> or actors, have yet gained sufficient level of work at IGF and its outcome.
> These may not be the
> “new” issues, but we strongly feel they are very important.
>
> Besides them, emergence of new technologies, tools and services, such as
> cloud computing;
> user-generated, SNS and online sharing services such as wiki, YouTube,
> Ustream, twitter and
> Facebook; DPI and behavioral targeting advertisements; wide deployment of
> mobile services
> including smart phones and tablet computers pose all kind of new challenges
> for governance.
>
>
> 5. What do you think should be the priority themes and areas of work of the
> IGF during the next five years?
>
> Followings will be the areas of themes and works that have priorities we
> think.
>
> a) Enhancing multi-stakeholder framework within IGF.
> b) Promote capacity building for developmental agenda of governance
> c) Balancing the interests – to empower those of marginalized and
> under-developed in all
> organizations and fora dealing with Internet governance – such as ICANN,
> W3C, IETF, RIRs,
> ITU, WIPO, CoE, OECD, UNCTAD/CSTD and United Nations itself.
>
> 6. How can the capacity of those groups that are not yet well represented at
> the IGF be improved?
> In particular, what could be done to improve the capacity of representatives
> from developing countries?
>
> a) Establish special funding mechanism by IGF itself to help actors from
> developing countries
> to continuously engage in IGF and related organizations and meetings.
> Fellowship works carried
> out by DiploFoundation, dotAsia organization [other reference, please] and
> other institutions
> offer good reference for this, but they should be expanded in larger scale.
> Targeting youth groups
> or younger generation in profession, will have, in the long run, effective
> impact.
>
> b) Providing technical training to policy makers and policy training to
> engineers will also help
> close the gap(s) within the under-represented and also even
> well-represented.
>
>
> 7. How do you think more awareness of Internet governance issues and the IGF
> process can
> be raised amongst groups whose lives are affected by Internet governance but
> who are not yet
> part of the IGF process?
>
> a) Giving more weight to regional and national IGF meetings, making more
> direct “links” to the
> main IGF meeting will help outreach to those who have not yet involved in
> IGF process. Securing
> the same level of working framework of IGF, such as multi-stakeholder
> composition and inclusion
> of civil society groups (where such practice is relatively new or scarce)
> should be maintained.
>
> b) Ensuring a plurality of civil society voices be heard in Internet
> governance processes will also
> be effective in reaching out to those yet to participate.
>
> c) Online meetings are most effective when provision is made for
> participation both synchronously
> (ie. in real time) and asynchronously. The remote hubs and moderators at the
> Vilnius IGF made
> good progress towards this direction. Using such tools as blogs, Twitter,
> mailing lists, Facebook
> and so on over an extended period may also increase the awareness.
>
> d) Organizing some sessions completely online will create “level playing
> field” among all participants,
> and may also demonstrate the effectiveness of these tools/technologies, and
> may also improve the
> quality of services in turn.
>
>
> e) Increase linguistic diversity. Using UN major languages other than
> English at certain meetings
> and occasions as main working language (translated into other UN languages)
> will increase the
> outreach to non-English speaking population of the globe and will give more
> sense of ownership.
> Currently, English is the only default working language, but we think it
> does not have to be so.
>
>
> 8. How, if at all, do you think that the IGF process (including the format
> of the meeting, the
> preparatory process, the development of the agenda, etc.) needs to change to
> meet changing
> circumstances and priorities?
>
> As we replied to the MAG questionnaire, the organizing work of IGF primarily
> by MAG should
> be improved. More outcome oriented direction might improve the quality and
> value of IGF, but
> this should be carefully exercised so as not to lose the open and free
> spirit of IGF which
> contributed a great deal.
>
> 9. Do you have any other comments? (You may find it useful to refer to the
> Note by the
> Secretary-General on the continuation of the Internet Governance Forum
> (document A/65/78 – E/2010/68) or to the contributions made in the formal
> consultations held
> online and during the IGF meeting in Sharm El Sheikh, Egypt in 2009
> (http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/2009-igf-sharm-el-sheikh/review-process)).
>
> [ANY COMMENTS? ]
>
> --------------------------
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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  Fri Nov 12 22:37:33 2010
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2010 11:37:33 +0800
Subject: [governance] DRAFT IGC Response to Questionnaire on improvements
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinn2Y7Z3w1S6upV4AdAFzZm05x_o8ELUzXcEgHC@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTi=Q=NY8qw+Ndk+zMLL=AdnDCaxKQYY=EDw152jv@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTinn2Y7Z3w1S6upV4AdAFzZm05x_o8ELUzXcEgHC@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <B62EC884-C121-486A-AD03-A6AFB5C71B4E@ciroap.org>

On 13-Nov-2010, at 11:28 AM, McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:

> I would strike "Yet we still have not seen real tangible outcome
> directly out of IGF process."
>
> As there are not supposed to be real tangible outcomes, are there??

There's disagreement on that. So perhaps changing it to "Yet many have  
expressed frustration that the IGF process has not directly produced  
real tangible outcomes." This is an incontrovertible matter of fact.

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

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

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


From aizu at anr.org  Fri Nov 12 22:52:21 2010
From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2010 12:52:21 +0900
Subject: [governance] DRAFT IGC Response to Questionnaire on improvements
In-Reply-To: <B62EC884-C121-486A-AD03-A6AFB5C71B4E@ciroap.org>
References: <AANLkTi=Q=NY8qw+Ndk+zMLL=AdnDCaxKQYY=EDw152jv@mail.gmail.com>
 <AANLkTinn2Y7Z3w1S6upV4AdAFzZm05x_o8ELUzXcEgHC@mail.gmail.com> <B62EC884-C121-486A-AD03-A6AFB5C71B4E@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <AANLkTinx6y5a6sajX-_VGYY1mSWmHD42EseEdkm8SLB_@mail.gmail.com>

Thank you MacTim and Jeremy for the comments and suggestions.
I took it from IGC response to MAG Questionnaire and modified slightly.

"We would like the MAG to play an active role in any possible
improvements towards a greater outcome orientation that may be
suggested by the ongoing IGF improvement process. Since there is no
other clear body or structure in and of the IGF, any possible
suggestions for improvements like inter-sessional work, choosing of
key issues for more focused work, working groups on issues, background
papers etc will require the MAG to play an important part."

I see your points, and will try to change, but also like to hear other voices
if any before doing so.

izumi


2010/11/13 Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org>
>
> On 13-Nov-2010, at 11:28 AM, McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I would strike "Yet we still have not seen real tangible outcome
>> directly out of IGF process."
>>
>> As there are not supposed to be real tangible outcomes, are there??
>
> There's disagreement on that. So perhaps changing it to "Yet many have expressed frustration that the IGF process has not directly produced real tangible outcomes." This is an incontrovertible matter of fact.
>
> -- Jeremy, in transit, from his phone
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>



--
                        >> Izumi Aizu <<

          Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo

           Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,
                                  Japan
                                 * * * * *
           << Writing the Future of the History >>
                                www.anr.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 gpaque at gmail.com  Sat Nov 13 07:33:45 2010
From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque)
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2010 08:03:45 -0430
Subject: [governance] DRAFT IGC Response to Questionnaire on improvements
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinn2Y7Z3w1S6upV4AdAFzZm05x_o8ELUzXcEgHC@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTi=Q=NY8qw+Ndk+zMLL=AdnDCaxKQYY=EDw152jv@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTinn2Y7Z3w1S6upV4AdAFzZm05x_o8ELUzXcEgHC@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4CDE85A9.1070009@gmail.com>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101113/1070fab8/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From williams.deirdre at gmail.com  Sat Nov 13 08:21:40 2010
From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams)
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2010 09:21:40 -0400
Subject: [governance] DRAFT IGC Response to Questionnaire on improvements
In-Reply-To: <4CDE85A9.1070009@gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTi=Q=NY8qw+Ndk+zMLL=AdnDCaxKQYY=EDw152jv@mail.gmail.com>
 <AANLkTinn2Y7Z3w1S6upV4AdAFzZm05x_o8ELUzXcEgHC@mail.gmail.com> <4CDE85A9.1070009@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTimgHTHKkWkz9V2zHJsDnN_ya0u83wKroiEOjVjx@mail.gmail.com>

I have a problem anyway about "tangible outcomes" - I can feel Rui breathing
down my neck :-)
I feel that the proliferation of national and regional IGFs is a HUGE
outcome which can certainly be demonstrated and documented if not actually
touched.
Also, as Ginger suggests, remote participation and the access it affords to
the previously excluded.
Galvanising a huge chunk of the whole world into some type of action -
holding national and regional meetings - in just 5 years, is something like
finding Archimedes lever, and I think we should look at it like that.

Under #2 I wonder whether it would be possible to produce brief summary
reports, in layman's language, WITHOUT ANY ACRONYMS, for dissemination to
those who are currently "outsiders".
Also I wish we could think of a "sexy" approach to involve the print and
broadcast media in spreading the word. A comic strip? A soap opera?

#3 I am from a developing country. Recently an NGO here had a problem for
which it hired consultants. It then transpired that the same problem had
been addressed by consultants 10 years ago, and the report, the
recommendations, had sat on the shelf, unused, essentially "lost", for 10
years. Recommendations may be tangible but they are frequently seen as an
end in themselves rather than being a plan for a "way forward". I am rather
"anti" about recommendations, unless they are accompanied by some type of
actual "implementation".

#4 para 2 there is an important "not" missing I think -  "have NOT yet
gained sufficient level of work at IGF"

I like #6b and I LOVE #6e :-)

Thank you for making the draft

Deirdre

On 13 November 2010 08:33, Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com> wrote:

>  I agree with McTim strongly on this...
> There is no reason to emphasize a 'negative' position on achieving the
> assigned outcome.
>
> In fact, I think it makes more sense to note that there have been many have
> been tangible and intangible positive outcomes directly/indirectly from the
> IGF process, beyond awareness-raising and bringing IG issues to regional IGF
> meetings--what about the emergence and development of the multistakeholder
> model? How about the advances in remote participation, permitting greater
> inclusion in global policy processes? What about the diffusion and
> replication of best practices?
>
> The question doesn't ask about our frustration, it asks what we consider
> the most important achievement. If we must point out the frustration, should
> it not at least be balanced by appreciation for \ the positive effects? At
> least we should answer the question!
>
> Thanks for doing this work. Much appreciated. I am in the middle of a
> workshop in Tobago, and have not reviewed carefully. I think others should
> voice their positions as well.
>
> *
> **Ginger (Virginia) Paque
> *IGCBP Online Coordinator
> DiploFoundation
> www.diplomacy.edu/ig
>
> *The latest from Diplo...*
> http://igbook.diplomacy.edu is the online companion to *An Introduction to
> Internet Governance, *Diplo's publication on IG. Download the book, read
> the blogs and post your comments.
>
> On 11/12/2010 10:58 PM, McTim wrote:
>
> Pretty good reply overall.
>
> I would strike "Yet we still have not seen real tangible outcome
> directly out of IGF process."
>
> As there are not supposed to be real tangible outcomes, are there??
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101113/0889b906/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From mueller at syr.edu  Sat Nov 13 10:27:40 2010
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2010 10:27:40 -0500
Subject: [governance] DRAFT IGC Response to Questionnaire on improvements
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinn2Y7Z3w1S6upV4AdAFzZm05x_o8ELUzXcEgHC@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTi=Q=NY8qw+Ndk+zMLL=AdnDCaxKQYY=EDw152jv@mail.gmail.com>
 <AANLkTinn2Y7Z3w1S6upV4AdAFzZm05x_o8ELUzXcEgHC@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC108D9FE@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>


> -----Original Message-----
> I would strike "Yet we still have not seen real tangible outcome
> directly out of IGF process."
> 
> As there are not supposed to be real tangible outcomes, are there??

This is completely wrong, imho. 

A lack of binding authority does _not_ mean no tangible outcomes - if it does, then that will be used by those who favor centralized hierarchical governance to prove that IGF doesn't work. 

If we can't show, or don't believe, that IGF has any influence then we are wasting our time there. 
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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  Sat Nov 13 10:34:40 2010
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2010 10:34:40 -0500
Subject: [governance] CSTD questionnaire
Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC108D9FF@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>

FYI, here is my response to Question #3 on the CSTD questionnaire:


3.       Which, if any, new mechanisms would you propose to improve the impact of the IGF discussions, in particular as regards the interaction between the IGF and other stakeholders? Please specify the kind of mechanism (e.g. reporting, exchanges, recommendations, concrete advice, etc.)  and the stakeholders (e.g. intergovernmental bodies, other fora dealing with Internet Governance, etc.).

a)      IGF should be able to make recommendations. Of course they will be nonbinding, but unless IGF serves as a focal point for developing common positions it will become irrelevant.
b)      It should take on a bigger role in providing an accountability review of ICANN and other international organizations involved in internet governance
c)       Its Secretariat and MAG should be strongly encouraged to directly foster discussion and debate of difficult issues in main sessions, instead of avoiding them.
d)      IGF workshops and discussions must focus exclusively on public policy issues and debates, and not be an educational forum where the technical community explains how to implement internet technologies or projects the future of internet technologies. There are many industry and academic conferences that do a much better job of that.



Milton Mueller
Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies
XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology
------------------------------
Internet Governance Project:
http://internetgovernance.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101113/b32427b2/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From mueller at syr.edu  Sat Nov 13 10:36:56 2010
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2010 10:36:56 -0500
Subject: [governance] DRAFT IGC Response to Questionnaire on improvements
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimgHTHKkWkz9V2zHJsDnN_ya0u83wKroiEOjVjx@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTi=Q=NY8qw+Ndk+zMLL=AdnDCaxKQYY=EDw152jv@mail.gmail.com>
 <AANLkTinn2Y7Z3w1S6upV4AdAFzZm05x_o8ELUzXcEgHC@mail.gmail.com>
 <4CDE85A9.1070009@gmail.com>
 <AANLkTimgHTHKkWkz9V2zHJsDnN_ya0u83wKroiEOjVjx@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC108DA00@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>

Dierdre,
Let's play devil's advocate: Why are regional and national IGFs a "huge outcome?"
If a global IGF doesn't accomplish anything, multiplication of the model at lower levels doesn't accomplish anything, either, right?
In particular, what do national IGF's accomplish that are not possible within the framework of existing national institutions?

From: Deirdre Williams [mailto:williams.deirdre at gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, November 13, 2010 8:22 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ginger Paque
Cc: McTim; Izumi AIZU; cstd at igf-online.net
Subject: Re: [governance] DRAFT IGC Response to Questionnaire on improvements

I have a problem anyway about "tangible outcomes" - I can feel Rui breathing down my neck :-)
I feel that the proliferation of national and regional IGFs is a HUGE outcome which can certainly be demonstrated and documented if not actually touched.
Also, as Ginger suggests, remote participation and the access it affords to the previously excluded.
Galvanising a huge chunk of the whole world into some type of action - holding national and regional meetings - in just 5 years, is something like finding Archimedes lever, and I think we should look at it like that.

Under #2 I wonder whether it would be possible to produce brief summary reports, in layman's language, WITHOUT ANY ACRONYMS, for dissemination to those who are currently "outsiders".
Also I wish we could think of a "sexy" approach to involve the print and broadcast media in spreading the word. A comic strip? A soap opera?

#3 I am from a developing country. Recently an NGO here had a problem for which it hired consultants. It then transpired that the same problem had been addressed by consultants 10 years ago, and the report, the recommendations, had sat on the shelf, unused, essentially "lost", for 10 years. Recommendations may be tangible but they are frequently seen as an end in themselves rather than being a plan for a "way forward". I am rather "anti" about recommendations, unless they are accompanied by some type of actual "implementation".

#4 para 2 there is an important "not" missing I think -  "have NOT yet gained sufficient level of work at IGF"

I like #6b and I LOVE #6e :-)

Thank you for making the draft

Deirdre
On 13 November 2010 08:33, Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com<mailto:gpaque at gmail.com>> wrote:
I agree with McTim strongly on this...
There is no reason to emphasize a 'negative' position on achieving the assigned outcome.

In fact, I think it makes more sense to note that there have been many have been tangible and intangible positive outcomes directly/indirectly from the IGF process, beyond awareness-raising and bringing IG issues to regional IGF meetings--what about the emergence and development of the multistakeholder model? How about the advances in remote participation, permitting greater inclusion in global policy processes? What about the diffusion and replication of best practices?

The question doesn't ask about our frustration, it asks what we consider the most important achievement. If we must point out the frustration, should it not at least be balanced by appreciation for \ the positive effects? At least we should answer the question!

Thanks for doing this work. Much appreciated. I am in the middle of a workshop in Tobago, and have not reviewed carefully. I think others should voice their positions as well.

Ginger (Virginia) Paque
IGCBP Online Coordinator
DiploFoundation
www.diplomacy.edu/ig<http://www.diplomacy.edu/ig>

The latest from Diplo...
http://igbook.diplomacy.edu <http://igbook.diplomacy.edu/> is the online companion to An Introduction to Internet Governance, Diplo's publication on IG. Download the book, read the blogs and post your comments.

On 11/12/2010 10:58 PM, McTim wrote:

Pretty good reply overall.



I would strike "Yet we still have not seen real tangible outcome

directly out of IGF process."



As there are not supposed to be real tangible outcomes, are there??



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

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

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



--
"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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101113/989e2586/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From jlfullsack at orange.fr  Sat Nov 13 14:33:22 2010
From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK)
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2010 20:33:22 +0100 (CET)
Subject: [governance] CSTD questionnaire
In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC108D9FF@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC108D9FF@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <3095916.212115.1289676802673.JavaMail.www@wwinf1g20>

Thanks Milton for this srong and concrete suggestions as well as for your viewpoint (§d) 

Jean-Louis Fullsack
CSDPTT




> Message du 13/11/10 16:35
> De : "Milton L Mueller" 
> A : "governance at lists.cpsr.org" 
> Copie à : 
> Objet : [governance] CSTD questionnaire
> 
> FYI, here is my response to Question #3 on the CSTD questionnaire:
 
3.       Which, if any, new mechanisms would you propose to improve the impact of the IGF discussions, in particular as regards the interaction between the IGF and other stakeholders? Please specify the kind of mechanism (e.g. reporting, exchanges, recommendations, concrete advice, etc.)  and the stakeholders (e.g. intergovernmental bodies, other fora dealing with Internet Governance, etc.). 
 
a)      IGF should be able to make recommendations. Of course they will be nonbinding, but unless IGF serves as a focal point for developing common positions it will become irrelevant.
b)      It should take on a bigger role in providing an accountability review of ICANN and other international organizations involved in internet governance
c)       Its Secretariat and MAG should be strongly encouraged to directly foster discussion and debate of difficult issues in main sessions, instead of avoiding them. 
d)      IGF workshops and discussions must focus exclusively on public policy issues and debates, and not be an educational forum where the technical community explains how to implement internet technologies or projects the future of internet technologies. There are many industry and academic conferences that do a much better job of that.
 
 
 
Milton Mueller
> Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies
> XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology
> ------------------------------
> Internet Governance Project:
> http://internetgovernance.org
 

>
> [ message-footer.txt (0.4 Ko) ]
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101113/515f1c15/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From roland at internetpolicyagency.com  Sun Nov 14 03:59:21 2010
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2010 08:59:21 +0000
Subject: [governance] FOURTH DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <4CDB0DC0.9080204@eff.org>
References: <296C93D0-7172-4DC7-8185-1DEAAA564B4D@ciroap.org>
 <AANLkTik_4-oazn0ng91AGkWvoGNk1xXkKJPkpcOP2wYV@mail.gmail.com>
 <4CDB0DC0.9080204@eff.org>
Message-ID: <G3n6p8hpT63MFAAS@internetpolicyagency.com>

In message <4CDB0DC0.9080204 at eff.org>, at 13:25:20 on Wed, 10 Nov 2010, 
Katitza Rodriguez <katitza at eff.org> writes
> For example, it is dangerous to see the Budapest Convention exported 
>to other countries, as it has serious implications for citizen's 
>fundamental rights. 

Citizens also need the right not online safety.

>Despite the serious concerns that the Budapest Convention / Council of 
>Europe itself contain, the harm to third countries outside Europe, for 
>instance, Latin America is dangerous.  While the EU for instance has 
>the Ecommerce Directive, The Data Protection Directive, the E-Privacy 
>Directive, Charter of Fundamental Rights, and other check and balance 
>in place etc, many countries lack of these regulatory frameworks

It's my understanding that the Council of Europe (which is a human 
rights organisation, not a policing one) will only allow countries to 
sign up to the Budapest Convention, if they also agree to implement 
sufficient human rights safeguards as well.
-- 
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 katitza at eff.org  Sun Nov 14 10:44:20 2010
From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez)
Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2010 07:44:20 -0800
Subject: [governance] FOURTH DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <G3n6p8hpT63MFAAS@internetpolicyagency.com>
References: <296C93D0-7172-4DC7-8185-1DEAAA564B4D@ciroap.org> <AANLkTik_4-oazn0ng91AGkWvoGNk1xXkKJPkpcOP2wYV@mail.gmail.com> <4CDB0DC0.9080204@eff.org> <G3n6p8hpT63MFAAS@internetpolicyagency.com>
Message-ID: <4CE003D4.1030409@eff.org>

Hi Roland,

Sorry for not replied to your earlier email. I am happy to talk about 
Re: OECD with you.

On 11/14/10 12:59 AM, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <4CDB0DC0.9080204 at eff.org>, at 13:25:20 on Wed, 10 Nov 
> 2010, Katitza Rodriguez <katitza at eff.org> writes
>> For example, it is dangerous to see the Budapest Convention exported 
>> to other countries, as it has serious implications for citizen's 
>> fundamental rights.
>
> Citizens also need the right not online safety.

I do not understand the comment. Can you clarify, please?
>
>> Despite the serious concerns that the Budapest Convention / Council 
>> of Europe itself contain, the harm to third countries outside Europe, 
>> for instance, Latin America is dangerous.  While the EU for instance 
>> has the Ecommerce Directive, The Data Protection Directive, the 
>> E-Privacy Directive, Charter of Fundamental Rights, and other check 
>> and balance in place etc, many countries lack of these regulatory 
>> frameworks
>
> It's my understanding that the Council of Europe (which is a human 
> rights organisation, not a policing one) will only allow countries to 
> sign up to the Budapest Convention, if they also agree to implement 
> sufficient human rights safeguards as well.

We need to see that in practice, Roland. The Council of Europe is a 
democratic institution, and its principles are based in the respect of 
the European Convention on Human Rights - which is a good HR text. They 
promote democratic principles, human rights, and the rule of law, they 
have different check and balances in place within the organization 
including the European Court of Human Rights. Unfortunately, nothing is 
perfect, and the Budapest Convention is definitely not one of its 
brilliant outcomes. The text is so ambiguous that allows several 
implementations. This should not be allowed when you are dealing with a 
text that restrict citizens fundamentals rights. It is true that they 
have agreed to implement sufficient human rights safeguards in "text", 
but I am not sure if this will happen in "practice". We are observing. 
Besides, I disagree with the emphasis put forward on the need of 
collaboration between the law enforcement community and the business 
sector. There is a need to strengten digital due process of law within 
the cybercrime discussions. I would like to see a this kind of strategy 
coming from the division who works on that area, and who are actually 
working in the implementation of the Convention, at the national level. 
It is finally what it is implemented at the national level, what matters.

In addition, while there is an acknowledgment of the importance of 
Convention 108, I haven't see a truly effort to promote that Convention 
at the national level. There might be a budget problem, too. We might 
need to see analysis if the funding from some business sector reps. goes 
to promote the Budapest Convention only, but not necessarily to the HR 
aspects.

We should also not forget that the group who drafted the Budapest 
Convention met in secret for several years before the first draft was 
released!  And Parminder is right, this is also an European Institution 
that deals with Treaties that might affect other countries. However, 
taking into account the discussions on this area at some national,  
regional and international, and the erosion of the right to privacy, 
another treaty might be even worst than this. By now, we need to fight 
the implementation of the Budapest Convention at the national levels, 
and pressure the Council of Europe to adopt recommendations that 
strengthens digital due process concerns and citizens rights.

Note apart:
There is also opportunity for civil society to participate as an 
observer status within the Council, EDRI and others participate as part 
of the Media Division discussions. I haven't heard anything beside the 
Octopus meeting on the cybercrime front. I have not done an analysis of 
the budget / funding to see where the business sector funds goes, and if 
its has an impact on the promotion of the Budapest Convention, and no 
funding to promote and to respect of citizen's fundamental rights and 
due process concerns.

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

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  Sun Nov 14 11:58:46 2010
From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez)
Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2010 08:58:46 -0800
Subject: [governance] FOURTH DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <4CE003D4.1030409@eff.org>
References: <296C93D0-7172-4DC7-8185-1DEAAA564B4D@ciroap.org> <AANLkTik_4-oazn0ng91AGkWvoGNk1xXkKJPkpcOP2wYV@mail.gmail.com> <4CDB0DC0.9080204@eff.org> <G3n6p8hpT63MFAAS@internetpolicyagency.com> <4CE003D4.1030409@eff.org>
Message-ID: <4CE01546.2050106@eff.org>

One more precision.

Convention 108, which drawn up within the Council of Europe by a 
committee of governmental experts under the authority of the European 
Committee on Legal Co-operation (CDCJ), was opened for signature by the 
Member States of the Council of Europe on 28 January 1981 in Strasbourg. 
Since inception of the Convention, Article 23(1) has provided for 
accession by non-member States:

"After the entry into force of this convention, the Committee of 
Ministers of the Council of Europe may invite any State non member of 
the Council of Europe to accede to this convention by a decision taken 
by the majority provided for in Article 20.d of the Statute of the 
Council of Europe and by the unanimous vote of the representatives of 
the Contracting States entitled to sit on the committee."

On 11/14/10 7:44 AM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote:
> Hi Roland,
>
> Sorry for not replied to your earlier email. I am happy to talk about 
> Re: OECD with you.
>
> On 11/14/10 12:59 AM, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <4CDB0DC0.9080204 at eff.org>, at 13:25:20 on Wed, 10 Nov 
>> 2010, Katitza Rodriguez <katitza at eff.org> writes
>>> For example, it is dangerous to see the Budapest Convention exported 
>>> to other countries, as it has serious implications for citizen's 
>>> fundamental rights.
>>
>> Citizens also need the right not online safety.
>
> I do not understand the comment. Can you clarify, please?
>>
>>> Despite the serious concerns that the Budapest Convention / Council 
>>> of Europe itself contain, the harm to third countries outside 
>>> Europe, for instance, Latin America is dangerous.  While the EU for 
>>> instance has the Ecommerce Directive, The Data Protection Directive, 
>>> the E-Privacy Directive, Charter of Fundamental Rights, and other 
>>> check and balance in place etc, many countries lack of these 
>>> regulatory frameworks
>>
>> It's my understanding that the Council of Europe (which is a human 
>> rights organisation, not a policing one) will only allow countries to 
>> sign up to the Budapest Convention, if they also agree to implement 
>> sufficient human rights safeguards as well.
>
> We need to see that in practice, Roland. The Council of Europe is a 
> democratic institution, and its principles are based in the respect of 
> the European Convention on Human Rights - which is a good HR text. 
> They promote democratic principles, human rights, and the rule of law, 
> they have different check and balances in place within the 
> organization including the European Court of Human Rights. 
> Unfortunately, nothing is perfect, and the Budapest Convention is 
> definitely not one of its brilliant outcomes. The text is so ambiguous 
> that allows several implementations. This should not be allowed when 
> you are dealing with a text that restrict citizens fundamentals 
> rights. It is true that they have agreed to implement sufficient human 
> rights safeguards in "text", but I am not sure if this will happen in 
> "practice". We are observing. Besides, I disagree with the emphasis 
> put forward on the need of collaboration between the law enforcement 
> community and the business sector. There is a need to strengten 
> digital due process of law within the cybercrime discussions. I would 
> like to see a this kind of strategy coming from the division who works 
> on that area, and who are actually working in the implementation of 
> the Convention, at the national level. It is finally what it is 
> implemented at the national level, what matters.
>
> In addition, while there is an acknowledgment of the importance of 
> Convention 108, I haven't see a truly effort to promote that 
> Convention at the national level. There might be a budget problem, 
> too. We might need to see analysis if the funding from some business 
> sector reps. goes to promote the Budapest Convention only, but not 
> necessarily to the HR aspects.
>
> We should also not forget that the group who drafted the Budapest 
> Convention met in secret for several years before the first draft was 
> released!  And Parminder is right, this is also an European 
> Institution that deals with Treaties that might affect other 
> countries. However, taking into account the discussions on this area 
> at some national,  regional and international, and the erosion of the 
> right to privacy, another treaty might be even worst than this. By 
> now, we need to fight the implementation of the Budapest Convention at 
> the national levels, and pressure the Council of Europe to adopt 
> recommendations that strengthens digital due process concerns and 
> citizens rights.
>
> Note apart:
> There is also opportunity for civil society to participate as an 
> observer status within the Council, EDRI and others participate as 
> part of the Media Division discussions. I haven't heard anything 
> beside the Octopus meeting on the cybercrime front. I have not done an 
> analysis of the budget / funding to see where the business sector 
> funds goes, and if its has an impact on the promotion of the Budapest 
> Convention, and no funding to promote and to respect of citizen's 
> fundamental rights and due process concerns.
>
>  K.


-- 
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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101114/bdbe104d/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From aizu at anr.org  Sun Nov 14 12:09:08 2010
From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2010 02:09:08 +0900
Subject: [governance] DRAFT IGC Response to Questionnaire on improvements
In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC108DA00@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
References: <AANLkTi=Q=NY8qw+Ndk+zMLL=AdnDCaxKQYY=EDw152jv@mail.gmail.com>
 <AANLkTinn2Y7Z3w1S6upV4AdAFzZm05x_o8ELUzXcEgHC@mail.gmail.com>
 <4CDE85A9.1070009@gmail.com> <AANLkTimgHTHKkWkz9V2zHJsDnN_ya0u83wKroiEOjVjx@mail.gmail.com>
 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC108DA00@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <AANLkTim6iC-hyG8OgnjVCu_3zkKzAQ2t63mPhAexT89U@mail.gmail.com>

I will try to come up with new version around "tangible result",
"recommendations"
and other points under discussion here, but before doing so, aren't
there any other comments on other points I wrote? They are:

Q4. Important New issues
Q5. Priority themes and areas of work
Q6. How to increase capacity of representatives from developing countries?
Q7. Awareness raising among those who are not yet part of IGF process
Q8. How to change IGF process to meet changing circumstances
Q9. ANY OTHER.

Thanks,

izumi

2010/11/14 Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu>:
> Dierdre,
>
> Let’s play devil’s advocate: Why are regional and national IGFs a “huge
> outcome?”
>
> If a global IGF doesn’t accomplish anything, multiplication of the model at
> lower levels doesn’t accomplish anything, either, right?
>
> In particular, what do national IGF’s accomplish that are not possible
> within the framework of existing national institutions?
>
>
>
> From: Deirdre Williams [mailto:williams.deirdre at gmail.com]
> Sent: Saturday, November 13, 2010 8:22 AM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ginger Paque
> Cc: McTim; Izumi AIZU; cstd at igf-online.net
> Subject: Re: [governance] DRAFT IGC Response to Questionnaire on
> improvements
>
>
>
> I have a problem anyway about "tangible outcomes" - I can feel Rui breathing
> down my neck :-)
>
> I feel that the proliferation of national and regional IGFs is a HUGE
> outcome which can certainly be demonstrated and documented if not actually
> touched.
>
> Also, as Ginger suggests, remote participation and the access it affords to
> the previously excluded.
>
> Galvanising a huge chunk of the whole world into some type of action -
> holding national and regional meetings - in just 5 years, is something like
> finding Archimedes lever, and I think we should look at it like that.
>
>
>
> Under #2 I wonder whether it would be possible to produce brief summary
> reports, in layman's language, WITHOUT ANY ACRONYMS, for dissemination to
> those who are currently "outsiders".
>
> Also I wish we could think of a "sexy" approach to involve the print and
> broadcast media in spreading the word. A comic strip? A soap opera?
>
>
>
> #3 I am from a developing country. Recently an NGO here had a problem for
> which it hired consultants. It then transpired that the same problem had
> been addressed by consultants 10 years ago, and the report, the
> recommendations, had sat on the shelf, unused, essentially "lost", for 10
> years. Recommendations may be tangible but they are frequently seen as an
> end in themselves rather than being a plan for a "way forward". I am rather
> "anti" about recommendations, unless they are accompanied by some type of
> actual "implementation".
>
>
>
> #4 para 2 there is an important "not" missing I think -  "have NOT yet
> gained sufficient level of work at IGF"
>
>
>
> I like #6b and I LOVE #6e :-)
>
>
>
> Thank you for making the draft
>
>
>
> Deirdre
>
> On 13 November 2010 08:33, Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I agree with McTim strongly on this...
> There is no reason to emphasize a 'negative' position on achieving the
> assigned outcome.
>
> In fact, I think it makes more sense to note that there have been many have
> been tangible and intangible positive outcomes directly/indirectly from the
> IGF process, beyond awareness-raising and bringing IG issues to regional IGF
> meetings--what about the emergence and development of the multistakeholder
> model? How about the advances in remote participation, permitting greater
> inclusion in global policy processes? What about the diffusion and
> replication of best practices?
>
> The question doesn't ask about our frustration, it asks what we consider the
> most important achievement. If we must point out the frustration, should it
> not at least be balanced by appreciation for \ the positive effects? At
> least we should answer the question!
>
> Thanks for doing this work. Much appreciated. I am in the middle of a
> workshop in Tobago, and have not reviewed carefully. I think others should
> voice their positions as well.
>
> Ginger (Virginia) Paque
> IGCBP Online Coordinator
> DiploFoundation
> www.diplomacy.edu/ig
>
> The latest from Diplo...
> http://igbook.diplomacy.edu is the online companion to An Introduction to
> Internet Governance, Diplo's publication on IG. Download the book, read the
> blogs and post your comments.
>
> On 11/12/2010 10:58 PM, McTim wrote:
>
> Pretty good reply overall.
>
>
>
> I would strike "Yet we still have not seen real tangible outcome
>
> directly out of IGF process."
>
>
>
> As there are not supposed to be real tangible outcomes, are there??
>
>
>
> ___________________________________
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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 Nov 14 12:04:06 2010
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2010 17:04:06 +0000
Subject: [governance] FOURTH DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <4CE003D4.1030409@eff.org>
References: <296C93D0-7172-4DC7-8185-1DEAAA564B4D@ciroap.org>
 <AANLkTik_4-oazn0ng91AGkWvoGNk1xXkKJPkpcOP2wYV@mail.gmail.com>
 <4CDB0DC0.9080204@eff.org> <G3n6p8hpT63MFAAS@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <4CE003D4.1030409@eff.org>
Message-ID: <25jWqZ2GaB4MFAuU@internetpolicyagency.com>

In message <4CE003D4.1030409 at eff.org>, at 07:44:20 on Sun, 14 Nov 2010, 
Katitza Rodriguez <katitza at eff.org> writes
>Hi Roland,
>
>Sorry for not replied to your earlier email. I am happy to talk about 
>Re: OECD with you.

Let's do that. What you talk about below is CoE, however.

>On 11/14/10 12:59 AM, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <4CDB0DC0.9080204 at eff.org>, at 13:25:20 on Wed, 10 Nov 
>>2010, Katitza Rodriguez <katitza at eff.org> writes
>>> For example, it is dangerous to see the Budapest Convention exported 
>>>to other countries, as it has serious implications for citizen's 
>>>fundamental rights.
>>
>> Citizens also need the right not online safety.
>
>I do not understand the comment. Can you clarify, please?

Sorry, my fingers stumbled on the keyboard. I meant to say:

"Citizens also need the right *to* online safety."

Which means that we have to find a way to protect our online environment 
from criminals - but without those measure themselves being an 
imposition upon the freedoms of the public.

>>> Despite the serious concerns that the Budapest Convention / Council 
>>>of Europe itself contain, the harm to third countries outside Europe, 
>>>for instance, Latin America is dangerous.  While the EU for instance 
>>>has the Ecommerce Directive, The Data Protection Directive, the 
>>>E-Privacy Directive, Charter of Fundamental Rights, and other check 
>>>and balance in place etc, many countries lack of these regulatory frameworks
>>
>> It's my understanding that the Council of Europe (which is a human 
>>rights organisation, not a policing one) will only allow countries to 
>>sign up to the Budapest Convention, if they also agree to implement 
>>sufficient human rights safeguards as well.
>
>We need to see that in practice, Roland. The Council of Europe is a 
>democratic institution, and its principles are based in the respect of 
>the European Convention on Human Rights - which is a good HR text. They 
>promote democratic principles, human rights, and the rule of law, they 
>have different check and balances in place within the organization 
>including the European Court of Human Rights. Unfortunately, nothing is 
>perfect, and the Budapest Convention is definitely not one of its 
>brilliant outcomes. The text is so ambiguous that allows several 
>implementations. This should not be allowed when you are dealing with a 
>text that restrict citizens fundamentals rights. It is true that they 
>have agreed to implement sufficient human rights safeguards in "text", 
>but I am not sure if this will happen in "practice". We are observing.

It's good that the outcomes are being observed, and criticised, that way 
we can make things better in the future.

> Besides, I disagree with the emphasis put forward on the need of 
>collaboration between the law enforcement community and the business 
>sector.

That's because the networks are generally operated by the business 
sector. If they were operated by someone else, those others would be the 
people that law enforcement would be seeking help from.

>There is a need to strengten digital due process of law within the 
>cybercrime discussions. I would like to see a this kind of strategy 
>coming from the division who works on that area, and who are actually 
>working in the implementation of the Convention, at the national level. 
>It is finally what it is implemented at the national level, what matters.

I see the Budapest Convention as an expression of a basic level of law 
which should be implemented, nationally in each country for sure, but 
mindful that many of the enforcement problems are a result of the 
cross-border nature of the Internet.

>In addition, while there is an acknowledgment of the importance of 
>Convention 108,

(That's about Protection of Personal Data, for those not familiar with 
the document)

>I haven't see a truly effort to promote that Convention at the national 
>level. There might be a budget problem, too. We might need to see 
>analysis if the funding from some business sector reps. goes to promote 
>the Budapest Convention only, but not necessarily to the HR aspects.

I presume you mean "outside Europe", because the Data Protection regime 
there (which is also very reflective of the OECD's work) is very well 
deployed.

>We should also not forget that the group who drafted the Budapest 
>Convention met in secret for several years before the first draft was 
>released!

When that was going on, I was one of the "outsiders", wondering why they 
were doing this in apparent secrecy, and also concerned to influence 
some of it. It's one of the reasons why I redoubled my efforts to 
improve my "radar" and get involved in such things from an earlier 
stage. Of course, ten years is a lifetime on the Internet.

>And Parminder is right, this is also an European Institution that deals 
>with Treaties that might affect other countries.

It's an institution with its Headquarters in Europe, but its reach is 
further. As ever, participation is the key thing. At the last conference 
I went to, there was a sizeable contingent from Africa.

>However, taking into account the discussions on this area at some 
>national,  regional and international, and the erosion of the right to 
>privacy, another treaty might be even worst than this.

Do you mean a revised version might be worse for citizens? A good reason 
to get involved if a redrafting exercise does happen.

>By now, we need to fight the implementation of the Budapest Convention 
>at the national levels, and pressure the Council of Europe to adopt 
>recommendations that strengthens digital due process concerns and 
>citizens rights.

I can't agree that the Budapest Convention is worse than lawlessness. 
But each country can, of course, make its own decisions about what laws 
they want to have internally. That's more than we Europeans can - once 
it's been through Brussels, we have to accept it!

>Note apart:
>There is also opportunity for civil society to participate as an 
>observer status within the Council, EDRI and others participate as part 
>of the Media Division discussions. I haven't heard anything beside the 
>Octopus meeting on the cybercrime front. I have not done an analysis of 
>the budget / funding to see where the business sector funds goes, and 
>if its has an impact on the promotion of the Budapest Convention, and 
>no funding to promote and to respect of citizen's fundamental rights 
>and due process concerns.

I don't claim to understand in detail where their funding comes from, or 
how they apportion it to different projects. But I do know they are more 
worried about citizens' rights than you appear to think.
-- 
Roland Perry
http://www.internetpolicyagency.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 katitza at eff.org  Sun Nov 14 12:57:42 2010
From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez)
Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2010 09:57:42 -0800
Subject: [governance] FOURTH DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <25jWqZ2GaB4MFAuU@internetpolicyagency.com>
References: <296C93D0-7172-4DC7-8185-1DEAAA564B4D@ciroap.org> <AANLkTik_4-oazn0ng91AGkWvoGNk1xXkKJPkpcOP2wYV@mail.gmail.com> <4CDB0DC0.9080204@eff.org> <G3n6p8hpT63MFAAS@internetpolicyagency.com> <4CE003D4.1030409@eff.org> <25jWqZ2GaB4MFAuU@internetpolicyagency.com>
Message-ID: <4CE02316.5060209@eff.org>

hi

Here a quick reply since I have to start cooking in a few minutes!...

>> There is a need to strengten digital due process of law within the 
>> cybercrime discussions. I would like to see a this kind of strategy 
>> coming from the division who works on that area, and who are actually 
>> working in the implementation of the Convention, at the national 
>> level. It is finally what it is implemented at the national level, 
>> what matters.
>
> I see the Budapest Convention as an expression of a basic level of law 
> which should be implemented, nationally in each country for sure, but 
> mindful that many of the enforcement problems are a result of the 
> cross-border nature of the Internet.

Sounds in theory, reasonable. But: How you fix the dual criminality 
problem? "The Convention requires that the government help enforce other 
countries' "cybercrime" laws -- even if the act being prosecuted is NOT 
illegal in country A. Countries that have laws limiting freedom of 
expression on the Net could oblige the FBI to uncover the identities of 
anonymous U.S. critics or monitor their communications on behalf of 
foreign governments. An ISPs can be obliged to obey other jurisdictions' 
requests to log their users' behavior without due process or 
compensation." 
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2006/08/worlds-worst-internet-laws-sneaking-through-senate


 >We should also not forget that the group who drafted the Budapest 
Convention met in secret for several years before the first draft was 
released!

> When that was going on, I was one of the "outsiders", wondering why 
> they were doing this in apparent secrecy, and also concerned to 
> influence some of it. It's one of the reasons why I redoubled my 
> efforts to improve my "radar" and get involved in such things from an 
> earlier stage. Of course, ten years is a lifetime on the Internet.
>
>> And Parminder is right, this is also an European Institution that 
>> deals with Treaties that might affect other countries.
>
> It's an institution with its Headquarters in Europe, but its reach is 
> further. As ever, participation is the key thing. At the last 
> conference I went to, there was a sizeable contingent from Africa.
Convention 108 was open for signatures for third parties, though I guess 
countries were not able to negotiate the text of the convention? I am 
not familiar with that part of the discussion. See my previous email.
>
>> However, taking into account the discussions on this area at some 
>> national,  regional and international, and the erosion of the right 
>> to privacy, another treaty might be even worst than this.
>
> Do you mean a revised version might be worse for citizens? A good 
> reason to get involved if a redrafting exercise does happen.
I did not say a "revised version". I did not know CoE are planning to 
review/revise Budapest Convention? or, Are they?

Many things have changes since the Budapest Convention, and for 
instance, we have some worst provisions since the EU Data Retention 
Directive

>> By now, we need to fight the implementation of the Budapest 
>> Convention at the national levels, and pressure the Council of Europe 
>> to adopt recommendations that strengthens digital due process 
>> concerns and citizens rights.
>
> I can't agree that the Budapest Convention is worse than lawlessness. 
> But each country can, of course, make its own decisions about what 
> laws they want to have internally. That's more than we Europeans can - 
> once it's been through Brussels, we have to accept it!

I did not say lawlessness. This is something you said it. I said I will 
fight. They can always pass a law that does not have some terrible 
provisions. This is something will happen at the national level. It is 
also true that the text is general and vague that may allow different 
interpretations! We also need to see if the States will be passing the 
other legal frameworks that are needed before implementing the 
Directive.  So whatever happens, we will need to assess the strategy at 
the local level and decide the best strategy to pursue.
>
>> Note apart:
>> There is also opportunity for civil society to participate as an 
>> observer status within the Council, EDRI and others participate as 
>> part of the Media Division discussions. I haven't heard anything 
>> beside the Octopus meeting on the cybercrime front. I have not done 
>> an analysis of the budget / funding to see where the business sector 
>> funds goes, and if its has an impact on the promotion of the Budapest 
>> Convention, and no funding to promote and to respect of citizen's 
>> fundamental rights and due process concerns.
>
> I don't claim to understand in detail where their funding comes from, 
> or how they apportion it to different projects. But I do know they are 
> more worried about citizens' rights than you appear to think.
Depends of the Division and area. Some of them are very pro-human rights 
(and might be even reading this list). Some others might have the 
intention but I have not see the political will to promote those strong 
legal safeguards at the implementation level (not a the norm-setting 
level).

K

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

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  Sun Nov 14 13:23:28 2010
From: george.sadowsky at attglobal.net (George Sadowsky)
Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2010 13:23:28 -0500
Subject: [governance] CSTD questionnaire
In-Reply-To:  <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC108D9FF@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
References:  <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC108D9FF@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <p0620071ac905d7c31699@[192.168.1.78]>

Right, we certainly would not want people to learn more about aspects 
of the subject under consideration, would we?  We should also ban 
workshops that have any discussion of public policy and governance 
principles, since they are irrelevant also.


At 10:34 AM -0500 11/13/10, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>Content-Language: en-US
>Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
> 
>	boundary="_000_75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC108D9FFSUEX07MBX04ad_"
>
>FYI, here is my response to Question #3 on the CSTD questionnaire:

<<snip>>

>d)      IGF workshops and discussions must focus exclusively on 
>public policy issues and debates, and not be an educational forum 
>where the technical community explains how to implement internet 
>technologies or projects the future of internet technologies. There 
>are many industry and academic conferences that do a much better job 
>of that.
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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 Nov 14 14:25:52 2010
From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M)
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2010 00:55:52 +0530
Subject: [governance] CSTD questionnaire
In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC108D9FF@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC108D9FF@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <AANLkTinXcQvxGXNWW7GZf+X8tB66jNpbTNGHg1c39tXw@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Milton Mueller,

On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 9:04 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:

> FYI, here is my response to Question #3 on the CSTD questionnaire:
>
>
>
> 3.       Which, if any, new mechanisms would you propose to improve the
> impact of the IGF discussions, in particular as regards the interaction
> between the IGF and other stakeholders? Please specify the kind of mechanism
> (e.g. reporting, exchanges, recommendations, concrete advice, etc.)  and the
> stakeholders (e.g. intergovernmental bodies, other fora dealing with
> Internet Governance, etc.).
>
>
>
> a)      IGF should be able to make recommendations. Of course they will be
> nonbinding, but unless IGF serves as a focal point for developing common
> positions it will become irrelevant.
>

It would sound positive if this is reworded as "IGF should progress towards
becoming a focal point of developing common positions and make informed,
well considered recommendations [to Governments, inter-governmental bodies,
to non-commercial and commercial organizations directly involved in the
operation of Internet]


> b)      It should take on a bigger role in providing an accountability
> review of ICANN and other international organizations involved in internet
> governance
>

Interesting thought. It is really not a bad idea to take up this role, but
if this role is taken up, the IGF shouldn't review only those organizations
that are open to public comments and conveniently exclude those that are
closed bodies.


   - How would the IGF review closed organizations with aspirations to get
   disproportionately involved in Internet Governance?


   - How would it review Government Departments and Governments involved in
   Internet Governance, the same way organizations involved in Internet
   Governance are reviewed by the IGF?


Comment on those who are open to comments and ignore all the harm by who may
ignore comments?


> c)       Its Secretariat and MAG should be strongly encouraged to directly
> foster discussion and debate of difficult issues in main sessions, instead
> of avoiding them.
>

+1. Main session programs are drawn up by the MAG. If the ideas for main
sessions, as they progress, are placed open for comments by the larger IGF
community, main sessions could be designed better.



> d)      IGF workshops and discussions must focus exclusively on public
> policy issues and debates, and not be an educational forum where the
> technical community explains how to implement internet technologies or
> projects the future of internet technologies. There are many industry and
> academic conferences that do a much better job of that.
>

I like George Sadowsky's comments on this point.

Sivasubramanian M

http://www.isocmadras.com
facebook: http://is.gd/x8Sh
LinkedIn: http://is.gd/x8U6
Twitter: http://is.gd/x8Vz



>
>
>
>
>
> Milton Mueller
> Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies
> XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology
> ------------------------------
> Internet Governance Project:
> http://internetgovernance.org
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101115/882a891b/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From dogwallah at gmail.com  Sun Nov 14 14:28:19 2010
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2010 14:28:19 -0500
Subject: [governance] DRAFT IGC Response to Questionnaire on improvements
In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC108D9FE@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
References: <AANLkTi=Q=NY8qw+Ndk+zMLL=AdnDCaxKQYY=EDw152jv@mail.gmail.com>
 <AANLkTinn2Y7Z3w1S6upV4AdAFzZm05x_o8ELUzXcEgHC@mail.gmail.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC108D9FE@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=KdjCrZtyh_J_QzxrcO6U7eedo3yKLEk-SVsui@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 10:27 AM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> I would strike "Yet we still have not seen real tangible outcome
>> directly out of IGF process."
>>
>> As there are not supposed to be real tangible outcomes, are there??
>
> This is completely wrong, imho.
>
> A lack of binding authority does _not_ mean no tangible outcomes

Perhaps my definition of tangible was too restrictive.

 - if it does, then that will be used by those who favor centralized
hierarchical governance to prove that IGF doesn't work.
>
> If we can't show, or don't believe, that IGF has any influence then we are wasting our time there.

capacity building is rarely time wasted.

-- 
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 dogwallah at gmail.com  Sun Nov 14 14:56:08 2010
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2010 14:56:08 -0500
Subject: [governance] CSTD questionnaire
In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC108D9FF@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC108D9FF@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <AANLkTimR_zowmMwB-eos_3s_rYC=D46emcaM12MO-jB_@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Milton,

On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 10:34 AM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
> FYI, here is my response to Question #3 on the CSTD questionnaire:
>
>
>
> 3.       Which, if any, new mechanisms would you propose to improve the
> impact of the IGF discussions, in particular as regards the interaction
> between the IGF and other stakeholders? Please specify the kind of mechanism
> (e.g. reporting, exchanges, recommendations, concrete advice, etc.)  and the
> stakeholders (e.g. intergovernmental bodies, other fora dealing with
> Internet Governance, etc.).
>
>
>
> a)      IGF should be able to make recommendations. Of course they will be
> nonbinding, but unless IGF serves as a focal point for developing common
> positions it will become irrelevant.
>
> b)      It should take on a bigger role in providing an accountability
> review of ICANN and other international organizations involved in internet
> governance

I would say that it cannot take this role until it is at least as
open, transparent,
etc as the folk the IGF would review.

>
> c)       Its Secretariat and MAG should be strongly encouraged to directly
> foster discussion and debate of difficult issues in main sessions, instead
> of avoiding them.
>
> d)      IGF workshops and discussions must focus exclusively on public
> policy issues and debates, and not be an educational forum where the
> technical community explains how to implement internet technologies

I've never seen any in-depth discussion of HOWTOs at IGF by the Interent
Eco-System folk or anyone else.  If they did, IGF attendees would have a
better grasp of the issues at hand IMO.

 or
> projects the future of internet technologies. There are many industry and
> academic conferences that do a much better job of that.


yes, but the IGF attendees don't typically go to those.  If they did,
they would
have more clue!


-- 
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 jeremy at ciroap.org  Sun Nov 14 19:35:19 2010
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2010 08:35:19 +0800
Subject: [governance] Result of Enhanced Cooperation statement poll
Message-ID: <A5010B12-3300-435D-8F2E-AE20D09B1052@ciroap.org>

The proposed IGC statement on enhanced cooperation received a rough consensus of 43 statements of support in the poll, and two against.  Today is when we have to submit the statement (though at the moment the UNPAN Web site it down).  A list of those who participated in the poll will go up on our Web site under "statements" in the next few days.

The next question is concerning the consultation on enhanced cooperation on 14 December.  Will it go ahead?  Will there be any more scope for civil society participation?  Who will be the representative of civil society who is to summarise our statements?  All these questions are unanswered, but I will try to find out the answers soon.

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

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

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101115/71a07fe2/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101115/71a07fe2/attachment.bin>

From jlfullsack at orange.fr  Mon Nov 15 04:37:23 2010
From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK)
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2010 01:37:23 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [governance] FOURTH DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <25jWqZ2GaB4MFAuU@internetpolicyagency.com>
References: <296C93D0-7172-4DC7-8185-1DEAAA564B4D@ciroap.org>
 <AANLkTik_4-oazn0ng91AGkWvoGNk1xXkKJPkpcOP2wYV@mail.gmail.com>
 <4CDB0DC0.9080204@eff.org> <G3n6p8hpT63MFAAS@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <4CE003D4.1030409@eff.org> <25jWqZ2GaB4MFAuU@internetpolicyagency.com>
Message-ID: <7376939.171677.1289813811395.JavaMail.www@wwinf1f06>

Dear members of the list

Repying to Katitzia

> Besides, I disagree with the emphasis put forward on the need of 
> >collaboration between the law enforcement community and the business 
> >sector.

Roland wrote : 

> That's because the networks are generally operated by the business 
> sector. If they were operated by someone else, those others would be the 
> people that law enforcement would be seeking help from.

I'd like to rectify/complete this statement;
In a ever increasing trend, governements are either monitoring or even rollling-out (new) national broadband networks (e.g. Rwanda but also Italy and a a large number of others). On the other hand sub-national local/regional authorities and constituencies, as well as large cities take or have taken the similar decisons. Unless to say that in most cases these auhorities also finance the "bakckbones" or "metropolitan networks". At last, somme broader intitaives undertaken in the framework of the WSIS follow-up encourage and promote such decisions for offering fast and affordable Internet access on a broad scale.

Therefore, these authorities are also partners to be considered when it comes to IG. 

Best regards

Jean-Louis Fullsack
CSDPTT  
  



> Message du 14/11/10 18:10
> De : "Roland Perry" 
> A : governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Copie à : 
> Objet : Re: [governance] FOURTH DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
> 
> In message <4CE003D4.1030409 at eff.org>, at 07:44:20 on Sun, 14 Nov 2010, 
> Katitza Rodriguez writes
> >Hi Roland,
> >
> >Sorry for not replied to your earlier email. I am happy to talk about 
> >Re: OECD with you.
> 
> Let's do that. What you talk about below is CoE, however.
> 
> >On 11/14/10 12:59 AM, Roland Perry wrote:
> >> In message <4CDB0DC0.9080204 at eff.org>, at 13:25:20 on Wed, 10 Nov 
> >>2010, Katitza Rodriguez writes
> >>> For example, it is dangerous to see the Budapest Convention exported 
> >>>to other countries, as it has serious implications for citizen's 
> >>>fundamental rights.
> >>
> >> Citizens also need the right not online safety.
> >
> >I do not understand the comment. Can you clarify, please?
> 
> Sorry, my fingers stumbled on the keyboard. I meant to say:
> 
> "Citizens also need the right *to* online safety."
> 
> Which means that we have to find a way to protect our online environment 
> from criminals - but without those measure themselves being an 
> imposition upon the freedoms of the public.
> 
> >>> Despite the serious concerns that the Budapest Convention / Council 
> >>>of Europe itself contain, the harm to third countries outside Europe, 
> >>>for instance, Latin America is dangerous. While the EU for instance 
> >>>has the Ecommerce Directive, The Data Protection Directive, the 
> >>>E-Privacy Directive, Charter of Fundamental Rights, and other check 
> >>>and balance in place etc, many countries lack of these regulatory frameworks
> >>
> >> It's my understanding that the Council of Europe (which is a human 
> >>rights organisation, not a policing one) will only allow countries to 
> >>sign up to the Budapest Convention, if they also agree to implement 
> >>sufficient human rights safeguards as well.
> >
> >We need to see that in practice, Roland. The Council of Europe is a 
> >democratic institution, and its principles are based in the respect of 
> >the European Convention on Human Rights - which is a good HR text. They 
> >promote democratic principles, human rights, and the rule of law, they 
> >have different check and balances in place within the organization 
> >including the European Court of Human Rights. Unfortunately, nothing is 
> >perfect, and the Budapest Convention is definitely not one of its 
> >brilliant outcomes. The text is so ambiguous that allows several 
> >implementations. This should not be allowed when you are dealing with a 
> >text that restrict citizens fundamentals rights. It is true that they 
> >have agreed to implement sufficient human rights safeguards in "text", 
> >but I am not sure if this will happen in "practice". We are observing.
> 
> It's good that the outcomes are being observed, and criticised, that way 
> we can make things better in the future.
> 
> > Besides, I disagree with the emphasis put forward on the need of 
> >collaboration between the law enforcement community and the business 
> >sector.
> 
> That's because the networks are generally operated by the business 
> sector. If they were operated by someone else, those others would be the 
> people that law enforcement would be seeking help from.
> 
> >There is a need to strengten digital due process of law within the 
> >cybercrime discussions. I would like to see a this kind of strategy 
> >coming from the division who works on that area, and who are actually 
> >working in the implementation of the Convention, at the national level. 
> >It is finally what it is implemented at the national level, what matters.
> 
> I see the Budapest Convention as an expression of a basic level of law 
> which should be implemented, nationally in each country for sure, but 
> mindful that many of the enforcement problems are a result of the 
> cross-border nature of the Internet.
> 
> >In addition, while there is an acknowledgment of the importance of 
> >Convention 108,
> 
> (That's about Protection of Personal Data, for those not familiar with 
> the document)
> 
> >I haven't see a truly effort to promote that Convention at the national 
> >level. There might be a budget problem, too. We might need to see 
> >analysis if the funding from some business sector reps. goes to promote 
> >the Budapest Convention only, but not necessarily to the HR aspects.
> 
> I presume you mean "outside Europe", because the Data Protection regime 
> there (which is also very reflective of the OECD's work) is very well 
> deployed.
> 
> >We should also not forget that the group who drafted the Budapest 
> >Convention met in secret for several years before the first draft was 
> >released!
> 
> When that was going on, I was one of the "outsiders", wondering why they 
> were doing this in apparent secrecy, and also concerned to influence 
> some of it. It's one of the reasons why I redoubled my efforts to 
> improve my "radar" and get involved in such things from an earlier 
> stage. Of course, ten years is a lifetime on the Internet.
> 
> >And Parminder is right, this is also an European Institution that deals 
> >with Treaties that might affect other countries.
> 
> It's an institution with its Headquarters in Europe, but its reach is 
> further. As ever, participation is the key thing. At the last conference 
> I went to, there was a sizeable contingent from Africa.
> 
> >However, taking into account the discussions on this area at some 
> >national, regional and international, and the erosion of the right to 
> >privacy, another treaty might be even worst than this.
> 
> Do you mean a revised version might be worse for citizens? A good reason 
> to get involved if a redrafting exercise does happen.
> 
> >By now, we need to fight the implementation of the Budapest Convention 
> >at the national levels, and pressure the Council of Europe to adopt 
> >recommendations that strengthens digital due process concerns and 
> >citizens rights.
> 
> I can't agree that the Budapest Convention is worse than lawlessness. 
> But each country can, of course, make its own decisions about what laws 
> they want to have internally. That's more than we Europeans can - once 
> it's been through Brussels, we have to accept it!
> 
> >Note apart:
> >There is also opportunity for civil society to participate as an 
> >observer status within the Council, EDRI and others participate as part 
> >of the Media Division discussions. I haven't heard anything beside the 
> >Octopus meeting on the cybercrime front. I have not done an analysis of 
> >the budget / funding to see where the business sector funds goes, and 
> >if its has an impact on the promotion of the Budapest Convention, and 
> >no funding to promote and to respect of citizen's fundamental rights 
> >and due process concerns.
> 
> I don't claim to understand in detail where their funding comes from, or 
> how they apportion it to different projects. But I do know they are more 
> worried about citizens' rights than you appear to think.
> -- 
> Roland Perry
> http://www.internetpolicyagency.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
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101115/2bf7f7ea/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From williams.deirdre at gmail.com  Mon Nov 15 07:02:23 2010
From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams)
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2010 08:02:23 -0400
Subject: [governance] DRAFT IGC Response to Questionnaire on improvements
In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC108DA00@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
References: <AANLkTi=Q=NY8qw+Ndk+zMLL=AdnDCaxKQYY=EDw152jv@mail.gmail.com>
 <AANLkTinn2Y7Z3w1S6upV4AdAFzZm05x_o8ELUzXcEgHC@mail.gmail.com>
 <4CDE85A9.1070009@gmail.com> <AANLkTimgHTHKkWkz9V2zHJsDnN_ya0u83wKroiEOjVjx@mail.gmail.com>
 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC108DA00@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <AANLkTimBgqvLmL-0cLFof_jFxdgXgK3Jso54f=N5mrmh@mail.gmail.com>

I think it all depends on what you are trying to accomplish. From my
perspective - I'm not sure how devilish - the whole process is about
encouraging people to think about different things and possibly in different
ways. To make different connections (of ideas and also with people) than the
ones they were making before.
So I would argue that the IGF has accomplished, and that the national and
regional IGFs are evidence of that accomplishment. If it had accomplished
nothing then there would be no regional and national imitators.
I would also suggest that the regional and national IGFs often create
different combinations of people than are present in the "existing national
institutions", and that in itself is an achievement.
The "devil's advocate" argument seems to lead inexorably to "let's not
bother at all" which is, I suppose, another way of looking at things.
Deirdre

On 13 November 2010 11:36, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:

> Dierdre,
>
> Let’s play devil’s advocate: Why are regional and national IGFs a “huge
> outcome?”
>
> If a global IGF doesn’t accomplish anything, multiplication of the model at
> lower levels doesn’t accomplish anything, either, right?
>
> In particular, what do national IGF’s accomplish that are not possible
> within the framework of existing national institutions?
>
>
>
> *From:* Deirdre Williams [mailto:williams.deirdre at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Saturday, November 13, 2010 8:22 AM
> *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ginger Paque
> *Cc:* McTim; Izumi AIZU; cstd at igf-online.net
> *Subject:* Re: [governance] DRAFT IGC Response to Questionnaire on
> improvements
>
>
>
> I have a problem anyway about "tangible outcomes" - I can feel Rui
> breathing down my neck :-)
>
> I feel that the proliferation of national and regional IGFs is a HUGE
> outcome which can certainly be demonstrated and documented if not actually
> touched.
>
> Also, as Ginger suggests, remote participation and the access it affords to
> the previously excluded.
>
> Galvanising a huge chunk of the whole world into some type of action -
> holding national and regional meetings - in just 5 years, is something like
> finding Archimedes lever, and I think we should look at it like that.
>
>
>
> Under #2 I wonder whether it would be possible to produce brief summary
> reports, in layman's language, WITHOUT ANY ACRONYMS, for dissemination to
> those who are currently "outsiders".
>
> Also I wish we could think of a "sexy" approach to involve the print and
> broadcast media in spreading the word. A comic strip? A soap opera?
>
>
>
> #3 I am from a developing country. Recently an NGO here had a problem for
> which it hired consultants. It then transpired that the same problem had
> been addressed by consultants 10 years ago, and the report, the
> recommendations, had sat on the shelf, unused, essentially "lost", for 10
> years. Recommendations may be tangible but they are frequently seen as an
> end in themselves rather than being a plan for a "way forward". I am rather
> "anti" about recommendations, unless they are accompanied by some type of
> actual "implementation".
>
>
>
> #4 para 2 there is an important "not" missing I think -  "have NOT yet
> gained sufficient level of work at IGF"
>
>
>
> I like #6b and I LOVE #6e :-)
>
>
>
> Thank you for making the draft
>
>
>
> Deirdre
>
> On 13 November 2010 08:33, Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I agree with McTim strongly on this...
> There is no reason to emphasize a 'negative' position on achieving the
> assigned outcome.
>
> In fact, I think it makes more sense to note that there have been many have
> been tangible and intangible positive outcomes directly/indirectly from the
> IGF process, beyond awareness-raising and bringing IG issues to regional IGF
> meetings--what about the emergence and development of the multistakeholder
> model? How about the advances in remote participation, permitting greater
> inclusion in global policy processes? What about the diffusion and
> replication of best practices?
>
> The question doesn't ask about our frustration, it asks what we consider
> the most important achievement. If we must point out the frustration, should
> it not at least be balanced by appreciation for \ the positive effects? At
> least we should answer the question!
>
> Thanks for doing this work. Much appreciated. I am in the middle of a
> workshop in Tobago, and have not reviewed carefully. I think others should
> voice their positions as well.
>
> *
> Ginger (Virginia) Paque
> *IGCBP Online Coordinator
> DiploFoundation
> www.diplomacy.edu/ig
>
> *The latest from Diplo...*
> http://igbook.diplomacy.edu is the online companion to *An Introduction to
> Internet Governance, *Diplo's publication on IG. Download the book, read
> the blogs and post your comments.
>
>
> On 11/12/2010 10:58 PM, McTim wrote:
>
> Pretty good reply overall.
>
>
>
> I would strike "Yet we still have not seen real tangible outcome
>
> directly out of IGF process."
>
>
>
> As there are not supposed to be real tangible outcomes, are there??
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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
>



-- 
“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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101115/6a580d34/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From roland at internetpolicyagency.com  Mon Nov 15 09:34:10 2010
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2010 14:34:10 +0000
Subject: [governance] FOURTH DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <4CE02316.5060209@eff.org>
References: <296C93D0-7172-4DC7-8185-1DEAAA564B4D@ciroap.org>
 <AANLkTik_4-oazn0ng91AGkWvoGNk1xXkKJPkpcOP2wYV@mail.gmail.com>
 <4CDB0DC0.9080204@eff.org> <G3n6p8hpT63MFAAS@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <4CE003D4.1030409@eff.org> <25jWqZ2GaB4MFAuU@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <4CE02316.5060209@eff.org>
Message-ID: <Vpae+zgiTU4MFAa1@internetpolicyagency.com>

In message <4CE02316.5060209 at eff.org>, at 09:57:42 on Sun, 14 Nov 2010, 
Katitza Rodriguez <katitza at eff.org> writes

>>> There is a need to strengten digital due process of law within the 
>>>cybercrime discussions. I would like to see a this kind of strategy 
>>>coming from the division who works on that area, and who are actually 
>>>working in the implementation of the Convention, at the national 
>>>level. It is finally what it is implemented at the national level, what matters.
>>
>> I see the Budapest Convention as an expression of a basic level of 
>>law  which should be implemented, nationally in each country for sure, 
>>but  mindful that many of the enforcement problems are a result of the 
>>cross-border nature of the Internet.
>
>Sounds in theory, reasonable. But: How you fix the dual criminality 
>problem? "The Convention requires that the government help enforce 
>other countries' "cybercrime" laws -- even if the act being prosecuted 
>is NOT illegal in country A. Countries that have laws limiting freedom 
>of expression on the Net could oblige the FBI to uncover the identities 
>of anonymous U.S. critics or monitor their communications on behalf of 
>foreign governments. An ISPs can be obliged to obey other 
>jurisdictions' requests to log their users' behavior without due 
>process or compensation." 
>https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2006/08/worlds-worst-internet-laws-sneakin
>g-through-senate

The point of the Treaty is to ensure that the same basket of "computer 
crimes" are criminal in both jurisdictions. It also allows a refusal of 
assistance for a "political offence" or one where there isn't dual 
criminality - Article 29(4) & 29(5).

>>> And Parminder is right, this is also an European Institution that 
>>>deals with Treaties that might affect other countries.
>>
>> It's an institution with its Headquarters in Europe, but its reach is 
>>further. As ever, participation is the key thing. At the last 
>>conference I went to, there was a sizeable contingent from Africa.
 >
>Convention 108 was open for signatures for third parties, though I 
>guess countries were not able to negotiate the text of the convention? 
>I am not familiar with that part of the discussion. See my previous 
>email.

It's true that people signing up later would not have had much input to 
the text, but the changes might be to weaken it - and presumably we are 
mainly aiming for a consistent and reasonably strong law everywhere?

>>> However, taking into account the discussions on this area at some 
>>>national,  regional and international, and the erosion of the right 
>>>to privacy, another treaty might be even worst than this.
>>
>> Do you mean a revised version might be worse for citizens? A good 
>>reason to get involved if a redrafting exercise does happen.
>I did not say a "revised version". I did not know CoE are planning to 
>review/revise Budapest Convention? or, Are they?

I was responding to your words "another treaty". As I appear to have 
wrongly interpreted that as an indication that you knew of revisions to 
the Budapest Treaty, which "another" treaty did you have in mind?

>Many things have changes since the Budapest Convention, and for 
>instance, we have some worst provisions since the EU Data Retention 
>Directive

That Directive is in effect a "blanket retention" scheme, and as such is 
a superset of the Data Preservation measures in the Budapest Treaty. As 
ever, it's the parameters of the disclosure of data (both safeguards and 
the willingness to spend the money on forensic analysis) which are more 
important than the retention.

>> I can't agree that the Budapest Convention is worse than lawlessness. 
>>But each country can, of course, make its own decisions about what 
>>laws they want to have internally. That's more than we Europeans can - 
>>once it's been through Brussels, we have to accept it!
>
>I did not say lawlessness. This is something you said it.

In the absence of the provisions contained in the Convention, we have 
lawlessness.

>I said I will fight.

Which I interpreted as "stop it from happening".

>They can always pass a law that does not have some terrible provisions.

A Budapest-lite? Yes, having laws with slightly less "bite" can be 
achieved, but the benefit of the Convention is that it's the same 
everywhere (as a minimum amount of implemented law, anyway) so it's 
easier to do cross-border policing.

>> I don't claim to understand in detail where their funding comes from, 
>>or how they apportion it to different projects. But I do know they are 
>>more worried about citizens' rights than you appear to think.
>Depends of the Division and area. Some of them are very pro-human 
>rights (and might be even reading this list). Some others might have 
>the intention but I have not see the political will to promote those 
>strong legal safeguards at the implementation level (not a the 
>norm-setting level).

I would expect that before a new country is allowed to sign up, that 
someone is checking that all the safeguards in the Convention have in 
fact been implemented in local law.
-- 
Roland Perry
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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


From roland at internetpolicyagency.com  Mon Nov 15 10:49:38 2010
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2010 15:49:38 +0000
Subject: [governance] FOURTH DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <7376939.171677.1289813811395.JavaMail.www@wwinf1f06>
References: <296C93D0-7172-4DC7-8185-1DEAAA564B4D@ciroap.org>
 <AANLkTik_4-oazn0ng91AGkWvoGNk1xXkKJPkpcOP2wYV@mail.gmail.com>
 <4CDB0DC0.9080204@eff.org> <G3n6p8hpT63MFAAS@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <4CE003D4.1030409@eff.org> <25jWqZ2GaB4MFAuU@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <7376939.171677.1289813811395.JavaMail.www@wwinf1f06>
Message-ID: <Hp2a+clSaV4MFAp3@internetpolicyagency.com>

In message <7376939.171677.1289813811395.JavaMail.www at wwinf1f06>, at 
01:37:27 on Mon, 15 Nov 2010, Jean-Louis FULLSACK <jlfullsack at orange.fr> 
writes
>In a ever increasing trend, governements are either monitoring or even 
>rollling-out (new) national broadband networks (e.g. Rwanda but also 
>Italy and a a large number of others). On the other hand sub-national 
>local/regional authorities and constituencies, as well as large cities 
>take or have taken the similar decisons. Unless to say that in most 
>cases these auhorities also finance the "bakckbones" or "metropolitan 
>networks".

Here in the UK there are some regional Broadband initiatives, but they 
put the implementation out to tender from the 'usual suspects' in the 
private sector.

If you wanted any technical information from those networks, you'd have 
to approach the wholesale ISPs, I reckon. But if Government is also the 
network operator, then yes you'd want to talk to them as well.
-- 
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 parminder at itforchange.net  Tue Nov 16 04:32:21 2010
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder at itforchange.net)
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 15:02:21 +0530 (IST)
Subject: [governance] IT for Change's input for the consultations on
 enhanced     cooperation
Message-ID: <218240ff6e560a09fb5712f4ef8b1f3f.squirrel@www.itforchange.net>



Pl see as enclosed IT for Change's input for the consultations on enhanced
cooperation . Thanks. 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: EC statement - IT for Change- 151110.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 175534 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101116/62520da3/attachment.pdf>

From dogwallah at gmail.com  Tue Nov 16 04:40:55 2010
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 12:40:55 +0300
Subject: [governance] Internet Society input for the consultations on
 enhanced cooperation
Message-ID: <AANLkTikw58A6r8tXO_vfu=kX2QgZTpSBBQNmXoB0bUVU@mail.gmail.com>

http://www.isoc.org/isoc/conferences/wsis/docs/UNDESA_20101115.pdf

-- 
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 rafik.dammak at gmail.com  Tue Nov 16 05:10:41 2010
From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 19:10:41 +0900
Subject: [governance] Remind to join Strategy WG
Message-ID: <AANLkTinTOEHDgYxbRWHGmO1x+WUo53q741xYY5b2eXjN@mail.gmail.com>

Hello everyone,

I am sending this email as remind that we have mailing list for strategy
area and all volunteers can join it http://igf-online.net/wws/info/strategy
Then we can start real and we will for sure report updates to main IGC
mailing list. Thanks to Imran as he already sent some contributions.

Regards

Rafik

PS Aid Mubarek to my muslim friends and member of IGC


>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101116/37aa5905/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From ias_pk at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 16 05:51:31 2010
From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah)
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 02:51:31 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [governance] Remind to join Strategy WG
Message-ID: <479259.12770.qm@web33007.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Thanks Rafik,
And whish you very Happy Eid Mubarik.
I was really worried about this initiative with silence in response.
Regards
Imran Ahmed Shah

On Tue, 16 Nov 2010 15:10 PKT Rafik Dammak wrote:

>Hello everyone,
>
>I am sending this email as remind that we have mailing list for strategy
>area and all volunteers can join it http://igf-online.net/wws/info/strategy
>Then we can start real and we will for sure report updates to main IGC
>mailing list. Thanks to Imran as he already sent some contributions.
>
>Regards
>
>Rafik
>
>PS Aid Mubarek to my muslim friends and member of IGC
>
>
>>

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

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

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

From b.schombe at gmail.com  Tue Nov 16 07:59:39 2010
From: b.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin SCHOMBE)
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 13:59:39 +0100
Subject: [governance] Remind to join Strategy WG
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinTOEHDgYxbRWHGmO1x+WUo53q741xYY5b2eXjN@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTinTOEHDgYxbRWHGmO1x+WUo53q741xYY5b2eXjN@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTimH0TA92GYOg8XBbc1gOuTu9jjQ-ZvC+mzGT3QN@mail.gmail.com>

noted


SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN
*COORDONNATEUR DU CENTRE AFRICAIN D'ECHANGE CULTUREL (CAFEC)
 ACADEMIE DES TIC
*COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC
*MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE
*NCUC/GNSO MEMBER (ICANN)

Téléphone mobile: +243998983491/+243811980914
email:                   b.schombe at gmail.com
blog:                     http://akimambo.unblog.fr



2010/11/16 Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>

> Hello everyone,
>
> I am sending this email as remind that we have mailing list for strategy
> area and all volunteers can join it
> http://igf-online.net/wws/info/strategy
> Then we can start real and we will for sure report updates to main IGC
> mailing list. Thanks to Imran as he already sent some contributions.
>
> Regards
>
> Rafik
>
> PS Aid Mubarek to my muslim friends and member of IGC
>
>
>>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101116/61f9ddb2/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From isolatedn at gmail.com  Tue Nov 16 11:40:45 2010
From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M)
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 22:10:45 +0530
Subject: [governance] EU's Policy framework for Internet on the Telecom /
 Cable TV model
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTin1OjzvMPz-+maWT6vXeNAdVk5reppeVGYYetcq@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTin1OjzvMPz-+maWT6vXeNAdVk5reppeVGYYetcq@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=XucPULLjuT3ESAsT_RdDH-UmfAxf0N_9unG8o@mail.gmail.com>

Hello

 *Neelie Kroes, *the commissioner for the E.U.’s digital agenda, said in a
> speech in Brussels that European nations *will not *introduce *net
> neutrality* rules to prevent Internet network companies from blocking or
> prioritizing certain content because of healthy competition. EU would
> instead rely on guidelines that would stop anticompetitive behavior by
> telecom and cable firms and protect consumers.


http://voices.washingtonpost.com/posttech/2010/11/eu_wont_adopt_net_neutrality_l.html?wpisrc=nl_techE.U


Sivasubramanian M

http://www.isocmadras.com
facebook: http://is.gd/x8Sh
LinkedIn: http://is.gd/x8U6
Twitter: http://is.gd/x8Vz
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101116/519c7aad/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com  Tue Nov 16 17:27:33 2010
From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro)
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 10:27:33 +1200
Subject: [governance] IT for Change's input for the consultations on
In-Reply-To: <218240ff6e560a09fb5712f4ef8b1f3f.squirrel@www.itforchange.net>
References: <218240ff6e560a09fb5712f4ef8b1f3f.squirrel@www.itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=CoiM7O2qA0-hXNntP4uyVZiPPAfkwyMs6n47A@mail.gmail.com>

This is awesome! Thanks Parminder.

On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 9:32 PM, <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

>
>
> Pl see as enclosed IT for Change's input for the consultations on enhanced
> cooperation . Thanks.
> 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




-- 
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."
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101117/05fcb634/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From jeremy at ciroap.org  Tue Nov 16 20:37:44 2010
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 09:37:44 +0800
Subject: [governance] Reply to our criticism of Enhanced Cooperation
 consultation format
References: <OFA1AE4B04.7D221F0F-ON852577DE.00058C1B-852577DE.00060716@un.org>
Message-ID: <1C78A048-E18D-469B-9B9F-AE240D83EDDD@ciroap.org>

This letter just in.  It seems that the Enhanced Cooperation consultations on 14 December will now be open to other stakeholders to speak if time is available, and that they can register at http://www.unpan.org/dpadm/wsisfollowup.  This is still not what we wanted, but is a marginal improvement.  I have replied seeking details of the contact from CONGO who will be speaking on our behalf.
-- 
Jeremy Malcolm
Project Coordinator
Consumers International
Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East
Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Tel: +60 3 7726 1599

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

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101117/23c3368a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: DESA 10-3438.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 300976 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101117/23c3368a/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101117/23c3368a/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101117/23c3368a/attachment.bin>

From aizu at anr.org  Tue Nov 16 21:14:56 2010
From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 11:14:56 +0900
Subject: [governance] Reply to our criticism of Enhanced Cooperation
In-Reply-To: <1C78A048-E18D-469B-9B9F-AE240D83EDDD@ciroap.org>
References: <OFA1AE4B04.7D221F0F-ON852577DE.00058C1B-852577DE.00060716@un.org> <1C78A048-E18D-469B-9B9F-AE240D83EDDD@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <AANLkTimtbL4RV_K5s30MN+9tVg1E6KZtUkduxqHZGBfX@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all,

I agree with Jeremy' assessment, it is not what we wanted, but
may accept with additional request/guarantee:

I mean we like to ask CONGO  to work with us (and other members
of Civil society, of course) for the statement to deliver,
and also ask CSTD/Chair to insure sufficient amount of time for
all who wish to speak, not "if time is available" and have no time management.

Flying into New York and attend one-day only meeting
and have no opportunity to speak at all is not quite reasonable.

izumi


2010/11/17 Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org>:
> This letter just in.  It seems that the Enhanced Cooperation consultations
> on 14 December will now be open to other stakeholders to speak if time is
> available, and that they can register at
> http://www.unpan.org/dpadm/wsisfollowup.  This is still not what we wanted,
> but is a marginal improvement.  I have replied seeking details of the
> contact from CONGO who will be speaking on our behalf.
>
> --
>
> 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
>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From iza at anr.org  Wed Nov 17 03:40:30 2010
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 17:40:30 +0900
Subject: [governance] 2nd DRAFT for CSTD IGF Questionnaire
Message-ID: <AANLkTin-iRXRogusxmpQW0vcvE2YEVSaBL__c7LgT82n@mail.gmail.com>

Dear list,

Here follows and attached are the 2nd version of our draft answer to CSTD
IGF questionnaire.
Since the discussion only touched on Q1 and Q3, I put changes on these two
points below. Added sentences and words are highlighted by yellow.
A full version with hitory-on version in Word format is attached.

As the deadline is approaching, I will ask Jeremy to put it into the poll
shortly, but hope we can catch any immediate and strong comments and
requests before doing so.


1. What do you consider the most important achievements of the first five
IGF meetings?

IGF created the space for dialogue by all stakeholders in an open, inclusive
manner. This emergence
and development of the principle and practice of the multistakeholder model
is perhaps the biggest
contribution IGF has achieved so far. It helped many participants to
understand the issues of their
interest, as well as to understand how other actors understand, act and
accept their issues.
Emergence of Regional and National IGF with multistakeholder approach is
another achievements.

*Yet *We also note that there are frustrations expressed that IGF process *we
still have *has we still have not directly
produced seen real tangible outcomes directly out of IGF process.


3. Which, if any, new mechanisms would you propose to improve the impact of
the IGF discussions,
in particular as regards the interaction between the IGF and other
stakeholders? Please specify the
kind of mechanism (e.g. reporting, exchanges, recommendations, concrete
advice, etc.) and the
stakeholders (e.g. intergovernmental bodies, other fora dealing with
Internet Governance, etc.).

a) One mechanism we can suggest is to come up with some form of
recommendations where
all stakeholders have [rough] consensus. They It will not be binding, but
could still function as model, reference or common framework. Working
process towards achieving these rough consensus will create better and
deeper understandings amongst different stakeholders.

b) The Secretariat and MAG should be strongly encouraged to directly foster
discussion and
debate of difficult issues in main sessions, instead of avoiding them.

<snip>

9. Do you have any other comments? (You may find it useful to refer to the
Note by the Secretary-General on the continuation of the Internet Governance
Forum (document A/65/78 – E/2010/68) or to the contributions made in the
formal consultations held online and during the IGF meeting in Sharm El
Sheikh, Egypt in 2009 (
http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/2009-igf-sharm-el-sheikh/review-process)).
IGF must focus exclusively on public policy and governance issues. It should
avoid providing
standard educational workshops where some experts explain how to implement
certain technologies
or how these technologies work.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101117/fe3b8ff3/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From miguel.alcaine at gmail.com  Wed Nov 17 04:14:55 2010
From: miguel.alcaine at gmail.com (Miguel Alcaine)
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 10:14:55 +0100
Subject: [governance] Reply to our criticism of Enhanced Cooperation
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimtbL4RV_K5s30MN+9tVg1E6KZtUkduxqHZGBfX@mail.gmail.com>
References: <OFA1AE4B04.7D221F0F-ON852577DE.00058C1B-852577DE.00060716@un.org>
	<1C78A048-E18D-469B-9B9F-AE240D83EDDD@ciroap.org>
	<AANLkTimtbL4RV_K5s30MN+9tVg1E6KZtUkduxqHZGBfX@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=XsP_P=ePGis5Q1dKVu6w_yOwh+GfdU5pMVE9U@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Izumi and colleagues:

I just want to point out that the Enhanced cooperation consultations in New
York are organized by the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs
(DESA).

The CSTD of the Chair of the WG have nothing to do with that consultations.

Best,

Miguel

p.s. I think it is easy to get confused because there are some processes
going on on parallel.



On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 3:14 AM, Izumi AIZU <aizu at anr.org> wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> I agree with Jeremy' assessment, it is not what we wanted, but
> may accept with additional request/guarantee:
>
> I mean we like to ask CONGO  to work with us (and other members
> of Civil society, of course) for the statement to deliver,
> and also ask CSTD/Chair to insure sufficient amount of time for
> all who wish to speak, not "if time is available" and have no time
> management.
>
> Flying into New York and attend one-day only meeting
> and have no opportunity to speak at all is not quite reasonable.
>
> izumi
>
>
> 2010/11/17 Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org>:
> > This letter just in.  It seems that the Enhanced Cooperation
> consultations
> > on 14 December will now be open to other stakeholders to speak if time is
> > available, and that they can register at
> > http://www.unpan.org/dpadm/wsisfollowup.  This is still not what we
> wanted,
> > but is a marginal improvement.  I have replied seeking details of the
> > contact from CONGO who will be speaking on our behalf.
> >
> > --
> >
> > 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
> >
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101117/2f9cbc96/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch  Wed Nov 17 04:21:33 2010
From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake)
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 10:21:33 +0100
Subject: [governance] Reply to our criticism of Enhanced Cooperation
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimtbL4RV_K5s30MN+9tVg1E6KZtUkduxqHZGBfX@mail.gmail.com>
References: <OFA1AE4B04.7D221F0F-ON852577DE.00058C1B-852577DE.00060716@un.org> <1C78A048-E18D-469B-9B9F-AE240D83EDDD@ciroap.org> <AANLkTimtbL4RV_K5s30MN+9tVg1E6KZtUkduxqHZGBfX@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <18ED735F-D407-4B37-A4AD-63F4A77D2584@graduateinstitute.ch>

Hi,

Bit of a dilemma that DESA has invited to speak for CS an organization that has not been involved in IG for years and has no staff members who work on the topic.  

For awareness raising if nothing else, why not reply to DESA explaining why this is a problem and asking how to proceed?  While they probably wouldn't change anything, maybe at least they could communicate to CONGO that it should coordinate closely with IGC etc.  The current leadership/office might need a nudge to do that, given their own incentives within the UN system etc.

Are any IGC members also CONGO members?  If so, their intervention would help (especially if they plan to be in NYC).

It also seems an odd strategic choice for ICANN to speak for the TC, especially if that means staff.  But at least global business will be appropriately represented; 1 out of 3 right is a start...

Bill



On Nov 17, 2010, at 3:14 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote:

> Dear all,
> 
> I agree with Jeremy' assessment, it is not what we wanted, but
> may accept with additional request/guarantee:
> 
> I mean we like to ask CONGO  to work with us (and other members
> of Civil society, of course) for the statement to deliver,
> and also ask CSTD/Chair to insure sufficient amount of time for
> all who wish to speak, not "if time is available" and have no time management.
> 
> Flying into New York and attend one-day only meeting
> and have no opportunity to speak at all is not quite reasonable.
> 
> izumi
> 
> 
> 2010/11/17 Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org>:
>> This letter just in.  It seems that the Enhanced Cooperation consultations
>> on 14 December will now be open to other stakeholders to speak if time is
>> available, and that they can register at
>> http://www.unpan.org/dpadm/wsisfollowup.  This is still not what we wanted,
>> but is a marginal improvement.  I have replied seeking details of the
>> contact from CONGO who will be speaking on our behalf.
>> 
>> --
>> 
>> 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
>> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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.williamdrake.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 dogwallah at gmail.com  Wed Nov 17 04:55:22 2010
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 12:55:22 +0300
Subject: [governance] 2nd DRAFT for CSTD IGF Questionnaire
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTin-iRXRogusxmpQW0vcvE2YEVSaBL__c7LgT82n@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTin-iRXRogusxmpQW0vcvE2YEVSaBL__c7LgT82n@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTikajG9edFfbN1fGLMbLS2Ore+9m_37EX5ogu7gN@mail.gmail.com>

Izumi,

On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 11:40 AM, Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org> wrote:
> Dear list,


>
> 9. Do you have any other comments? (You may find it useful to refer to the
> Note by the Secretary-General on the continuation of the Internet Governance
> Forum (document A/65/78 – E/2010/68) or to the contributions made in the
> formal consultations held online and during the IGF meeting in Sharm El
> Sheikh, Egypt in 2009
> (http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/2009-igf-sharm-el-sheikh/review-process)).
>
> IGF must focus exclusively on public policy and governance issues. It should
> avoid providing
> standard educational workshops where some experts explain how to implement
> certain technologies
> or how these technologies work.

I haven't seen this at any of the IGFs I have attended (remotely), but....
do we really want to exclude this possibility in a capacity building
environment?


-- 
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 miguel.alcaine at gmail.com  Wed Nov 17 05:00:26 2010
From: miguel.alcaine at gmail.com (Miguel Alcaine)
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 11:00:26 +0100
Subject: [governance] 2nd DRAFT for CSTD IGF Questionnaire
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTin-iRXRogusxmpQW0vcvE2YEVSaBL__c7LgT82n@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTin-iRXRogusxmpQW0vcvE2YEVSaBL__c7LgT82n@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTimZ6DqHnVsvF6Y+0iXDWQU9a3maLBEqLxJ1ddcK@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all,

I will not oppose if everybody else agrees with the answer to number 9.

However, the answer to number 9, in my opinion, is against our own
interests.

1) It goes against the mandates of capacity building and the development
orientation of the Summit generally, and of the IGF especifically. c.f.
Tunis Agenda paragraphs 65, 72 small d, e, f and h.

2) In many discussions in the MAG around the number and the subjects of
workshops and other events, the conclusions have been:

2.1) Workshops and events allow to increase participation and attract
experts, who otherwise, will not go to the IGF.
2.2) They allow to channel new topics and trends into the IGF.
2.3) There have been already to my knowledge, a couple of IGF sessions,
where a deliberate effort has been made to couple workshops with main
sesions.
2.4) Public attending the IGF can make free choice about what workshops and
events to attend.

3) There are opportunities where all stakeholders can provide the IGF with
their points of view to improve the IGF and to set the agenda. As I have
participated in the discussions directly in the MAG, I know there have been
attempts to avoid sensitive issues, but all sensitive issues have made it to
the agenda and to the main sessions.

4) It goes against the awareness and capacity building required to achieve
EC.

I understand the origins of the suggested answer to number 9, but I will
suggest to strenghten and make effective the implementation of the mandatest
in paragraph 72 small b, c,g, i, j and k and also, the EC process.


Maybe, an answer to this dilemma is to point out to the need of resources to
the IGF and the need of commitment of all stakeholders in the IG eco-system
to deliver better.

To go further, I will suggest a contribution from the UN to the Voluntary
Fund of the IGF in as much as 20% of the previous year level of money raised
by the Voluntary Fund (I think it would be like 20% of around 900,000 Swiss
Francs but I will ask), representing the contribution of the whole humanity
to the process, and dedicated exclusively to awareness and capacity building
of all stakeholders in developing countries, used effectively by leveraging
the existing capacity building initiatives.

Governments and Private Sector should be invited to contribute to the
Voluntary Fund while thanking the past contributions.

Best,

Miguel

*Annexes*

*65. We underline the need to maximize the participation of developing
countries in decisions regarding Internet governance, which should reflect
their interests, as well as in development and capacity building.

*

*72. We ask the UN Secretary-General, in an open and inclusive process, to
convene, by the second quarter of 2006, a meeting of the new forum for
multi-stakeholder policy dialogue—called the Internet Governance Forum
(IGF). The mandate of the Forum is to:*

* *

   *
   1.

   Discuss public policy issues related to key elements of Internet
   governance in order to foster the sustainability, robustness, security,
   stability and development of the Internet.
   2.

   Facilitate discourse between bodies dealing with different cross-cutting
   international public policies regarding the Internet and discuss issues that
   do not fall within the scope of any existing body.
   3.

   Interface with appropriate intergovernmental organizations and other
   institutions on matters under their purview.
   4.

   Facilitate the exchange of information and best practices, and in this
   regard make full use of the expertise of the academic, scientific and
   technical communities.
   5.

   Advise all stakeholders in proposing ways and means to accelerate the
   availability and affordability of the Internet in the developing world.
   6.

   Strengthen and enhance the engagement of stakeholders in existing and/or
   future Internet governance mechanisms, particularly those from developing
   countries.
   7.

   Identify emerging issues, bring them to the attention of the relevant
   bodies and the general public, and, where appropriate, make recommendations.

   8.

   Contribute to capacity building for Internet governance in developing
   countries, drawing fully on local sources of knowledge and expertise.
   9.

   Promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS
   principles in Internet governance processes.
   10.

   Discuss, inter alia, issues relating to critical Internet resources.
   11.

   Help to find solutions to the issues arising from the use and misuse of
   the Internet, of particular concern to everyday users.
   12.

   Publish its proceedings.
   *


*

*
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 9:40 AM, Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org> wrote:

> Dear list,
>
> Here follows and attached are the 2nd version of our draft answer to CSTD
> IGF questionnaire.
> Since the discussion only touched on Q1 and Q3, I put changes on these two
> points below. Added sentences and words are highlighted by yellow.
> A full version with hitory-on version in Word format is attached.
>
> As the deadline is approaching, I will ask Jeremy to put it into the poll
> shortly, but hope we can catch any immediate and strong comments and
> requests before doing so.
>
>
> 1. What do you consider the most important achievements of the first five
> IGF meetings?
>
> IGF created the space for dialogue by all stakeholders in an open,
> inclusive manner. This emergence
> and development of the principle and practice of the multistakeholder model
> is perhaps the biggest
> contribution IGF has achieved so far. It helped many participants to
> understand the issues of their
> interest, as well as to understand how other actors understand, act and
> accept their issues.
> Emergence of Regional and National IGF with multistakeholder approach is
> another achievements.
>
> *Yet *We also note that there are frustrations expressed that IGF process
> *we still have *has we still have not directly
> produced seen real tangible outcomes directly out of IGF process.
>
>
> 3. Which, if any, new mechanisms would you propose to improve the impact of
> the IGF discussions,
> in particular as regards the interaction between the IGF and other
> stakeholders? Please specify the
> kind of mechanism (e.g. reporting, exchanges, recommendations, concrete
> advice, etc.) and the
> stakeholders (e.g. intergovernmental bodies, other fora dealing with
> Internet Governance, etc.).
>
> a) One mechanism we can suggest is to come up with some form of
> recommendations where
> all stakeholders have [rough] consensus. They It will not be binding, but
> could still function as model, reference or common framework. Working
> process towards achieving these rough consensus will create better and
> deeper understandings amongst different stakeholders.
>
> b) The Secretariat and MAG should be strongly encouraged to directly foster
> discussion and
> debate of difficult issues in main sessions, instead of avoiding them.
>
> <snip>
>
> 9. Do you have any other comments? (You may find it useful to refer to the
> Note by the Secretary-General on the continuation of the Internet Governance
> Forum (document A/65/78 – E/2010/68) or to the contributions made in the
> formal consultations held online and during the IGF meeting in Sharm El
> Sheikh, Egypt in 2009 (
> http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/2009-igf-sharm-el-sheikh/review-process)<http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/2009-igf-sharm-el-sheikh/review-process%29>).
>
> IGF must focus exclusively on public policy and governance issues. It
> should avoid providing
> standard educational workshops where some experts explain how to implement
> certain technologies
> or how these technologies work.
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101117/7c0a39e9/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From roland at internetpolicyagency.com  Wed Nov 17 05:19:36 2010
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 10:19:36 +0000
Subject: [governance] EU Data Retention (was: FOURTH DRAFT statement on
 enhanced cooperation)
In-Reply-To: <4CE02316.5060209@eff.org>
References: <296C93D0-7172-4DC7-8185-1DEAAA564B4D@ciroap.org>
 <AANLkTik_4-oazn0ng91AGkWvoGNk1xXkKJPkpcOP2wYV@mail.gmail.com>
 <4CDB0DC0.9080204@eff.org> <G3n6p8hpT63MFAAS@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <4CE003D4.1030409@eff.org> <25jWqZ2GaB4MFAuU@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <4CE02316.5060209@eff.org>
Message-ID: <0oMGe6c4w64MFAep@internetpolicyagency.com>

In message <4CE02316.5060209 at eff.org>, at 09:57:42 on Sun, 14 Nov 2010, 
Katitza Rodriguez <katitza at eff.org> writes

> we have some worst provisions since the EU Data Retention Directive

Apparently a review is taking place, only a week left to register for a 
conference:

http://www.dataretention2010.net
-- 
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 aizu at anr.org  Wed Nov 17 05:45:29 2010
From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 19:45:29 +0900
Subject: [governance] Reply to our criticism of Enhanced Cooperation
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=XsP_P=ePGis5Q1dKVu6w_yOwh+GfdU5pMVE9U@mail.gmail.com>
References: <OFA1AE4B04.7D221F0F-ON852577DE.00058C1B-852577DE.00060716@un.org>
 <1C78A048-E18D-469B-9B9F-AE240D83EDDD@ciroap.org> <AANLkTimtbL4RV_K5s30MN+9tVg1E6KZtUkduxqHZGBfX@mail.gmail.com>
 <AANLkTi=XsP_P=ePGis5Q1dKVu6w_yOwh+GfdU5pMVE9U@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTikCokzfeFvXHgs5v+5UBwph609Ju4J4m=UW_ADn@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Miguel,

Thank you so much for the clarification, and sorry for my confusion.

And yes, it is quite confusing and I need to be more careful.

Will try,

izumi

2010/11/17 Miguel Alcaine <miguel.alcaine at gmail.com>:
> Dear Izumi and colleagues:
>
> I just want to point out that the Enhanced cooperation consultations in New
> York are organized by the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs
> (DESA).
>
> The CSTD of the Chair of the WG have nothing to do with that consultations.
>
> Best,
>
> Miguel
>
> p.s. I think it is easy to get confused because there are some processes
> going on on parallel.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 3:14 AM, Izumi AIZU <aizu at anr.org> wrote:
>>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> I agree with Jeremy' assessment, it is not what we wanted, but
>> may accept with additional request/guarantee:
>>
>> I mean we like to ask CONGO  to work with us (and other members
>> of Civil society, of course) for the statement to deliver,
>> and also ask CSTD/Chair to insure sufficient amount of time for
>> all who wish to speak, not "if time is available" and have no time
>> management.
>>
>> Flying into New York and attend one-day only meeting
>> and have no opportunity to speak at all is not quite reasonable.
>>
>> izumi
>>
>>
>> 2010/11/17 Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org>:
>> > This letter just in.  It seems that the Enhanced Cooperation
>> > consultations
>> > on 14 December will now be open to other stakeholders to speak if time
>> > is
>> > available, and that they can register at
>> > http://www.unpan.org/dpadm/wsisfollowup.  This is still not what we
>> > wanted,
>> > but is a marginal improvement.  I have replied seeking details of the
>> > contact from CONGO who will be speaking on our behalf.
>> >
>> > --
>> >
>> > 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
>> >
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>



-- 
                        >> Izumi Aizu <<

          Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo

           Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,
                                  Japan
                                 * * * * *
           << Writing the Future of the History >>
                                www.anr.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 william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch  Wed Nov 17 06:07:39 2010
From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake)
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 12:07:39 +0100
Subject: [governance] 2nd DRAFT for CSTD IGF Questionnaire
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTin-iRXRogusxmpQW0vcvE2YEVSaBL__c7LgT82n@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTin-iRXRogusxmpQW0vcvE2YEVSaBL__c7LgT82n@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <D6F4FB6D-0218-49DF-9791-9312A6341DCB@graduateinstitute.ch>

Hi Izumi

Since I'm not in a position to do word smithing on this in the next few days the following comments may not seem very helpful.  Nevertheless, I'll share them in case someone does have the bandwidth to try taking on board inputs and working out consensus formulations...

On Nov 17, 2010, at 9:40 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote:

> Dear list,
> 
> Here follows and attached are the 2nd version of our draft answer to CSTD IGF questionnaire.

No attachment

> Since the discussion only touched on Q1 and Q3, I put changes on these two points below. Added sentences and words are highlighted by yellow.
> A full version with hitory-on version in Word format is attached.
> 
> As the deadline is approaching, I will ask Jeremy to put it into the poll shortly, but hope we can catch any immediate and strong comments and requests before doing so.
> 
> 
> 1. What do you consider the most important achievements of the first five IGF meetings? 
> 
> IGF created the space for dialogue by all stakeholders in an open, inclusive manner. This emergence 
> and development of the principle and practice of the multistakeholder model is perhaps the biggest 
> contribution IGF has achieved so far. It helped many participants to understand the issues of their 
> interest, as well as to understand how other actors understand, act and accept their issues. 
> Emergence of Regional and National IGF with multistakeholder approach is another achievements. 

Needs rewriting for English
> 
> Yet We also note that there are frustrations expressed that IGF process we still have has we still have not directly 
> produced seen real tangible outcomes directly out of IGF process. 

Disagree
> 
> 
> 3. Which, if any, new mechanisms would you propose to improve the impact of the IGF discussions, 
> in particular as regards the interaction between the IGF and other stakeholders? Please specify the 
> kind of mechanism (e.g. reporting, exchanges, recommendations, concrete advice, etc.) and the 
> stakeholders (e.g. intergovernmental bodies, other fora dealing with Internet Governance, etc.). 
> 
> a) One mechanism we can suggest is to come up with some form of recommendations where 
> all stakeholders have [rough] consensus. They It will not be binding, but could still function as model, reference or common framework. Working process towards achieving these rough consensus will create better and deeper understandings amongst different stakeholders.

This seems to go backwards to 2005.  There has since been much discussion on the list and elsewhere about the difficulties of trying to do that in the IGF setting and better, more viable alternatives proposed, e.g. messages from not of IGF etc.
> 
> b) The Secretariat and MAG should be strongly encouraged to directly foster discussion and 
> debate of difficult issues in main sessions, instead of avoiding them.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> 9. Do you have any other comments? (You may find it useful to refer to the Note by the Secretary-General on the continuation of the Internet Governance Forum (document A/65/78 – E/2010/68) or to the contributions made in the formal consultations held online and during the IGF meeting in Sharm El Sheikh, Egypt in 2009 (http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/2009-igf-sharm-el-sheikh/review-process)).
> 
> IGF must focus exclusively on public policy and governance issues. It should avoid providing 
> standard educational workshops where some experts explain how to implement certain technologies 
> or how these technologies work.

While I understand Milton's thinking, I disagree 

So far I couldn't vote for this statement but would like to see the rest…

BTW under 9 why not mention the previously discussed issue of preserving an independent secretariat in Geneva?

Thanks,

Bill
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101117/02ac4ea3/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From ocl at gih.com  Wed Nov 17 06:44:38 2010
From: ocl at gih.com (Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond)
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 11:44:38 +0000
Subject: [governance] 2nd DRAFT for CSTD IGF Questionnaire
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikajG9edFfbN1fGLMbLS2Ore+9m_37EX5ogu7gN@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTin-iRXRogusxmpQW0vcvE2YEVSaBL__c7LgT82n@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTikajG9edFfbN1fGLMbLS2Ore+9m_37EX5ogu7gN@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4CE3C026.6080704@gih.com>



Le 17/11/2010 09:55, McTim a écrit :
> Izumi,
>
> On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 11:40 AM, Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org> wrote:
>> Dear list,
>> 9. Do you have any other comments? (You may find it useful to refer to the
>> Note by the Secretary-General on the continuation of the Internet Governance
>> Forum (document A/65/78 – E/2010/68) or to the contributions made in the
>> formal consultations held online and during the IGF meeting in Sharm El
>> Sheikh, Egypt in 2009
>> (http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/2009-igf-sharm-el-sheikh/review-process)).
>>
>> IGF must focus exclusively on public policy and governance issues. It should
>> avoid providing
>> standard educational workshops where some experts explain how to implement
>> certain technologies
>> or how these technologies work.
> I haven't seen this at any of the IGFs I have attended (remotely), but....
> do we really want to exclude this possibility in a capacity building
> environment?
>
>

I'm with McTim on this. This is also a passage which made me cringe.
What stops a quota of educational workshops to take place?
The Internet is for everyone, and this means keeping the door open.
Avoidance of educational workshops closes it.

Kind regards,

Olivier

-- 
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

From kichango at gmail.com  Wed Nov 17 09:21:25 2010
From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango)
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 09:21:25 -0500
Subject: [governance] Public Comment: Developing Economies and the New gTLD
 Program (ICANN)
Message-ID: <AANLkTin3_TOd7CQmOZdzCCcxg4X3ZzPdTfuzj=XDF2WS@mail.gmail.com>

fyi

http://icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-11nov10-en.htm
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101117/c3fcf6e9/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From dogwallah at gmail.com  Wed Nov 17 09:30:15 2010
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 17:30:15 +0300
Subject: [governance] Public Comment: Developing Economies and the New
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTin3_TOd7CQmOZdzCCcxg4X3ZzPdTfuzj=XDF2WS@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTin3_TOd7CQmOZdzCCcxg4X3ZzPdTfuzj=XDF2WS@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTik+Ri-wquFo3+=N_m5T4v=mVv4EAmV1eAaJaVVS@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

Could we not, as a group, comment on this actual IG process?

Would it not be more important than making comments to a UN agency
that has nothing to do with actual IG?

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel

On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 5:21 PM, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:
> fyi
>
> http://icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-11nov10-en.htm
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>



-- 
Cheers,

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

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

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

From kichango at gmail.com  Wed Nov 17 09:43:52 2010
From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango)
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 09:43:52 -0500
Subject: [governance] Public Comment: Developing Economies and the New
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTik+Ri-wquFo3+=N_m5T4v=mVv4EAmV1eAaJaVVS@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTin3_TOd7CQmOZdzCCcxg4X3ZzPdTfuzj=XDF2WS@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTik+Ri-wquFo3+=N_m5T4v=mVv4EAmV1eAaJaVVS@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=-fvvG+dZ4muHu1fYUUQyNHf+ZCMjdnuSmpgeW@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,
Indeed, it'd seem appropriate to me anyway, given the foundational and
overarching goal of WSIS.

Mawaki

On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 9:30 AM, McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Could we not, as a group, comment on this actual IG process?
>
> Would it not be more important than making comments to a UN agency
> that has nothing to do with actual IG?
>
> --
> Cheers,
>
> McTim
> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
> route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
>
> On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 5:21 PM, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:
> > fyi
> >
> > http://icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-11nov10-en.htm
> >
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> >
> > For all list information and functions, see:
> >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> >
> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Cheers,
>
> McTim
> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
> route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101117/48284534/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From rafik.dammak at gmail.com  Wed Nov 17 10:15:03 2010
From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 00:15:03 +0900
Subject: [governance] Public Comment: Developing Economies and the New
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTik+Ri-wquFo3+=N_m5T4v=mVv4EAmV1eAaJaVVS@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTin3_TOd7CQmOZdzCCcxg4X3ZzPdTfuzj=XDF2WS@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTik+Ri-wquFo3+=N_m5T4v=mVv4EAmV1eAaJaVVS@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTikOpArN=LhjjmAFJh+dsYeEH-_VxYEsMTgJmMew@mail.gmail.com>

Hi McTim,

all processes are important :). I don't see how we can prioritize.
all comments are welcome on the report of applicants support working group,
in particular from IGC members from developing countries, I encourage Mawaki
and you to share your point of views or support the work done there. btw the
working group should continue working on guidelines regarding the
recommendations in the report.

Regards

Rafik


2010/11/17 McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com>

> Hi,
>
> Could we not, as a group, comment on this actual IG process?
>
> Would it not be more important than making comments to a UN agency
> that has nothing to do with actual IG?
>
> --
> Cheers,
>
> McTim
> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
> route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
>
> On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 5:21 PM, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:
> > fyi
> >
> > http://icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-11nov10-en.htm
> >
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> >
> > For all list information and functions, see:
> >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> >
> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Cheers,
>
> McTim
> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
> route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101118/3cb2ed09/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From iza at anr.org  Wed Nov 17 10:21:03 2010
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 00:21:03 +0900
Subject: [governance] 2nd DRAFT for CSTD IGF Questionnaire
In-Reply-To: <D6F4FB6D-0218-49DF-9791-9312A6341DCB@graduateinstitute.ch>
References: <AANLkTin-iRXRogusxmpQW0vcvE2YEVSaBL__c7LgT82n@mail.gmail.com> <D6F4FB6D-0218-49DF-9791-9312A6341DCB@graduateinstitute.ch>
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=44cwz086zyKXUTYxczdH=pP21qvX3HDn1dtg4@mail.gmail.com>

Sorry for missing the attached file. Here it is.

izumi


> Dear list,
>
> Here follows and attached are the 2nd version of our draft answer to CSTD
> IGF questionnaire.
>
>
> No attachment
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101118/079f4fa9/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 2ndDraft_IGCResponse_CSTD_IGFQnre_Nov17.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 36864 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101118/079f4fa9/attachment.doc>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From iza at anr.org  Wed Nov 17 10:26:18 2010
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 00:26:18 +0900
Subject: [governance] 2nd DRAFT for CSTD IGF Questionnaire
In-Reply-To: <4CE3C026.6080704@gih.com>
References: <AANLkTin-iRXRogusxmpQW0vcvE2YEVSaBL__c7LgT82n@mail.gmail.com>
 <AANLkTikajG9edFfbN1fGLMbLS2Ore+9m_37EX5ogu7gN@mail.gmail.com> <4CE3C026.6080704@gih.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=5Noufr2kBKxnDv0e-_QUJjM1+D7gbdLMLk+mC@mail.gmail.com>

It seems the adding the answer to Q9 - "focus exclusively on public policy
and governance issues" do not have broad support. In that case, we can drop
it,
unless there are strong support for it.

Bill suggested to include to add "preserve the independent secretariat".
I have on problem to add that. Any problem?

Sorry to rush, but the time is running out. So please make any comments
asap.

izumi

2010/11/17 Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com>

>
>
> Le 17/11/2010 09:55, McTim a écrit :
> > Izumi,
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 11:40 AM, Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org> wrote:
> >> Dear list,
> >> 9. Do you have any other comments? (You may find it useful to refer to
> the
> >> Note by the Secretary-General on the continuation of the Internet
> Governance
> >> Forum (document A/65/78 – E/2010/68) or to the contributions made in the
> >> formal consultations held online and during the IGF meeting in Sharm El
> >> Sheikh, Egypt in 2009
> >> (
> http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/2009-igf-sharm-el-sheikh/review-process)<http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/2009-igf-sharm-el-sheikh/review-process%29>
> ).
> >>
> >> IGF must focus exclusively on public policy and governance issues. It
> should
> >> avoid providing
> >> standard educational workshops where some experts explain how to
> implement
> >> certain technologies
> >> or how these technologies work.
> > I haven't seen this at any of the IGFs I have attended (remotely),
> but....
> > do we really want to exclude this possibility in a capacity building
> > environment?
> >
> >
>
> I'm with McTim on this. This is also a passage which made me cringe.
> What stops a quota of educational workshops to take place?
> The Internet is for everyone, and this means keeping the door open.
> Avoidance of educational workshops closes it.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Olivier
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101118/f0d72a3a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From iza at anr.org  Wed Nov 17 20:12:04 2010
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 10:12:04 +0900
Subject: [governance] <important> Consensus Call for CSTD IGF Questionnaire
Message-ID: <AANLkTin328xxzLi-ca7LQdnXT4Z8pmrLJNw2OhCTTJ_M@mail.gmail.com>

Dear list,
Thank you for the comments on the 2nd Draft and here I made a few
changes according to the comments. As this is our [rough] consensus
text,* I have deleted the ones which received explicit
objections/disagreement.*

We need to know how many do support this final draft, how many
 are not happy with it with specific comments or reasons if any.

Unfortunately, because I have not mastered how to create the online poll
and Jeremy is not reachable at the moment, I would like to put
the portions with changes below, attached the Word file for the
full version, and call for Consensus.

*Please reply to this thread.*

As the deadline is Friday, Nov 19, that's tomorrow already here in Tokyo,
we many not be able to wait for the full 48 hours, but hope it is Ok with
you
this time.

Thank you for your support and understanding.

izumi

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

1. What do you consider the most important achievements of the first five
IGF meetings?

IGF created the space for dialogue by *all* stakeholders in an open,
inclusive manner. Th*is*ese emergence and development of the multistakeholder
principle and practice are perhaps the biggest contribution IGF has achieved
so far. It helped many participants to understand the issues of their
interest, as well as to understand how other actors understand, act and
accept their issues. Emergence of Regional and National IGF with
multistakeholder approach is another achievement.* *

* We also note that there are frustrations expressed that IGF process has
not directly produced real tangible outcomes.*
9.Do you have any other comments?

*IGF must focus exclusively on public policy and governance issues. It
should avoid providing standard educational workshops where some experts
explain how to implement certain technologies or how these technologies
work.*

--------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101118/edacb973/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: FinalDraft_IGCResponse_CSTD_IGFQnre_Nov18.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 40960 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101118/edacb973/attachment.doc>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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  Wed Nov 17 20:39:24 2010
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 12:39:24 +1100
Subject: [governance] <important> Consensus Call for CSTD IGF
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTin328xxzLi-ca7LQdnXT4Z8pmrLJNw2OhCTTJ_M@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <C90ACEFC.1398E%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>

I¹m a little confused Izumi and others might be as well. The email text of
your message below contains a couple of clauses which you have deleted in
the final version of the document, (which can only be viewed as an
attachment). But the email does not make clear to me that the bold text in
your email message is  the  deleted text.

However,  I support the statement made in the attached document.

Ian Peter



From: Izumi Aizu <iza at anr.org>
Reply-To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>, Izumi Aizu <iza at anr.org>
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 10:12:04 +0900
To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>
Subject: [governance] <important> Consensus Call for CSTD IGF Questionnaire

Dear list,
Thank you for the comments on the 2nd Draft and here I made a few
changes according to the comments. As this is our [rough] consensus
text, I have deleted the ones which received explicit
objections/disagreement.

We need to know how many do support this final draft, how many
are not happy with it with specific comments or reasons if any.

Unfortunately, because I have not mastered how to create the online poll
and Jeremy is not reachable at the moment, I would like to put
the portions with changes below, attached the Word file for the
full version, and call for Consensus.

Please reply to this thread.

As the deadline is Friday, Nov 19, that's tomorrow already here in Tokyo,
we many not be able to wait for the full 48 hours, but hope it is Ok with
you
this time.

Thank you for your support and understanding.

izumi

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

1. What do you consider the most important achievements of the first five
IGF meetings? 

IGF created the space for dialogue by all stakeholders in an open, inclusive
manner. Thisese emergence and development of the multistakeholder principle
and practice are perhaps the biggest contribution IGF has achieved so far.
It helped many participants to understand the issues of their interest, as
well as to understand how other actors understand, act and accept their
issues. Emergence of Regional and National IGF with multistakeholder
approach is another achievement.

 We also note that there are frustrations expressed that IGF process has not
directly produced real tangible outcomes.
9.Do you have any other comments?

IGF must focus exclusively on public policy and governance issues. It should
avoid providing standard educational workshops where some experts explain
how to implement certain technologies or how these technologies work.

--------










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

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

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101118/a1b7ff23/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From mariliamaciel at gmail.com  Wed Nov 17 20:41:16 2010
From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 23:41:16 -0200
Subject: [governance] <important> Consensus Call for CSTD IGF
 Questionnaire
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTin328xxzLi-ca7LQdnXT4Z8pmrLJNw2OhCTTJ_M@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTin328xxzLi-ca7LQdnXT4Z8pmrLJNw2OhCTTJ_M@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=8Yith+s_CyHmTKtAdznCXj977ZU2d-1KKeRpS@mail.gmail.com>

I was writing some comments about the second draft when I received your
e-mail. Unfortunately I have been traveling during the past days and have
not been able to engage on this dicussion.

Despite the fact that there are issues I would like us to be more strong or
more specific, I generally agree with this proposal.

Thank you Izumi for coordinating the debate.

Marilia


On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 11:12 PM, Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org> wrote:

> Dear list,
> Thank you for the comments on the 2nd Draft and here I made a few
> changes according to the comments. As this is our [rough] consensus
> text,* I have deleted the ones which received explicit
> objections/disagreement.*
>
> We need to know how many do support this final draft, how many
>  are not happy with it with specific comments or reasons if any.
>
> Unfortunately, because I have not mastered how to create the online poll
> and Jeremy is not reachable at the moment, I would like to put
> the portions with changes below, attached the Word file for the
> full version, and call for Consensus.
>
> *Please reply to this thread.*
>
> As the deadline is Friday, Nov 19, that's tomorrow already here in Tokyo,
> we many not be able to wait for the full 48 hours, but hope it is Ok with
> you
> this time.
>
> Thank you for your support and understanding.
>
> izumi
>
> ----------------
>
> 1. What do you consider the most important achievements of the first five
> IGF meetings?
>
> IGF created the space for dialogue by *all* stakeholders in an open,
> inclusive manner. Th*is*ese emergence and development of the multistakeholder
> principle and practice are perhaps the biggest contribution IGF has
> achieved so far. It helped many participants to understand the issues of
> their interest, as well as to understand how other actors understand, act
> and accept their issues. Emergence of Regional and National IGF with
> multistakeholder approach is another achievement.* *
>
> * We also note that there are frustrations expressed that IGF process has
> not directly produced real tangible outcomes.*
> 9.Do you have any other comments?
>
> *IGF must focus exclusively on public policy and governance issues. It
> should avoid providing standard educational workshops where some experts
> explain how to implement certain technologies or how these technologies
> work.*
>
> --------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>



-- 
Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
FGV Direito Rio

Center for Technology and Society
Getulio Vargas Foundation
Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101117/ab7381f5/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From iza at anr.org  Wed Nov 17 21:05:19 2010
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 11:05:19 +0900
Subject: [governance] <important> Consensus Call for CSTD IGF
 Questionnaire
In-Reply-To: <C90ACEFC.1398E%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
References: <AANLkTin328xxzLi-ca7LQdnXT4Z8pmrLJNw2OhCTTJ_M@mail.gmail.com> <C90ACEFC.1398E%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTimRUBR_8qHt8w-h__NbqoSxUMMc03xtVRzVwrfx@mail.gmail.com>

Sorry for the confusion, and yes, the bold texts below are the deleted ones.
The text I pasted to my browser had the deletion marks, but when sent
to the list they are gone. And I don't know how to fix this (yet).

I will re-send the clean version in the next email.

thanks again,

izumi

2010/11/18 Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>

>  I’m a little confused Izumi and others might be as well. The email text
> of  your message below contains a couple of clauses which you have deleted
> in the final version of the document, (which can only be viewed as an
> attachment). But the email does not make clear to me that the bold text in
> your email message is  the  deleted text.
>
> However,  I support the statement made in the attached document.
>
> Ian Peter
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From: *Izumi Aizu <iza at anr.org>
> *Reply-To: *<governance at lists.cpsr.org>, Izumi Aizu <iza at anr.org>
> *Date: *Thu, 18 Nov 2010 10:12:04 +0900
> *To: *<governance at lists.cpsr.org>
> *Subject: *[governance] <important> Consensus Call for CSTD IGF
> Questionnaire
>
> Dear list,
> Thank you for the comments on the 2nd Draft and here I made a few
> changes according to the comments. As this is our [rough] consensus
> text,* I have deleted the ones which received explicit
> objections/disagreement.
> *
> We need to know how many do support this final draft, how many
> are not happy with it with specific comments or reasons if any.
>
> Unfortunately, because I have not mastered how to create the online poll
> and Jeremy is not reachable at the moment, I would like to put
> the portions with changes below, attached the Word file for the
> full version, and call for Consensus.
>
> *Please reply to this thread.
> *
> As the deadline is Friday, Nov 19, that's tomorrow already here in Tokyo,
> we many not be able to wait for the full 48 hours, but hope it is Ok with
> you
> this time.
>
> Thank you for your support and understanding.
>
> izumi
>
> ----------------
>
> 1. What do you consider the most important achievements of the first five
> IGF meetings?
>
> IGF created the space for dialogue by *all* stakeholders in an open,
> inclusive manner. Th*is*ese emergence and development of the
> multistakeholder principle and practice are perhaps the biggest contribution
> IGF has achieved so far. It helped many participants to understand the
> issues of their interest, as well as to understand how other actors
> understand, act and accept their issues. Emergence of Regional and National
> IGF with multistakeholder approach is another achievement.*
> *
> * We also note that there are frustrations expressed that IGF process has
> not directly produced real tangible outcomes.
> *9.Do you have any other comments?
>
> *IGF must focus exclusively on public policy and governance issues. It
> should avoid providing standard educational workshops where some experts
> explain how to implement certain technologies or how these technologies
> work.
> *
> --------
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101118/8bad5cf1/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From iza at anr.org  Wed Nov 17 21:13:08 2010
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 11:13:08 +0900
Subject: [governance] Consensus Call for CSTD IGF Questionnaire - Clean
 version
Message-ID: <AANLkTinyo=oKJoJiz2wVHikpv7-nYBwgq+cf7p6qrj16@mail.gmail.com>

Here follows are the Clean version of the Final Draft for the CSTD IGF
questionnaire answer
in full text. Sorry for the confusion.

Please respond if you agree or disagree as soon as possible.  Friday, Nov 19
is the deadline for submission. More comments are also very much appreciated
as we can further feed them into the Consultation meetings next week in Geneva.

Thanks!

izumi

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

FINAL Draft for Questionnaire on improvements to the IGF

1. What do you consider the most important achievements of the first
five IGF meetings?

IGF created the space for dialogue by all stakeholders in an open,
inclusive manner. These emergence and development of the
multistakeholder principle and practice are perhaps the biggest
contribution IGF has achieved so far. It helped many participants to
understand the issues of their interest, as well as to understand how
other actors understand, act and accept their issues. Emergence of
Regional and National IGF with multistakeholder approach is another
achievement.

2. How satisfied are you with the delivery of the results of
discussions at the IGF and the impact they have had on developments in
national, regional or international Internet governance?

IGF has made a reasonable advancement of the understanding of the
issues. Yet, at national, regional and international levels, we have
mixed assessment for the impact it brought.

3. Which, if any, new mechanisms would you propose to improve the
impact of the IGF discussions, in particular as regards the
interaction between the IGF and other stakeholders? Please specify the
kind of mechanism (e.g. reporting, exchanges, recommendations,
concrete advice, etc.) and the stakeholders (e.g. intergovernmental
bodies, other fora dealing with Internet Governance, etc.).

a) One mechanism we can suggest is to come up with some form of
recommendations where all stakeholders have [rough] consensus. They
will not be binding, but could still function as model, reference or
common framework. Working process towards achieving these rough
consensus will create better and deeper understandings amongst
different stakeholders.

b) The Secretariat and MAG should be strongly encouraged to directly
foster discussion and debate of difficult issues in main sessions,
instead of avoiding them.

4. In your view, what important new issues or themes concerning
Internet governance have emerged or become important since the Tunis
phase of the Summit, which deserve more attention in the next five
years?

IGC feels that attention to the development agenda, issues concerning
the marginalized groups or actors, have yet gained sufficient level of
work at IGF and its outcome. These may not be the “new” issues, but we
strongly feel they are very important.

Besides them, emergence of new technologies, tools and services, such
as cloud computing; user-generated, SNS and online sharing services
such as wiki, YouTube, Ustream, twitter and Facebook; DPI and
behavioral targeting advertisements; wide deployment of mobile
services including smart phones and tablet computers pose all kind of
new challenges for governance.


5. What do you think should be the priority themes and areas of work
of the IGF during the next five years?

Followings will be the areas of themes and works that have priorities we think.
a) Enhancing multi-stakeholder framework within IGF.
b) Promote capacity building for developmental agenda of governance
c) Balancing the interests – to empower those of marginalized and
under-developed in all organizations and fora dealing with Internet
governance – such as ICANN, W3C, IETF, RIRs, ITU, WIPO, CoE, OECD,
UNCTAD/CSTD and United Nations itself.

6. How can the capacity of those groups that are not yet well
represented at the IGF be improved? In particular, what could be done
to improve the capacity of representatives from developing countries?

a) Establish special funding mechanism by IGF itself to help actors
from developing countries to continuously engage in IGF and related
organizations and meetings. Fellowship works carried out by
DiploFoundation, dotAsia organization [other reference, please] and
other institutions offer good reference for this, but they should be
expanded in larger scale. Targeting youth groups or younger generation
in profession, will have, in the long run, effective impact.

b) Providing technical training to policy makers and policy training
to engineers will also help close the gap(s) within the
under-represented and also even well-represented.

7. How do you think more awareness of Internet governance issues and
the IGF process can be raised amongst groups whose lives are affected
by Internet governance but who are not yet part of the IGF process?

a) Giving more weight to regional and national IGF meetings, making
more direct “links” to the main IGF meeting will help outreach to
those who have not yet involved in IGF process. Securing the same
level of working framework of IGF, such as multi-stakeholder
composition and inclusion of civil society groups (where such practice
is relatively new or scarce) should be maintained.

b) Ensuring a plurality of civil society voices be heard in Internet
governance processes will also be effective in reaching out to those
yet to participate.

c) Online meetings are most effective when provision is made for
participation both synchronously (ie. in real time) and
asynchronously. The remote hubs and moderators at the Vilnius IGF made
good progress towards this direction. Using such tools as blogs,
Twitter, mailing lists, Facebook and so on over an extended period may
also increase the awareness.

d) Organizing some sessions completely online will create “level
playing field” among all participants, and may also demonstrate the
effectiveness of these tools/technologies, and may also improve the
quality of services in turn.

e) Increase linguistic diversity. Using UN major languages other than
English at certain meetings and occasions as main working language
(translated into other UN languages) will increase the outreach to
non-English speaking population of the globe and will give more sense
of ownership. Currently, English is the only default working language,
but we think it does not have to be so.

8. How, if at all, do you think that the IGF process needs to change
to meet changing circumstances and priorities?

As we replied to the MAG questionnaire, the organizing work of IGF
primarily by MAG should be improved. More outcome oriented direction
might improve the quality and value of IGF, but this should be
carefully exercised so as not to lose the open and free spirit of IGF
which contributed a great deal.

9. Do you have any other comments?

No.

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

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 Nov 17 21:26:59 2010
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 16:26:59 -1000
Subject: [governance] Consensus Call for CSTD IGF Questionnaire - Clean
 version
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinyo=oKJoJiz2wVHikpv7-nYBwgq+cf7p6qrj16@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTinyo=oKJoJiz2wVHikpv7-nYBwgq+cf7p6qrj16@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AFC67A0B-DA37-4F27-BA8D-1E9719282F76@ciroap.org>

On 17/11/2010, at 4:13 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote:

> Here follows are the Clean version of the Final Draft for the CSTD IGF
> questionnaire answer
> in full text. Sorry for the confusion.

I support... sorry that I could not assist with the poll, as I have been in between Macau, Hong Kong, Manila and Hawaii these few days.

-- 
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 --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101117/c166e9b5/attachment.bin>

From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de  Thu Nov 18 03:22:26 2010
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=)
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 09:22:26 +0100
Subject: AW: [governance] Consensus Call for CSTD IGF Questionnaire - Clean
References: <AANLkTinyo=oKJoJiz2wVHikpv7-nYBwgq+cf7p6qrj16@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID:  <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07448@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

Hi everybody
 
thanks for the work. I am sorry that I jump in in a very late stage. I have three comments:
 
1. 3a: The old debate on receommendations is not really helpful. In the past CS tried also to use the terminology "messages". The problem is as soon as you introduce a process to negotiate a text which then has been the subject of voting you change the nature of the the whole event. Even if you stress that these receommendations will be not binding, this does not matter. In the Un context (like in other intergovernmental mechanisms) the category "receommednation" is well defined and you can not avoid that an IGF recommendation is seen as something similar to what other Un bodies are doing with receommendations. Again I prefer the "message". BTW, I will circulate later this week the Interim Report of the Council of Europe Cross Border Expert Group where we propose also the elaboration of some instruments. The Council of Europe - or other organisations with an established procedure to negotiat texts - are a better place for such 
an excercise. 
 
2. 6a: I thin SOC has an IGF Fellowship Programm.
 
3. Under nine we could say that we ould like to see that the IGF enhances its function and could become, inter alia, an observatory, a clearinghouse, an early warning system and a watchdog.
 
Sorry for the late reply. If it is too late then ignore it.
 
Best wishes
 
wolfgang  
________________________________

Von: izumiaizu at gmail.com im Auftrag von Izumi AIZU
Gesendet: Do 18.11.2010 03:13
An: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Betreff: [governance] Consensus Call for CSTD IGF Questionnaire - Clean version



Here follows are the Clean version of the Final Draft for the CSTD IGF
questionnaire answer
in full text. Sorry for the confusion.

Please respond if you agree or disagree as soon as possible.  Friday, Nov 19
is the deadline for submission. More comments are also very much appreciated
as we can further feed them into the Consultation meetings next week in Geneva.

Thanks!

izumi

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

FINAL Draft for Questionnaire on improvements to the IGF

1. What do you consider the most important achievements of the first
five IGF meetings?

IGF created the space for dialogue by all stakeholders in an open,
inclusive manner. These emergence and development of the
multistakeholder principle and practice are perhaps the biggest
contribution IGF has achieved so far. It helped many participants to
understand the issues of their interest, as well as to understand how
other actors understand, act and accept their issues. Emergence of
Regional and National IGF with multistakeholder approach is another
achievement.

2. How satisfied are you with the delivery of the results of
discussions at the IGF and the impact they have had on developments in
national, regional or international Internet governance?

IGF has made a reasonable advancement of the understanding of the
issues. Yet, at national, regional and international levels, we have
mixed assessment for the impact it brought.

3. Which, if any, new mechanisms would you propose to improve the
impact of the IGF discussions, in particular as regards the
interaction between the IGF and other stakeholders? Please specify the
kind of mechanism (e.g. reporting, exchanges, recommendations,
concrete advice, etc.) and the stakeholders (e.g. intergovernmental
bodies, other fora dealing with Internet Governance, etc.).

a) One mechanism we can suggest is to come up with some form of
recommendations where all stakeholders have [rough] consensus. They
will not be binding, but could still function as model, reference or
common framework. Working process towards achieving these rough
consensus will create better and deeper understandings amongst
different stakeholders.

b) The Secretariat and MAG should be strongly encouraged to directly
foster discussion and debate of difficult issues in main sessions,
instead of avoiding them.

4. In your view, what important new issues or themes concerning
Internet governance have emerged or become important since the Tunis
phase of the Summit, which deserve more attention in the next five
years?

IGC feels that attention to the development agenda, issues concerning
the marginalized groups or actors, have yet gained sufficient level of
work at IGF and its outcome. These may not be the "new" issues, but we
strongly feel they are very important.

Besides them, emergence of new technologies, tools and services, such
as cloud computing; user-generated, SNS and online sharing services
such as wiki, YouTube, Ustream, twitter and Facebook; DPI and
behavioral targeting advertisements; wide deployment of mobile
services including smart phones and tablet computers pose all kind of
new challenges for governance.


5. What do you think should be the priority themes and areas of work
of the IGF during the next five years?

Followings will be the areas of themes and works that have priorities we think.
a) Enhancing multi-stakeholder framework within IGF.
b) Promote capacity building for developmental agenda of governance
c) Balancing the interests - to empower those of marginalized and
under-developed in all organizations and fora dealing with Internet
governance - such as ICANN, W3C, IETF, RIRs, ITU, WIPO, CoE, OECD,
UNCTAD/CSTD and United Nations itself.

6. How can the capacity of those groups that are not yet well
represented at the IGF be improved? In particular, what could be done
to improve the capacity of representatives from developing countries?

a) Establish special funding mechanism by IGF itself to help actors
from developing countries to continuously engage in IGF and related
organizations and meetings. Fellowship works carried out by
DiploFoundation, dotAsia organization [other reference, please] and
other institutions offer good reference for this, but they should be
expanded in larger scale. Targeting youth groups or younger generation
in profession, will have, in the long run, effective impact.

b) Providing technical training to policy makers and policy training
to engineers will also help close the gap(s) within the
under-represented and also even well-represented.

7. How do you think more awareness of Internet governance issues and
the IGF process can be raised amongst groups whose lives are affected
by Internet governance but who are not yet part of the IGF process?

a) Giving more weight to regional and national IGF meetings, making
more direct "links" to the main IGF meeting will help outreach to
those who have not yet involved in IGF process. Securing the same
level of working framework of IGF, such as multi-stakeholder
composition and inclusion of civil society groups (where such practice
is relatively new or scarce) should be maintained.

b) Ensuring a plurality of civil society voices be heard in Internet
governance processes will also be effective in reaching out to those
yet to participate.

c) Online meetings are most effective when provision is made for
participation both synchronously (ie. in real time) and
asynchronously. The remote hubs and moderators at the Vilnius IGF made
good progress towards this direction. Using such tools as blogs,
Twitter, mailing lists, Facebook and so on over an extended period may
also increase the awareness.

d) Organizing some sessions completely online will create "level
playing field" among all participants, and may also demonstrate the
effectiveness of these tools/technologies, and may also improve the
quality of services in turn.

e) Increase linguistic diversity. Using UN major languages other than
English at certain meetings and occasions as main working language
(translated into other UN languages) will increase the outreach to
non-English speaking population of the globe and will give more sense
of ownership. Currently, English is the only default working language,
but we think it does not have to be so.

8. How, if at all, do you think that the IGF process needs to change
to meet changing circumstances and priorities?

As we replied to the MAG questionnaire, the organizing work of IGF
primarily by MAG should be improved. More outcome oriented direction
might improve the quality and value of IGF, but this should be
carefully exercised so as not to lose the open and free spirit of IGF
which contributed a great deal.

9. Do you have any other comments?

No.

END
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 iza at anr.org  Thu Nov 18 04:14:06 2010
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 18:14:06 +0900
Subject: [governance] <important> Consensus Call for CSTD IGF
 Questionnaire
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=8Yith+s_CyHmTKtAdznCXj977ZU2d-1KKeRpS@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTin328xxzLi-ca7LQdnXT4Z8pmrLJNw2OhCTTJ_M@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTi=8Yith+s_CyHmTKtAdznCXj977ZU2d-1KKeRpS@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=ET9618mwvzm4pEaQFON+zP972AC8ouuQCeLkB@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Marilia,

Thank you for the general support and sorry for not able to incorporate
your coming comments. BUT, please try to write and send them as
we will have face-to-face meeting there and if allowed we can make
more interventions than just reading out one statement.

It is just the beginning of the long consultation/negotiation and implementation
later, so things are never too late.

best,

izumi


2010/11/18 Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>:
> I was writing some comments about the second draft when I received your
> e-mail. Unfortunately I have been traveling during the past days and have
> not been able to engage on this dicussion.
>
> Despite the fact that there are issues I would like us to be more strong or
> more specific, I generally agree with this proposal.
>
> Thank you Izumi for coordinating the debate.
>
> Marilia
>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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


From iza at anr.org  Thu Nov 18 04:25:44 2010
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 18:25:44 +0900
Subject: [governance] Consensus Call for CSTD IGF Questionnaire - Clean
In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07448@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <AANLkTinyo=oKJoJiz2wVHikpv7-nYBwgq+cf7p6qrj16@mail.gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07448@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <AANLkTinsi5fuHvPtycmEZH_qKc0=T4UjXDjKBmNsOdJ2@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Wolfgang,

Thank you for your input. Procedurally, it is too late to change the text
for the Final draft.

For 3.a)
We can still continue the debate, though, for the next round of interventions,
maybe try to emphasize what we mean by "recommendations" and then
might change - if we all agree - to "message" or other expression.

As I mentioned we are just in the early phase of consultation.

6 a)
Adding ISOC should be no problem as I think it's a friendly amendment.

9
Again, your suggestion is attractive, but is more less substantial addition
that is better to ask others to discuss before making it final, hence for the
next round. I mean "clearing house or watchdog upon what" may require
good definition agreed.

izumi


2010/11/18 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"
<wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>:
> Hi everybody
>
> thanks for the work. I am sorry that I jump in in a very late stage. I have three comments:
>
> 1. 3a: The old debate on receommendations is not really helpful. In the past CS tried also to use the terminology "messages". The problem is as soon as you introduce a process to negotiate a text which then has been the subject of voting you change the nature of the the whole event. Even if you stress that these receommendations will be not binding, this does not matter. In the Un context (like in other intergovernmental mechanisms) the category "receommednation" is well defined and you can not avoid that an IGF recommendation is seen as something similar to what other Un bodies are doing with receommendations. Again I prefer the "message". BTW, I will circulate later this week the Interim Report of the Council of Europe Cross Border Expert Group where we propose also the elaboration of some instruments. The Council of Europe - or other organisations with an established procedure to negotiat texts - are a better place for such
> an excercise.
>
> 2. 6a: I thin SOC has an IGF Fellowship Programm.
>
> 3. Under nine we could say that we ould like to see that the IGF enhances its function and could become, inter alia, an observatory, a clearinghouse, an early warning system and a watchdog.
>
> Sorry for the late reply. If it is too late then ignore it.
>
> Best wishes
>
> wolfgang
> ________________________________
>
> Von: izumiaizu at gmail.com im Auftrag von Izumi AIZU
> Gesendet: Do 18.11.2010 03:13
> An: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Betreff: [governance] Consensus Call for CSTD IGF Questionnaire - Clean version
>
>
>
> Here follows are the Clean version of the Final Draft for the CSTD IGF
> questionnaire answer
> in full text. Sorry for the confusion.
>
> Please respond if you agree or disagree as soon as possible.  Friday, Nov 19
> is the deadline for submission. More comments are also very much appreciated
> as we can further feed them into the Consultation meetings next week in Geneva.
>
> Thanks!
>
> izumi
>
> ------------
>
> FINAL Draft for Questionnaire on improvements to the IGF
>
> 1. What do you consider the most important achievements of the first
> five IGF meetings?
>
> IGF created the space for dialogue by all stakeholders in an open,
> inclusive manner. These emergence and development of the
> multistakeholder principle and practice are perhaps the biggest
> contribution IGF has achieved so far. It helped many participants to
> understand the issues of their interest, as well as to understand how
> other actors understand, act and accept their issues. Emergence of
> Regional and National IGF with multistakeholder approach is another
> achievement.
>
> 2. How satisfied are you with the delivery of the results of
> discussions at the IGF and the impact they have had on developments in
> national, regional or international Internet governance?
>
> IGF has made a reasonable advancement of the understanding of the
> issues. Yet, at national, regional and international levels, we have
> mixed assessment for the impact it brought.
>
> 3. Which, if any, new mechanisms would you propose to improve the
> impact of the IGF discussions, in particular as regards the
> interaction between the IGF and other stakeholders? Please specify the
> kind of mechanism (e.g. reporting, exchanges, recommendations,
> concrete advice, etc.) and the stakeholders (e.g. intergovernmental
> bodies, other fora dealing with Internet Governance, etc.).
>
> a) One mechanism we can suggest is to come up with some form of
> recommendations where all stakeholders have [rough] consensus. They
> will not be binding, but could still function as model, reference or
> common framework. Working process towards achieving these rough
> consensus will create better and deeper understandings amongst
> different stakeholders.
>
> b) The Secretariat and MAG should be strongly encouraged to directly
> foster discussion and debate of difficult issues in main sessions,
> instead of avoiding them.
>
> 4. In your view, what important new issues or themes concerning
> Internet governance have emerged or become important since the Tunis
> phase of the Summit, which deserve more attention in the next five
> years?
>
> IGC feels that attention to the development agenda, issues concerning
> the marginalized groups or actors, have yet gained sufficient level of
> work at IGF and its outcome. These may not be the "new" issues, but we
> strongly feel they are very important.
>
> Besides them, emergence of new technologies, tools and services, such
> as cloud computing; user-generated, SNS and online sharing services
> such as wiki, YouTube, Ustream, twitter and Facebook; DPI and
> behavioral targeting advertisements; wide deployment of mobile
> services including smart phones and tablet computers pose all kind of
> new challenges for governance.
>
>
> 5. What do you think should be the priority themes and areas of work
> of the IGF during the next five years?
>
> Followings will be the areas of themes and works that have priorities we think.
> a) Enhancing multi-stakeholder framework within IGF.
> b) Promote capacity building for developmental agenda of governance
> c) Balancing the interests - to empower those of marginalized and
> under-developed in all organizations and fora dealing with Internet
> governance - such as ICANN, W3C, IETF, RIRs, ITU, WIPO, CoE, OECD,
> UNCTAD/CSTD and United Nations itself.
>
> 6. How can the capacity of those groups that are not yet well
> represented at the IGF be improved? In particular, what could be done
> to improve the capacity of representatives from developing countries?
>
> a) Establish special funding mechanism by IGF itself to help actors
> from developing countries to continuously engage in IGF and related
> organizations and meetings. Fellowship works carried out by
> DiploFoundation, dotAsia organization [other reference, please] and
> other institutions offer good reference for this, but they should be
> expanded in larger scale. Targeting youth groups or younger generation
> in profession, will have, in the long run, effective impact.
>
> b) Providing technical training to policy makers and policy training
> to engineers will also help close the gap(s) within the
> under-represented and also even well-represented.
>
> 7. How do you think more awareness of Internet governance issues and
> the IGF process can be raised amongst groups whose lives are affected
> by Internet governance but who are not yet part of the IGF process?
>
> a) Giving more weight to regional and national IGF meetings, making
> more direct "links" to the main IGF meeting will help outreach to
> those who have not yet involved in IGF process. Securing the same
> level of working framework of IGF, such as multi-stakeholder
> composition and inclusion of civil society groups (where such practice
> is relatively new or scarce) should be maintained.
>
> b) Ensuring a plurality of civil society voices be heard in Internet
> governance processes will also be effective in reaching out to those
> yet to participate.
>
> c) Online meetings are most effective when provision is made for
> participation both synchronously (ie. in real time) and
> asynchronously. The remote hubs and moderators at the Vilnius IGF made
> good progress towards this direction. Using such tools as blogs,
> Twitter, mailing lists, Facebook and so on over an extended period may
> also increase the awareness.
>
> d) Organizing some sessions completely online will create "level
> playing field" among all participants, and may also demonstrate the
> effectiveness of these tools/technologies, and may also improve the
> quality of services in turn.
>
> e) Increase linguistic diversity. Using UN major languages other than
> English at certain meetings and occasions as main working language
> (translated into other UN languages) will increase the outreach to
> non-English speaking population of the globe and will give more sense
> of ownership. Currently, English is the only default working language,
> but we think it does not have to be so.
>
> 8. How, if at all, do you think that the IGF process needs to change
> to meet changing circumstances and priorities?
>
> As we replied to the MAG questionnaire, the organizing work of IGF
> primarily by MAG should be improved. More outcome oriented direction
> might improve the quality and value of IGF, but this should be
> carefully exercised so as not to lose the open and free spirit of IGF
> which contributed a great deal.
>
> 9. Do you have any other comments?
>
> No.
>
> END
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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
>
>



-- 
                        >> Izumi Aizu <<

          Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo

           Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,
                                  Japan
                                 * * * * *
           << Writing the Future of the History >>
                                www.anr.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 william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch  Thu Nov 18 04:31:39 2010
From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake)
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 10:31:39 +0100
Subject: [governance] Consensus Call for CSTD IGF Questionnaire - Clean
 version
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinyo=oKJoJiz2wVHikpv7-nYBwgq+cf7p6qrj16@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTinyo=oKJoJiz2wVHikpv7-nYBwgq+cf7p6qrj16@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <B1A4A87C-285D-4D29-8F61-61A937CC4298@graduateinstitute.ch>

Hi

On Nov 18, 2010, at 3:13 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote:

> Here follows are the Clean version of the Final Draft for the CSTD IGF
> questionnaire answer
> in full text. Sorry for the confusion.
> 
> Please respond if you agree or disagree as soon as possible.  

Sorry, but fwiw I disagree.  2) takes too dim a view of the IGF's contributions, 3) goes retro with a circa 2005 vision of recs that won't work and would turn IGF into WSIS II, 4) proposes work on misc. issues that would distract from drilling down into the key emerging challenges of global IG, 5) conflates capacity building and the development agenda concept, 8) the MAG uber alles model is too limiting, 9) we say nothing about preserving the secretariat.  On the first do no harm principle, I'd rather say nothing than say something that can be spun as supporting the G77 + China approach.  But I imagine the desire to just say something will prevail.

Best

Bill

> Friday, Nov 19
> is the deadline for submission. More comments are also very much appreciated
> as we can further feed them into the Consultation meetings next week in Geneva.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> izumi
> 
> ------------
> 
> FINAL Draft for Questionnaire on improvements to the IGF
> 
> 1. What do you consider the most important achievements of the first
> five IGF meetings?
> 
> IGF created the space for dialogue by all stakeholders in an open,
> inclusive manner. These emergence and development of the
> multistakeholder principle and practice are perhaps the biggest
> contribution IGF has achieved so far. It helped many participants to
> understand the issues of their interest, as well as to understand how
> other actors understand, act and accept their issues. Emergence of
> Regional and National IGF with multistakeholder approach is another
> achievement.
> 
> 2. How satisfied are you with the delivery of the results of
> discussions at the IGF and the impact they have had on developments in
> national, regional or international Internet governance?
> 
> IGF has made a reasonable advancement of the understanding of the
> issues. Yet, at national, regional and international levels, we have
> mixed assessment for the impact it brought.
> 
> 3. Which, if any, new mechanisms would you propose to improve the
> impact of the IGF discussions, in particular as regards the
> interaction between the IGF and other stakeholders? Please specify the
> kind of mechanism (e.g. reporting, exchanges, recommendations,
> concrete advice, etc.) and the stakeholders (e.g. intergovernmental
> bodies, other fora dealing with Internet Governance, etc.).
> 
> a) One mechanism we can suggest is to come up with some form of
> recommendations where all stakeholders have [rough] consensus. They
> will not be binding, but could still function as model, reference or
> common framework. Working process towards achieving these rough
> consensus will create better and deeper understandings amongst
> different stakeholders.
> 
> b) The Secretariat and MAG should be strongly encouraged to directly
> foster discussion and debate of difficult issues in main sessions,
> instead of avoiding them.
> 
> 4. In your view, what important new issues or themes concerning
> Internet governance have emerged or become important since the Tunis
> phase of the Summit, which deserve more attention in the next five
> years?
> 
> IGC feels that attention to the development agenda, issues concerning
> the marginalized groups or actors, have yet gained sufficient level of
> work at IGF and its outcome. These may not be the “new” issues, but we
> strongly feel they are very important.
> 
> Besides them, emergence of new technologies, tools and services, such
> as cloud computing; user-generated, SNS and online sharing services
> such as wiki, YouTube, Ustream, twitter and Facebook; DPI and
> behavioral targeting advertisements; wide deployment of mobile
> services including smart phones and tablet computers pose all kind of
> new challenges for governance.
> 
> 
> 5. What do you think should be the priority themes and areas of work
> of the IGF during the next five years?
> 
> Followings will be the areas of themes and works that have priorities we think.
> a) Enhancing multi-stakeholder framework within IGF.
> b) Promote capacity building for developmental agenda of governance
> c) Balancing the interests – to empower those of marginalized and
> under-developed in all organizations and fora dealing with Internet
> governance – such as ICANN, W3C, IETF, RIRs, ITU, WIPO, CoE, OECD,
> UNCTAD/CSTD and United Nations itself.
> 
> 6. How can the capacity of those groups that are not yet well
> represented at the IGF be improved? In particular, what could be done
> to improve the capacity of representatives from developing countries?
> 
> a) Establish special funding mechanism by IGF itself to help actors
> from developing countries to continuously engage in IGF and related
> organizations and meetings. Fellowship works carried out by
> DiploFoundation, dotAsia organization [other reference, please] and
> other institutions offer good reference for this, but they should be
> expanded in larger scale. Targeting youth groups or younger generation
> in profession, will have, in the long run, effective impact.
> 
> b) Providing technical training to policy makers and policy training
> to engineers will also help close the gap(s) within the
> under-represented and also even well-represented.
> 
> 7. How do you think more awareness of Internet governance issues and
> the IGF process can be raised amongst groups whose lives are affected
> by Internet governance but who are not yet part of the IGF process?
> 
> a) Giving more weight to regional and national IGF meetings, making
> more direct “links” to the main IGF meeting will help outreach to
> those who have not yet involved in IGF process. Securing the same
> level of working framework of IGF, such as multi-stakeholder
> composition and inclusion of civil society groups (where such practice
> is relatively new or scarce) should be maintained.
> 
> b) Ensuring a plurality of civil society voices be heard in Internet
> governance processes will also be effective in reaching out to those
> yet to participate.
> 
> c) Online meetings are most effective when provision is made for
> participation both synchronously (ie. in real time) and
> asynchronously. The remote hubs and moderators at the Vilnius IGF made
> good progress towards this direction. Using such tools as blogs,
> Twitter, mailing lists, Facebook and so on over an extended period may
> also increase the awareness.
> 
> d) Organizing some sessions completely online will create “level
> playing field” among all participants, and may also demonstrate the
> effectiveness of these tools/technologies, and may also improve the
> quality of services in turn.
> 
> e) Increase linguistic diversity. Using UN major languages other than
> English at certain meetings and occasions as main working language
> (translated into other UN languages) will increase the outreach to
> non-English speaking population of the globe and will give more sense
> of ownership. Currently, English is the only default working language,
> but we think it does not have to be so.
> 
> 8. How, if at all, do you think that the IGF process needs to change
> to meet changing circumstances and priorities?
> 
> As we replied to the MAG questionnaire, the organizing work of IGF
> primarily by MAG should be improved. More outcome oriented direction
> might improve the quality and value of IGF, but this should be
> carefully exercised so as not to lose the open and free spirit of IGF
> which contributed a great deal.
> 
> 9. Do you have any other comments?
> 
> No.
> 
> END
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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.williamdrake.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 b.schombe at gmail.com  Thu Nov 18 05:13:48 2010
From: b.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin SCHOMBE)
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 11:13:48 +0100
Subject: [governance] Consensus Call for CSTD IGF Questionnaire - Clean
 version
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinyo=oKJoJiz2wVHikpv7-nYBwgq+cf7p6qrj16@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTinyo=oKJoJiz2wVHikpv7-nYBwgq+cf7p6qrj16@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTikB-3zbkcWdEH7G=RYGKAck_MUxdie=GMa=G2GC@mail.gmail.com>

Hello,

The text describes many different concerns that respond to many of Africa's
problems.
National and Regional IGFs  must play a leading role before IGF world. On
this point, it would be important for African countries, the UN agencies,
responsible for coordinating the implementation of WSIS Action Lines are
contributing more and more in each country where they are present by
attending governments to effectively implement the principle of
"multistakeholder".

Until this point I'm satisfied and I think other African colleagues can
contribute if necessary.


SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN
*COORDONNATEUR DU CENTRE AFRICAIN D'ECHANGE CULTUREL (CAFEC)
 ACADEMIE DES TIC
*COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC
*MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE
*NCUC/GNSO MEMBER (ICANN)

Téléphone mobile: +243998983491/+243811980914
email:                   b.schombe at gmail.com
blog:                     http://akimambo.unblog.fr



2010/11/18 Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org>

> Here follows are the Clean version of the Final Draft for the CSTD IGF
> questionnaire answer
> in full text. Sorry for the confusion.
>
> Please respond if you agree or disagree as soon as possible.  Friday, Nov
> 19
> is the deadline for submission. More comments are also very much
> appreciated
> as we can further feed them into the Consultation meetings next week in
> Geneva.
>
> Thanks!
>
> izumi
>
> ------------
>
> FINAL Draft for Questionnaire on improvements to the IGF
>
> 1. What do you consider the most important achievements of the first
> five IGF meetings?
>
> IGF created the space for dialogue by all stakeholders in an open,
> inclusive manner. These emergence and development of the
> multistakeholder principle and practice are perhaps the biggest
> contribution IGF has achieved so far. It helped many participants to
> understand the issues of their interest, as well as to understand how
> other actors understand, act and accept their issues. Emergence of
> Regional and National IGF with multistakeholder approach is another
> achievement.
>
> 2. How satisfied are you with the delivery of the results of
> discussions at the IGF and the impact they have had on developments in
> national, regional or international Internet governance?
>
> IGF has made a reasonable advancement of the understanding of the
> issues. Yet, at national, regional and international levels, we have
> mixed assessment for the impact it brought.
>
> 3. Which, if any, new mechanisms would you propose to improve the
> impact of the IGF discussions, in particular as regards the
> interaction between the IGF and other stakeholders? Please specify the
> kind of mechanism (e.g. reporting, exchanges, recommendations,
> concrete advice, etc.) and the stakeholders (e.g. intergovernmental
> bodies, other fora dealing with Internet Governance, etc.).
>
> a) One mechanism we can suggest is to come up with some form of
> recommendations where all stakeholders have [rough] consensus. They
> will not be binding, but could still function as model, reference or
> common framework. Working process towards achieving these rough
> consensus will create better and deeper understandings amongst
> different stakeholders.
>
> b) The Secretariat and MAG should be strongly encouraged to directly
> foster discussion and debate of difficult issues in main sessions,
> instead of avoiding them.
>
> 4. In your view, what important new issues or themes concerning
> Internet governance have emerged or become important since the Tunis
> phase of the Summit, which deserve more attention in the next five
> years?
>
> IGC feels that attention to the development agenda, issues concerning
> the marginalized groups or actors, have yet gained sufficient level of
> work at IGF and its outcome. These may not be the “new” issues, but we
> strongly feel they are very important.
>
> Besides them, emergence of new technologies, tools and services, such
> as cloud computing; user-generated, SNS and online sharing services
> such as wiki, YouTube, Ustream, twitter and Facebook; DPI and
> behavioral targeting advertisements; wide deployment of mobile
> services including smart phones and tablet computers pose all kind of
> new challenges for governance.
>
>
> 5. What do you think should be the priority themes and areas of work
> of the IGF during the next five years?
>
> Followings will be the areas of themes and works that have priorities we
> think.
> a) Enhancing multi-stakeholder framework within IGF.
> b) Promote capacity building for developmental agenda of governance
> c) Balancing the interests – to empower those of marginalized and
> under-developed in all organizations and fora dealing with Internet
> governance – such as ICANN, W3C, IETF, RIRs, ITU, WIPO, CoE, OECD,
> UNCTAD/CSTD and United Nations itself.
>
> 6. How can the capacity of those groups that are not yet well
> represented at the IGF be improved? In particular, what could be done
> to improve the capacity of representatives from developing countries?
>
> a) Establish special funding mechanism by IGF itself to help actors
> from developing countries to continuously engage in IGF and related
> organizations and meetings. Fellowship works carried out by
> DiploFoundation, dotAsia organization [other reference, please] and
> other institutions offer good reference for this, but they should be
> expanded in larger scale. Targeting youth groups or younger generation
> in profession, will have, in the long run, effective impact.
>
> b) Providing technical training to policy makers and policy training
> to engineers will also help close the gap(s) within the
> under-represented and also even well-represented.
>
> 7. How do you think more awareness of Internet governance issues and
> the IGF process can be raised amongst groups whose lives are affected
> by Internet governance but who are not yet part of the IGF process?
>
> a) Giving more weight to regional and national IGF meetings, making
> more direct “links” to the main IGF meeting will help outreach to
> those who have not yet involved in IGF process. Securing the same
> level of working framework of IGF, such as multi-stakeholder
> composition and inclusion of civil society groups (where such practice
> is relatively new or scarce) should be maintained.
>
> b) Ensuring a plurality of civil society voices be heard in Internet
> governance processes will also be effective in reaching out to those
> yet to participate.
>
> c) Online meetings are most effective when provision is made for
> participation both synchronously (ie. in real time) and
> asynchronously. The remote hubs and moderators at the Vilnius IGF made
> good progress towards this direction. Using such tools as blogs,
> Twitter, mailing lists, Facebook and so on over an extended period may
> also increase the awareness.
>
> d) Organizing some sessions completely online will create “level
> playing field” among all participants, and may also demonstrate the
> effectiveness of these tools/technologies, and may also improve the
> quality of services in turn.
>
> e) Increase linguistic diversity. Using UN major languages other than
> English at certain meetings and occasions as main working language
> (translated into other UN languages) will increase the outreach to
> non-English speaking population of the globe and will give more sense
> of ownership. Currently, English is the only default working language,
> but we think it does not have to be so.
>
> 8. How, if at all, do you think that the IGF process needs to change
> to meet changing circumstances and priorities?
>
> As we replied to the MAG questionnaire, the organizing work of IGF
> primarily by MAG should be improved. More outcome oriented direction
> might improve the quality and value of IGF, but this should be
> carefully exercised so as not to lose the open and free spirit of IGF
> which contributed a great deal.
>
> 9. Do you have any other comments?
>
> No.
>
> END
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101118/ddbfa565/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de  Thu Nov 18 06:45:46 2010
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=)
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 12:45:46 +0100
Subject: [governance] Berckstrom to Sha Zukang
References: <C9014ADD.1A14E%divina.meigs@orange.fr>
Message-ID:  <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07450@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

http://www.icann.org/en/correspondence/beckstrom-to-sha-15nov10-en.pdf
 
FYI
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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 Nov 18 07:51:12 2010
From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 13:51:12 +0100
Subject: [governance] Consensus Call for CSTD IGF Questionnaire - Clean
In-Reply-To: <B1A4A87C-285D-4D29-8F61-61A937CC4298@graduateinstitute.ch>
References: <AANLkTinyo=oKJoJiz2wVHikpv7-nYBwgq+cf7p6qrj16@mail.gmail.com> <B1A4A87C-285D-4D29-8F61-61A937CC4298@graduateinstitute.ch>
Message-ID: <4CE52140.6090300@wzb.eu>

Hi all,

I agree with Bill's point that the answer to question 2 is too dim, and 
I think too short.

My contribution this year's IGf book discusses the question of results 
or impacts of the global IGF in a more extensive way. Perhaps some of 
the points I made in my article could be used for our reply to question 
2 if they find consensus here? Feel free to cut and paste if that helps:

Here are a few quotes from my article:


*Although the IGF has not led to a convergence of expectations and views, it
has created a communicative space which in itself leaves an imprint on
further debates on the management of critical Internet resources. A 
first indicator of such changes can be seen in the fact that fundamental 
matters such as the legitimacy of the current political oversight 
arrangements have ceased to overshadow all other relevant aspects of 
Internet governance.

*While WSIS was essentially an intergovernmental process with additional 
multi-stakeholder provisions, the IGF is, as one of the speakers at the 
stock taking session in Sharm El-Sheikh characterized it, a "hybrid of 
U.N. intergovernmental and nongovernmental protocol and practice where 
individuals and institutions concerned with Internet governance and 
development gather". This hybrid creates a space "where all stakeholders 
feel comfortable, to the extent they can contribute meaningfully and 
openly in discussion, debate, and collaborative
planning with other stakeholders."6 As a result of this unique space, 
more attention is given to the operational but also the civil liberty 
dimension of Internet governance.

*The most important merit of the IGF so far might actually lie in the 
area of capacity building. Thanks to the IGF, a greater number of people 
today have a more comprehensive picture of the management of critical 
Internet resources, including the various interests and conflicting 
visions surrounding this field. (...)The specific charm of capacity 
building in the context of the IGF is that it works both ways. All 
information providers are at the same time information
recipients.

*A closer integration of the various rationalities and goals shaping 
Internet governance has been achieved and the actors involved may have a 
better sense of the interplay but also the inconsistencies between 
criteria of global legitimacy, practical requirements of the policy 
processes, and the logics of the market.

* Interestingly, the multi-stakeholder dialogue also undermines the
traditional distinction between technical and public policy issues in 
Internet governance that still shaped the thinking reflected in the 
Tunis Agenda. Discussing policy implications of technical decisions has 
become a common practice at the IGF.

*Thanks to the pragmatic focus of the discussions, the participants have
developed a level of confidence and ownership in the process that enable
public exchange even on controversial or complex aspects of the 
management of critical Internet resources. Considering how strong the 
original concerns were against putting the management of critical 
Internet resources, and thus ICANN, once again at centre stage, this is 
no small achievement.

jeanette

Am 18.11.2010 10:31, schrieb William Drake:
> Hi
>
> On Nov 18, 2010, at 3:13 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote:
>
>> Here follows are the Clean version of the Final Draft for the CSTD IGF
>> questionnaire answer
>> in full text. Sorry for the confusion.
>>
>> Please respond if you agree or disagree as soon as possible.
>
> Sorry, but fwiw I disagree.  2) takes too dim a view of the IGF's contributions, 3) goes retro with a circa 2005 vision of recs that won't work and would turn IGF into WSIS II, 4) proposes work on misc. issues that would distract from drilling down into the key emerging challenges of global IG, 5) conflates capacity building and the development agenda concept, 8) the MAG uber alles model is too limiting, 9) we say nothing about preserving the secretariat.  On the first do no harm principle, I'd rather say nothing than say something that can be spun as supporting the G77 + China approach.  But I imagine the desire to just say something will prevail.
>
> Best
>
> Bill
>
>> Friday, Nov 19
>> is the deadline for submission. More comments are also very much appreciated
>> as we can further feed them into the Consultation meetings next week in Geneva.
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> izumi
>>
>> ------------
>>
>> FINAL Draft for Questionnaire on improvements to the IGF
>>
>> 1. What do you consider the most important achievements of the first
>> five IGF meetings?
>>
>> IGF created the space for dialogue by all stakeholders in an open,
>> inclusive manner. These emergence and development of the
>> multistakeholder principle and practice are perhaps the biggest
>> contribution IGF has achieved so far. It helped many participants to
>> understand the issues of their interest, as well as to understand how
>> other actors understand, act and accept their issues. Emergence of
>> Regional and National IGF with multistakeholder approach is another
>> achievement.
>>
>> 2. How satisfied are you with the delivery of the results of
>> discussions at the IGF and the impact they have had on developments in
>> national, regional or international Internet governance?
>>
>> IGF has made a reasonable advancement of the understanding of the
>> issues. Yet, at national, regional and international levels, we have
>> mixed assessment for the impact it brought.
>>
>> 3. Which, if any, new mechanisms would you propose to improve the
>> impact of the IGF discussions, in particular as regards the
>> interaction between the IGF and other stakeholders? Please specify the
>> kind of mechanism (e.g. reporting, exchanges, recommendations,
>> concrete advice, etc.) and the stakeholders (e.g. intergovernmental
>> bodies, other fora dealing with Internet Governance, etc.).
>>
>> a) One mechanism we can suggest is to come up with some form of
>> recommendations where all stakeholders have [rough] consensus. They
>> will not be binding, but could still function as model, reference or
>> common framework. Working process towards achieving these rough
>> consensus will create better and deeper understandings amongst
>> different stakeholders.
>>
>> b) The Secretariat and MAG should be strongly encouraged to directly
>> foster discussion and debate of difficult issues in main sessions,
>> instead of avoiding them.
>>
>> 4. In your view, what important new issues or themes concerning
>> Internet governance have emerged or become important since the Tunis
>> phase of the Summit, which deserve more attention in the next five
>> years?
>>
>> IGC feels that attention to the development agenda, issues concerning
>> the marginalized groups or actors, have yet gained sufficient level of
>> work at IGF and its outcome. These may not be the “new” issues, but we
>> strongly feel they are very important.
>>
>> Besides them, emergence of new technologies, tools and services, such
>> as cloud computing; user-generated, SNS and online sharing services
>> such as wiki, YouTube, Ustream, twitter and Facebook; DPI and
>> behavioral targeting advertisements; wide deployment of mobile
>> services including smart phones and tablet computers pose all kind of
>> new challenges for governance.
>>
>>
>> 5. What do you think should be the priority themes and areas of work
>> of the IGF during the next five years?
>>
>> Followings will be the areas of themes and works that have priorities we think.
>> a) Enhancing multi-stakeholder framework within IGF.
>> b) Promote capacity building for developmental agenda of governance
>> c) Balancing the interests – to empower those of marginalized and
>> under-developed in all organizations and fora dealing with Internet
>> governance – such as ICANN, W3C, IETF, RIRs, ITU, WIPO, CoE, OECD,
>> UNCTAD/CSTD and United Nations itself.
>>
>> 6. How can the capacity of those groups that are not yet well
>> represented at the IGF be improved? In particular, what could be done
>> to improve the capacity of representatives from developing countries?
>>
>> a) Establish special funding mechanism by IGF itself to help actors
>> from developing countries to continuously engage in IGF and related
>> organizations and meetings. Fellowship works carried out by
>> DiploFoundation, dotAsia organization [other reference, please] and
>> other institutions offer good reference for this, but they should be
>> expanded in larger scale. Targeting youth groups or younger generation
>> in profession, will have, in the long run, effective impact.
>>
>> b) Providing technical training to policy makers and policy training
>> to engineers will also help close the gap(s) within the
>> under-represented and also even well-represented.
>>
>> 7. How do you think more awareness of Internet governance issues and
>> the IGF process can be raised amongst groups whose lives are affected
>> by Internet governance but who are not yet part of the IGF process?
>>
>> a) Giving more weight to regional and national IGF meetings, making
>> more direct “links” to the main IGF meeting will help outreach to
>> those who have not yet involved in IGF process. Securing the same
>> level of working framework of IGF, such as multi-stakeholder
>> composition and inclusion of civil society groups (where such practice
>> is relatively new or scarce) should be maintained.
>>
>> b) Ensuring a plurality of civil society voices be heard in Internet
>> governance processes will also be effective in reaching out to those
>> yet to participate.
>>
>> c) Online meetings are most effective when provision is made for
>> participation both synchronously (ie. in real time) and
>> asynchronously. The remote hubs and moderators at the Vilnius IGF made
>> good progress towards this direction. Using such tools as blogs,
>> Twitter, mailing lists, Facebook and so on over an extended period may
>> also increase the awareness.
>>
>> d) Organizing some sessions completely online will create “level
>> playing field” among all participants, and may also demonstrate the
>> effectiveness of these tools/technologies, and may also improve the
>> quality of services in turn.
>>
>> e) Increase linguistic diversity. Using UN major languages other than
>> English at certain meetings and occasions as main working language
>> (translated into other UN languages) will increase the outreach to
>> non-English speaking population of the globe and will give more sense
>> of ownership. Currently, English is the only default working language,
>> but we think it does not have to be so.
>>
>> 8. How, if at all, do you think that the IGF process needs to change
>> to meet changing circumstances and priorities?
>>
>> As we replied to the MAG questionnaire, the organizing work of IGF
>> primarily by MAG should be improved. More outcome oriented direction
>> might improve the quality and value of IGF, but this should be
>> carefully exercised so as not to lose the open and free spirit of IGF
>> which contributed a great deal.
>>
>> 9. Do you have any other comments?
>>
>> No.
>>
>> END
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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.williamdrake.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 miguel.alcaine at gmail.com  Thu Nov 18 10:04:04 2010
From: miguel.alcaine at gmail.com (Miguel Alcaine)
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 16:04:04 +0100
Subject: [governance] Consensus Call for CSTD IGF Questionnaire - Clean
In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07448@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <AANLkTinyo=oKJoJiz2wVHikpv7-nYBwgq+cf7p6qrj16@mail.gmail.com>
	<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07448@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=DFTPVO36vapwBWxiYq7kDnFg=f9RexLpE7rZc@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all,

I would suggest that:

- for 3a, I will suggest "messages from the IGF" for the IGF meeting. I
think, an IGF host with the assistance of the MAG and Secretariat could
identify people from the organizers of a main session to draft the status of
the discussion of the topic, either rough agreements or the different points
of view of an important subject. After, the IGF host could prepare the whole
message with the assistance of the Secretariat.

Afterwards, the messages from the IGF could be used as a basis for
mailing-list discussions as to identify the appropriate fora to present the
message or to refine part of the message, but I will suggest such
refinements to be Ad-hoc groups (open and voluntary) to take up messages,
refine them and present them in other fora, but not in the IGF behalf. Such
ad-hoc groups could only claim that they started their work based on X
message from the IGF.

I agree with Wolfang in avoiding recommendation and I will also suggest to
get rid of "rough consensus" and rather apply the method described above.


- for 6a. IGF Secretariat will not be able to dedicate funds from its
current level of funding in its voluntary fund for the engagement of
Developing country actors. Either we can insist in inviting or strenghtening
the voluntary fund and dedicate the additional funds to the engagement of
developing countries or we can invite governments or the UN SG to consider a
small transfer from the UN regular budget to the aforementioned IGF
voluntary fund and dedicate such funds for the engagement of developing
countries. I am suggesting a transfer around US$200,000 annually.
Independently of the source of the funds, they should serve to make
sinergies with the actors already improving the engagement of developing
countries.

Best,

Miguel

2010/11/18 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" <
wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

> Hi everybody
>
> thanks for the work. I am sorry that I jump in in a very late stage. I have
> three comments:
>
> 1. 3a: The old debate on receommendations is not really helpful. In the
> past CS tried also to use the terminology "messages". The problem is as soon
> as you introduce a process to negotiate a text which then has been the
> subject of voting you change the nature of the the whole event. Even if you
> stress that these receommendations will be not binding, this does not
> matter. In the Un context (like in other intergovernmental mechanisms) the
> category "receommednation" is well defined and you can not avoid that an IGF
> recommendation is seen as something similar to what other Un bodies are
> doing with receommendations. Again I prefer the "message". BTW, I will
> circulate later this week the Interim Report of the Council of Europe Cross
> Border Expert Group where we propose also the elaboration of some
> instruments. The Council of Europe - or other organisations with an
> established procedure to negotiat texts - are a better place for such
> an excercise.
>
> 2. 6a: I thin SOC has an IGF Fellowship Programm.
>
> 3. Under nine we could say that we ould like to see that the IGF enhances
> its function and could become, inter alia, an observatory, a clearinghouse,
> an early warning system and a watchdog.
>
> Sorry for the late reply. If it is too late then ignore it.
>
> Best wishes
>
> wolfgang
> ________________________________
>
> Von: izumiaizu at gmail.com im Auftrag von Izumi AIZU
> Gesendet: Do 18.11.2010 03:13
> An: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Betreff: [governance] Consensus Call for CSTD IGF Questionnaire - Clean
> version
>
>
>
> Here follows are the Clean version of the Final Draft for the CSTD IGF
> questionnaire answer
> in full text. Sorry for the confusion.
>
> Please respond if you agree or disagree as soon as possible.  Friday, Nov
> 19
> is the deadline for submission. More comments are also very much
> appreciated
> as we can further feed them into the Consultation meetings next week in
> Geneva.
>
> Thanks!
>
> izumi
>
> ------------
>
> FINAL Draft for Questionnaire on improvements to the IGF
>
> 1. What do you consider the most important achievements of the first
> five IGF meetings?
>
> IGF created the space for dialogue by all stakeholders in an open,
> inclusive manner. These emergence and development of the
> multistakeholder principle and practice are perhaps the biggest
> contribution IGF has achieved so far. It helped many participants to
> understand the issues of their interest, as well as to understand how
> other actors understand, act and accept their issues. Emergence of
> Regional and National IGF with multistakeholder approach is another
> achievement.
>
> 2. How satisfied are you with the delivery of the results of
> discussions at the IGF and the impact they have had on developments in
> national, regional or international Internet governance?
>
> IGF has made a reasonable advancement of the understanding of the
> issues. Yet, at national, regional and international levels, we have
> mixed assessment for the impact it brought.
>
> 3. Which, if any, new mechanisms would you propose to improve the
> impact of the IGF discussions, in particular as regards the
> interaction between the IGF and other stakeholders? Please specify the
> kind of mechanism (e.g. reporting, exchanges, recommendations,
> concrete advice, etc.) and the stakeholders (e.g. intergovernmental
> bodies, other fora dealing with Internet Governance, etc.).
>
> a) One mechanism we can suggest is to come up with some form of
> recommendations where all stakeholders have [rough] consensus. They
> will not be binding, but could still function as model, reference or
> common framework. Working process towards achieving these rough
> consensus will create better and deeper understandings amongst
> different stakeholders.
>
> b) The Secretariat and MAG should be strongly encouraged to directly
> foster discussion and debate of difficult issues in main sessions,
> instead of avoiding them.
>
> 4. In your view, what important new issues or themes concerning
> Internet governance have emerged or become important since the Tunis
> phase of the Summit, which deserve more attention in the next five
> years?
>
> IGC feels that attention to the development agenda, issues concerning
> the marginalized groups or actors, have yet gained sufficient level of
> work at IGF and its outcome. These may not be the "new" issues, but we
> strongly feel they are very important.
>
> Besides them, emergence of new technologies, tools and services, such
> as cloud computing; user-generated, SNS and online sharing services
> such as wiki, YouTube, Ustream, twitter and Facebook; DPI and
> behavioral targeting advertisements; wide deployment of mobile
> services including smart phones and tablet computers pose all kind of
> new challenges for governance.
>
>
> 5. What do you think should be the priority themes and areas of work
> of the IGF during the next five years?
>
> Followings will be the areas of themes and works that have priorities we
> think.
> a) Enhancing multi-stakeholder framework within IGF.
> b) Promote capacity building for developmental agenda of governance
> c) Balancing the interests - to empower those of marginalized and
> under-developed in all organizations and fora dealing with Internet
> governance - such as ICANN, W3C, IETF, RIRs, ITU, WIPO, CoE, OECD,
> UNCTAD/CSTD and United Nations itself.
>
> 6. How can the capacity of those groups that are not yet well
> represented at the IGF be improved? In particular, what could be done
> to improve the capacity of representatives from developing countries?
>
> a) Establish special funding mechanism by IGF itself to help actors
> from developing countries to continuously engage in IGF and related
> organizations and meetings. Fellowship works carried out by
> DiploFoundation, dotAsia organization [other reference, please] and
> other institutions offer good reference for this, but they should be
> expanded in larger scale. Targeting youth groups or younger generation
> in profession, will have, in the long run, effective impact.
>
> b) Providing technical training to policy makers and policy training
> to engineers will also help close the gap(s) within the
> under-represented and also even well-represented.
>
> 7. How do you think more awareness of Internet governance issues and
> the IGF process can be raised amongst groups whose lives are affected
> by Internet governance but who are not yet part of the IGF process?
>
> a) Giving more weight to regional and national IGF meetings, making
> more direct "links" to the main IGF meeting will help outreach to
> those who have not yet involved in IGF process. Securing the same
> level of working framework of IGF, such as multi-stakeholder
> composition and inclusion of civil society groups (where such practice
> is relatively new or scarce) should be maintained.
>
> b) Ensuring a plurality of civil society voices be heard in Internet
> governance processes will also be effective in reaching out to those
> yet to participate.
>
> c) Online meetings are most effective when provision is made for
> participation both synchronously (ie. in real time) and
> asynchronously. The remote hubs and moderators at the Vilnius IGF made
> good progress towards this direction. Using such tools as blogs,
> Twitter, mailing lists, Facebook and so on over an extended period may
> also increase the awareness.
>
> d) Organizing some sessions completely online will create "level
> playing field" among all participants, and may also demonstrate the
> effectiveness of these tools/technologies, and may also improve the
> quality of services in turn.
>
> e) Increase linguistic diversity. Using UN major languages other than
> English at certain meetings and occasions as main working language
> (translated into other UN languages) will increase the outreach to
> non-English speaking population of the globe and will give more sense
> of ownership. Currently, English is the only default working language,
> but we think it does not have to be so.
>
> 8. How, if at all, do you think that the IGF process needs to change
> to meet changing circumstances and priorities?
>
> As we replied to the MAG questionnaire, the organizing work of IGF
> primarily by MAG should be improved. More outcome oriented direction
> might improve the quality and value of IGF, but this should be
> carefully exercised so as not to lose the open and free spirit of IGF
> which contributed a great deal.
>
> 9. Do you have any other comments?
>
> No.
>
> END
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101118/f71fee4e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From ias_pk at yahoo.com  Thu Nov 18 12:44:30 2010
From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah)
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 09:44:30 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [governance] Consensus Call for CSTD IGF Questionnaire - Clean
 version
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinyo=oKJoJiz2wVHikpv7-nYBwgq+cf7p6qrj16@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTinyo=oKJoJiz2wVHikpv7-nYBwgq+cf7p6qrj16@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <24795.51535.qm@web33005.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Dear Izumi and all list members.
My inputs/comments are as as follows, (with the lable IAS: next to each related 
para)
and there are some additional items, listed with remarks.
Thanks
Imran 

________________________________
From: Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org>
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Sent: Thu, 18 November, 2010 7:13:08
Subject: [governance] Consensus Call for CSTD IGF Questionnaire - Clean version

Here follows are the Clean version of the Final Draft for the CSTD IGF
questionnaire answer
in full text. Sorry for the confusion.

Please respond if you agree or disagree as soon as possible.  Friday, Nov 19
is the deadline for submission. More comments are also very much appreciated
as we can further feed them into the Consultation meetings next week in Geneva.

Thanks!

izumi

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


FINAL Draft for Questionnaire on improvements to the IGF

1. What do you consider the most important achievements of the first
five IGF meetings?

IGF created the space for dialogue by all stakeholders in an open,
inclusive manner. These emergence and development of the
multistakeholder principle and practice are perhaps the biggest
contribution IGF has achieved so far. It helped many participants to
understand the issues of their interest, as well as to understand how
other actors understand, act and accept their issues. Emergence of
Regional and National IGF with multistakeholder approach is another
achievement.
IAS: agreed

2. How satisfied are you with the delivery of the results of
discussions at the IGF and the impact they have had on developments in
national, regional or international Internet governance?

IGF has made a reasonable advancement of the understanding of the
issues. Yet, at national, regional and international levels, we have
mixed assessment for the impact it brought.
IAS:      Although a very light term is used, “mixed assessment”, but 
Acceptable.

3. Which, if any, new mechanisms would you propose to improve the
impact of the IGF discussions, in particular as regards the
interaction between the IGF and other stakeholders? Please specify the
kind of mechanism (e.g. reporting, exchanges, recommendations,
concrete advice, etc.) and the stakeholders (e.g. intergovernmental
bodies, other fora dealing with Internet Governance, etc.).

a) One mechanism we can suggest is to come up with some form of
recommendations where all stakeholders have [rough] consensus. They
will not be binding, but could still function as model, reference or
common framework. Working process towards achieving these rough
consensus will create better and deeper understandings amongst
different stakeholders.
IAS:      I would suggest an alternate para: 
One mechanism we can suggest that “Solutions & Recommendations 
regarding governance common issues may please be vetted through 
consensus. The outcomes of the consensus will not be binding but would be 
recommended to stakeholders to be followed. This model of consensus 
with better & deeper understanding amongst different stakeholders 
will improve the impact of discussions. 

b) The Secretariat and MAG should be strongly encouraged to directly
foster discussion and debate of difficult issues in main sessions,
instead of avoiding them.

IAS: agreed

IAS:      Addition item c. 
(online sub-portal website for common discussion)

c) one more addition is recommended as prior arrangements to the 
IGF Meetings, that the common issues of the Internet Governance which
have to be added in each next IGF meeting, should have to submitted 
online on a sub-portal website. So, the technical discussions and experts 
opinions would become the online and the final recommendations would be 
addressed at the IGF meeting hours and vetted through consensus. This will 
also improve the discussions by having inputs of different stakeholders, 
experts,
but most of the work will be off the meeting (prior to the meeting).
IAS:      Addition item d. 
(IGF mailing list accessible to MAG for discussion and read only for observers)

d) It is also recommended to introduce IGF mailing list for MAG members
and IGF Staff for discussions and accessible to non-MAG stakeholders, Experts, 
or public as observers.

4. In your view, what important new issues or themes concerning
Internet governance have emerged or become important since the Tunis
phase of the Summit, which deserve more attention in the next five
years?

IGC feels that attention to the development agenda, issues concerning
the marginalized groups or actors, have yet gained sufficient level of
work at IGF and its outcome. These may not be the “new” issues, but we
strongly feel they are very important.

IAS: agreed

Besides them, emergence of new technologies, tools and services, such
as cloud computing; user-generated, SNS and online sharing services
such as wiki, YouTube, Ustream, twitter and Facebook; DPI and
behavioral targeting advertisements; wide deployment of mobile
services including smart phones and tablet computers pose all kind of
new challenges for governance.

IAS: agreed

5. What do you think should be the priority themes and areas of work
of the IGF during the next five years?

Followings will be the areas of themes and works that have priorities we think.
a) Enhancing multi-stakeholder framework within IGF.
b) Promote capacity building for developmental agenda of governance
c) Balancing the interests – to empower those of marginalized and
under-developed in all organizations and fora dealing with Internet
governance – such as ICANN, W3C, IETF, RIRs, ITU, WIPO, CoE, OECD,
UNCTAD/CSTD and United Nations itself.

IAS: agreed to above points (however, I will appreciate if the subgroups 
into MAG for Regional and National representations could be recommended too 
in list item a.)             and 
IAS:      Addition:           
d). Security and Stability of the Internet System should be addressed on 
priority
 for the reliability, sustainability for development and to avoid trans-border 
cyber-attacks.

6. How can the capacity of those groups that are not yet well
represented at the IGF be improved? In particular, what could be done
to improve the capacity of representatives from developing countries?

a) Establish special funding mechanism by IGF itself to help actors
from developing countries to continuously engage in IGF and related
organizations and meetings. Fellowship works carried out by
DiploFoundation, dotAsia organization [other reference, please] and
other institutions offer good reference for this, but they should be
expanded in larger scale. Targeting youth groups or younger generation
in profession, will have, in the long run, effective impact.

IAS: agreed

b) Providing technical training to policy makers and policy training
to engineers will also help close the gap(s) within the
under-represented and also even well-represented.

IAS: agreed

7. How do you think more awareness of Internet governance issues and
the IGF process can be raised amongst groups whose lives are affected
by Internet governance but who are not yet part of the IGF process?

a) Giving more weight to regional and national IGF meetings, making
more direct “links” to the main IGF meeting will help outreach to
those who have not yet involved in IGF process. Securing the same
level of working framework of IGF, such as multi-stakeholder
composition and inclusion of civil society groups (where such practice
is relatively new or scarce) should be maintained.

IAS: agreed

b) Ensuring a plurality of civil society voices be heard in Internet
governance processes will also be effective in reaching out to those
yet to participate.

IAS: agreed

c) Online meetings are most effective when provision is made for
participation both synchronously (ie. in real time) and
asynchronously. The remote hubs and moderators at the Vilnius IGF made
good progress towards this direction. Using such tools as blogs,
Twitter, mailing lists, Facebook and so on over an extended period may
also increase the awareness.

IAS: agreed

d) Organizing some sessions completely online will create “level
playing field” among all participants, and may also demonstrate the
effectiveness of these tools/technologies, and may also improve the
quality of services in turn.

IAS: agreed

e) Increase linguistic diversity. Using UN major languages other than
English at certain meetings and occasions as main working language
(translated into other UN languages) will increase the outreach to
non-English speaking population of the globe and will give more sense
of ownership. Currently, English is the only default working language,
but we think it does not have to be so.

IAS: agreed

8. How, if at all, do you think that the IGF process needs to change
to meet changing circumstances and priorities?

As we replied to the MAG questionnaire, the organizing work of IGF
primarily by MAG should be improved. More outcome oriented direction
might improve the quality and value of IGF, but this should be
carefully exercised so as not to lose the open and free spirit of IGF
which contributed a great deal.

IAS: agreed

9. Do you have any other comments?

No.

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

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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101118/dc1aa9a0/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From jlfullsack at orange.fr  Thu Nov 18 16:51:00 2010
From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK)
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 13:51:00 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [governance] 
In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07450@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <C9014ADD.1A14E%divina.meigs@orange.fr>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07450@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <25709646.185650.1290117041522.JavaMail.www@wwinf1h16>

For Your Info


UK Communications Minister: All web traffic is equal, it's just that some is more equal than others
Link :

http://www.telecomtv.com/comspace_newsDetail.aspx?n=46947&id=e9381817-0593-417a-8639-c4c53e2a2a10&utm_campaign=DailyNews181110UKCommunications&utm_medium=email&utm_source=TTV-Daily-News-Alert

Best
Jean-Louis Fullsack
CSDPTT


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101118/9cc0bd9e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From nyangkweagien at gmail.com  Thu Nov 18 17:14:26 2010
From: nyangkweagien at gmail.com (Nyangkwe Agien Aaron)
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 23:14:26 +0100
Subject: [governance] 
In-Reply-To: <25709646.185650.1290117041522.JavaMail.www@wwinf1h16>
References: <C9014ADD.1A14E%divina.meigs@orange.fr>
	<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07450@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
	<25709646.185650.1290117041522.JavaMail.www@wwinf1h16>
Message-ID: <AANLkTikP049Rk0e-tG391-vn3FB0cZqgEC50xznjPi+v@mail.gmail.com>

Thank you Jean Louis. The story reminds me of Orwells' Animal Farm.

However, I find this from that story very perplexing. And I want
others to peruse and say something
"For the digital business community, existing telecoms & competition
rules will prevent dominant players from abusing their market
position."

Aaron

On 11/18/10, Jean-Louis FULLSACK <jlfullsack at orange.fr> wrote:
> For Your Info
>
>
> UK Communications Minister: All web traffic is equal, it's just that some is
> more equal than others
> Link :
>
> http://www.telecomtv.com/comspace_newsDetail.aspx?n=46947&id=e9381817-0593-417a-8639-c4c53e2a2a10&utm_campaign=DailyNews181110UKCommunications&utm_medium=email&utm_source=TTV-Daily-News-Alert
>
> Best
> Jean-Louis Fullsack
> CSDPTT
>
>
>


-- 
Aaron Agien Nyangkwe
Journalist-OutCome Mapper
C/o
P.O.Box 5213
Douala-Cameroon

Tel. 70 56 00 28
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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


From yuliya at morenets-cybercrime.eu  Thu Nov 18 17:56:01 2010
From: yuliya at morenets-cybercrime.eu (yuliya at morenets-cybercrime.eu)
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 23:56:01 +0100
Subject: [governance] Consensus Call for CSTD IGF Questionnaire - Clean
 version
In-Reply-To: <1290120838.4ce5ae863a8c2@webmail.ovh.fr>
References: <1290120838.4ce5ae863a8c2@webmail.ovh.fr>
Message-ID: <1290120961.4ce5af015f4cf@webmail.ovh.fr>

Dear Izumi,

Thank you for this draft, we fully support it.


We would also suggest to add the following:

4.
In your view, what important new issues or themes concerning
Internet governance have emerged or become important since the Tunisphase of the
Summit, which deserve more attention in the next five years?

IGC feels that attention to the development agenda, issues concerning
the marginalized- and vulnerable- groups or actors,...

With my best regards,

Yuliya Morenets
TaC-Together against Cybercrime
Representative


> ----- Message transféré de Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org> -----
>    Date : Thu, 18 Nov 2010 11:13:08 +0900
>      De : Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org>
> Adresse de retour :governance at lists.cpsr.org, Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org>
>   Sujet : [governance] Consensus Call for CSTD IGF Questionnaire - Clean
> version
>       À : governance at lists.cpsr.org
>
> Here follows are the Clean version of the Final Draft for the CSTD IGF
> questionnaire answer
> in full text. Sorry for the confusion.
>
> Please respond if you agree or disagree as soon as possible.  Friday, Nov 19
> is the deadline for submission. More comments are also very much appreciated
> as we can further feed them into the Consultation meetings next week in
> Geneva.
>
> Thanks!
>
> izumi
>
> ------------
>
> FINAL Draft for Questionnaire on improvements to the IGF
>
> 1. What do you consider the most important achievements of the first
> five IGF meetings?
>
> IGF created the space for dialogue by all stakeholders in an open,
> inclusive manner. These emergence and development of the
> multistakeholder principle and practice are perhaps the biggest
> contribution IGF has achieved so far. It helped many participants to
> understand the issues of their interest, as well as to understand how
> other actors understand, act and accept their issues. Emergence of
> Regional and National IGF with multistakeholder approach is another
> achievement.
>
> 2. How satisfied are you with the delivery of the results of
> discussions at the IGF and the impact they have had on developments in
> national, regional or international Internet governance?
>
> IGF has made a reasonable advancement of the understanding of the
> issues. Yet, at national, regional and international levels, we have
> mixed assessment for the impact it brought.
>
> 3. Which, if any, new mechanisms would you propose to improve the
> impact of the IGF discussions, in particular as regards the
> interaction between the IGF and other stakeholders? Please specify the
> kind of mechanism (e.g. reporting, exchanges, recommendations,
> concrete advice, etc.) and the stakeholders (e.g. intergovernmental
> bodies, other fora dealing with Internet Governance, etc.).
>
> a) One mechanism we can suggest is to come up with some form of
> recommendations where all stakeholders have [rough] consensus. They
> will not be binding, but could still function as model, reference or
> common framework. Working process towards achieving these rough
> consensus will create better and deeper understandings amongst
> different stakeholders.
>
> b) The Secretariat and MAG should be strongly encouraged to directly
> foster discussion and debate of difficult issues in main sessions,
> instead of avoiding them.
>
> 4. In your view, what important new issues or themes concerning
> Internet governance have emerged or become important since the Tunis
> phase of the Summit, which deserve more attention in the next five
> years?
>
> IGC feels that attention to the development agenda, issues concerning
> the marginalized groups or actors, have yet gained sufficient level of
> work at IGF and its outcome. These may not be the “new” issues, but we
> strongly feel they are very important.
>
> Besides them, emergence of new technologies, tools and services, such
> as cloud computing; user-generated, SNS and online sharing services
> such as wiki, YouTube, Ustream, twitter and Facebook; DPI and
> behavioral targeting advertisements; wide deployment of mobile
> services including smart phones and tablet computers pose all kind of
> new challenges for governance.
>
>
> 5. What do you think should be the priority themes and areas of work
> of the IGF during the next five years?
>
> Followings will be the areas of themes and works that have priorities we
> think.
> a) Enhancing multi-stakeholder framework within IGF.
> b) Promote capacity building for developmental agenda of governance
> c) Balancing the interests – to empower those of marginalized and
> under-developed in all organizations and fora dealing with Internet
> governance – such as ICANN, W3C, IETF, RIRs, ITU, WIPO, CoE, OECD,
> UNCTAD/CSTD and United Nations itself.
>
> 6. How can the capacity of those groups that are not yet well
> represented at the IGF be improved? In particular, what could be done
> to improve the capacity of representatives from developing countries?
>
> a) Establish special funding mechanism by IGF itself to help actors
> from developing countries to continuously engage in IGF and related
> organizations and meetings. Fellowship works carried out by
> DiploFoundation, dotAsia organization [other reference, please] and
> other institutions offer good reference for this, but they should be
> expanded in larger scale. Targeting youth groups or younger generation
> in profession, will have, in the long run, effective impact.
>
> b) Providing technical training to policy makers and policy training
> to engineers will also help close the gap(s) within the
> under-represented and also even well-represented.
>
> 7. How do you think more awareness of Internet governance issues and
> the IGF process can be raised amongst groups whose lives are affected
> by Internet governance but who are not yet part of the IGF process?
>
> a) Giving more weight to regional and national IGF meetings, making
> more direct “links” to the main IGF meeting will help outreach to
> those who have not yet involved in IGF process. Securing the same
> level of working framework of IGF, such as multi-stakeholder
> composition and inclusion of civil society groups (where such practice
> is relatively new or scarce) should be maintained.
>
> b) Ensuring a plurality of civil society voices be heard in Internet
> governance processes will also be effective in reaching out to those
> yet to participate.
>
> c) Online meetings are most effective when provision is made for
> participation both synchronously (ie. in real time) and
> asynchronously. The remote hubs and moderators at the Vilnius IGF made
> good progress towards this direction. Using such tools as blogs,
> Twitter, mailing lists, Facebook and so on over an extended period may
> also increase the awareness.
>
> d) Organizing some sessions completely online will create “level
> playing field” among all participants, and may also demonstrate the
> effectiveness of these tools/technologies, and may also improve the
> quality of services in turn.
>
> e) Increase linguistic diversity. Using UN major languages other than
> English at certain meetings and occasions as main working language
> (translated into other UN languages) will increase the outreach to
> non-English speaking population of the globe and will give more sense
> of ownership. Currently, English is the only default working language,
> but we think it does not have to be so.
>
> 8. How, if at all, do you think that the IGF process needs to change
> to meet changing circumstances and priorities?
>
> As we replied to the MAG questionnaire, the organizing work of IGF
> primarily by MAG should be improved. More outcome oriented direction
> might improve the quality and value of IGF, but this should be
> carefully exercised so as not to lose the open and free spirit of IGF
> which contributed a great deal.
>
> 9. Do you have any other comments?
>
> No.
>
> END
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>



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

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

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


From katitza at eff.org  Thu Nov 18 21:03:26 2010
From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez)
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 18:03:26 -0800
Subject: [governance] Consensus Call for CSTD IGF Questionnaire - Clean
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=DFTPVO36vapwBWxiYq7kDnFg=f9RexLpE7rZc@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTinyo=oKJoJiz2wVHikpv7-nYBwgq+cf7p6qrj16@mail.gmail.com>	<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07448@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <AANLkTi=DFTPVO36vapwBWxiYq7kDnFg=f9RexLpE7rZc@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4CE5DAEE.8050103@eff.org>

Dear all,

My comments are in line with Wolfgang, Bill, and Miguel's comments.

I have a few additional points to make:

I disagree with the use of the word "rough consensus". It is a dangerous 
one. It can force bad policy outcomes, and creates a "trade off" 
situation. Something that some of us, from civil society would not 
agree  when it deals with fundamental human rights. For instance, you 
can get a good outcome incorporating on the text a provision on internet 
intermediaries limitation of liability but a bad outcome (eg. a data 
retention provision that compels ISPs and telcos to retain innocent 
citizens' Internet traffic data). There are many outcomes were "rough 
consensus" might bring an outcome that some of us will not compromise.

"Messages from IGF" is a model that has been tested and work well in 
Eurodig. If the session is well structure, you can actually have a frank 
discussion, and understand not only those who points that you might 
agree but also where the boundaries are.

At the last IGF, EFF and ISOC organized the workshop on the Future of 
Privacy. Based on that idea, we have recently released a report that try 
to identify the key messages that each speaker said. I found it quite 
useful as many of those statements are part of discussions that are 
being held in different spaces: national, regional, and international 
level.  Pls. see: https://www.eff.org/files/future-privacy.pdf

EFF Discusses the Future of Internet Privacy at UN Internet Governance Forum
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/11/future-privacy-internet-governance-forum

Many thanks,

Katitza


On 11/18/10 7:04 AM, Miguel Alcaine wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> I would suggest that:
>
> - for 3a, I will suggest "messages from the IGF" for the IGF meeting. 
> I think, an IGF host with the assistance of the MAG and Secretariat 
> could identify people from the organizers of a main session to draft 
> the status of the discussion of the topic, either rough agreements or 
> the different points of view of an important subject. After, the IGF 
> host could prepare the whole message with the assistance of the 
> Secretariat.
>
> Afterwards, the messages from the IGF could be used as a basis for 
> mailing-list discussions as to identify the appropriate fora to 
> present the message or to refine part of the message, but I will 
> suggest such refinements to be Ad-hoc groups (open and voluntary) to 
> take up messages, refine them and present them in other fora, but not 
> in the IGF behalf. Such ad-hoc groups could only claim that they 
> started their work based on X message from the IGF.
>
> I agree with Wolfang in avoiding recommendation and I will also 
> suggest to get rid of "rough consensus" and rather apply the method 
> described above.
>
>
> - for 6a. IGF Secretariat will not be able to dedicate funds from its 
> current level of funding in its voluntary fund for the engagement of 
> Developing country actors. Either we can insist in inviting or 
> strenghtening the voluntary fund and dedicate the additional funds to 
> the engagement of developing countries or we can invite governments or 
> the UN SG to consider a small transfer from the UN regular budget to 
> the aforementioned IGF voluntary fund and dedicate such funds for the 
> engagement of developing countries. I am suggesting a transfer around 
> US$200,000 annually. Independently of the source of the funds, they 
> should serve to make sinergies with the actors already improving the 
> engagement of developing countries.
>
> Best,
>
> Miguel
>
> 2010/11/18 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" 
> <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de 
> <mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>>
>
>     Hi everybody
>
>     thanks for the work. I am sorry that I jump in in a very late
>     stage. I have three comments:
>
>     1. 3a: The old debate on receommendations is not really helpful.
>     In the past CS tried also to use the terminology "messages". The
>     problem is as soon as you introduce a process to negotiate a text
>     which then has been the subject of voting you change the nature of
>     the the whole event. Even if you stress that these
>     receommendations will be not binding, this does not matter. In the
>     Un context (like in other intergovernmental mechanisms) the
>     category "receommednation" is well defined and you can not avoid
>     that an IGF recommendation is seen as something similar to what
>     other Un bodies are doing with receommendations. Again I prefer
>     the "message". BTW, I will circulate later this week the Interim
>     Report of the Council of Europe Cross Border Expert Group where we
>     propose also the elaboration of some instruments. The Council of
>     Europe - or other organisations with an established procedure to
>     negotiat texts - are a better place for such
>     an excercise.
>
>     2. 6a: I thin SOC has an IGF Fellowship Programm.
>
>     3. Under nine we could say that we ould like to see that the IGF
>     enhances its function and could become, inter alia, an
>     observatory, a clearinghouse, an early warning system and a watchdog.
>
>     Sorry for the late reply. If it is too late then ignore it.
>
>     Best wishes
>
>     wolfgang
>     ________________________________
>
>     Von: izumiaizu at gmail.com <mailto:izumiaizu at gmail.com> im Auftrag
>     von Izumi AIZU
>     Gesendet: Do 18.11.2010 03:13
>     An: governance at lists.cpsr.org <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>     Betreff: [governance] Consensus Call for CSTD IGF Questionnaire -
>     Clean version
>
>
>
>     Here follows are the Clean version of the Final Draft for the CSTD IGF
>     questionnaire answer
>     in full text. Sorry for the confusion.
>
>     Please respond if you agree or disagree as soon as possible.
>      Friday, Nov 19
>     is the deadline for submission. More comments are also very much
>     appreciated
>     as we can further feed them into the Consultation meetings next
>     week in Geneva.
>
>     Thanks!
>
>     izumi
>
>     ------------
>
>     FINAL Draft for Questionnaire on improvements to the IGF
>
>     1. What do you consider the most important achievements of the first
>     five IGF meetings?
>
>     IGF created the space for dialogue by all stakeholders in an open,
>     inclusive manner. These emergence and development of the
>     multistakeholder principle and practice are perhaps the biggest
>     contribution IGF has achieved so far. It helped many participants to
>     understand the issues of their interest, as well as to understand how
>     other actors understand, act and accept their issues. Emergence of
>     Regional and National IGF with multistakeholder approach is another
>     achievement.
>
>     2. How satisfied are you with the delivery of the results of
>     discussions at the IGF and the impact they have had on developments in
>     national, regional or international Internet governance?
>
>     IGF has made a reasonable advancement of the understanding of the
>     issues. Yet, at national, regional and international levels, we have
>     mixed assessment for the impact it brought.
>
>     3. Which, if any, new mechanisms would you propose to improve the
>     impact of the IGF discussions, in particular as regards the
>     interaction between the IGF and other stakeholders? Please specify the
>     kind of mechanism (e.g. reporting, exchanges, recommendations,
>     concrete advice, etc.) and the stakeholders (e.g. intergovernmental
>     bodies, other fora dealing with Internet Governance, etc.).
>
>     a) One mechanism we can suggest is to come up with some form of
>     recommendations where all stakeholders have [rough] consensus. They
>     will not be binding, but could still function as model, reference or
>     common framework. Working process towards achieving these rough
>     consensus will create better and deeper understandings amongst
>     different stakeholders.
>
>     b) The Secretariat and MAG should be strongly encouraged to directly
>     foster discussion and debate of difficult issues in main sessions,
>     instead of avoiding them.
>
>     4. In your view, what important new issues or themes concerning
>     Internet governance have emerged or become important since the Tunis
>     phase of the Summit, which deserve more attention in the next five
>     years?
>
>     IGC feels that attention to the development agenda, issues concerning
>     the marginalized groups or actors, have yet gained sufficient level of
>     work at IGF and its outcome. These may not be the "new" issues, but we
>     strongly feel they are very important.
>
>     Besides them, emergence of new technologies, tools and services, such
>     as cloud computing; user-generated, SNS and online sharing services
>     such as wiki, YouTube, Ustream, twitter and Facebook; DPI and
>     behavioral targeting advertisements; wide deployment of mobile
>     services including smart phones and tablet computers pose all kind of
>     new challenges for governance.
>
>
>     5. What do you think should be the priority themes and areas of work
>     of the IGF during the next five years?
>
>     Followings will be the areas of themes and works that have
>     priorities we think.
>     a) Enhancing multi-stakeholder framework within IGF.
>     b) Promote capacity building for developmental agenda of governance
>     c) Balancing the interests - to empower those of marginalized and
>     under-developed in all organizations and fora dealing with Internet
>     governance - such as ICANN, W3C, IETF, RIRs, ITU, WIPO, CoE, OECD,
>     UNCTAD/CSTD and United Nations itself.
>
>     6. How can the capacity of those groups that are not yet well
>     represented at the IGF be improved? In particular, what could be done
>     to improve the capacity of representatives from developing countries?
>
>     a) Establish special funding mechanism by IGF itself to help actors
>     from developing countries to continuously engage in IGF and related
>     organizations and meetings. Fellowship works carried out by
>     DiploFoundation, dotAsia organization [other reference, please] and
>     other institutions offer good reference for this, but they should be
>     expanded in larger scale. Targeting youth groups or younger generation
>     in profession, will have, in the long run, effective impact.
>
>     b) Providing technical training to policy makers and policy training
>     to engineers will also help close the gap(s) within the
>     under-represented and also even well-represented.
>
>     7. How do you think more awareness of Internet governance issues and
>     the IGF process can be raised amongst groups whose lives are affected
>     by Internet governance but who are not yet part of the IGF process?
>
>     a) Giving more weight to regional and national IGF meetings, making
>     more direct "links" to the main IGF meeting will help outreach to
>     those who have not yet involved in IGF process. Securing the same
>     level of working framework of IGF, such as multi-stakeholder
>     composition and inclusion of civil society groups (where such practice
>     is relatively new or scarce) should be maintained.
>
>     b) Ensuring a plurality of civil society voices be heard in Internet
>     governance processes will also be effective in reaching out to those
>     yet to participate.
>
>     c) Online meetings are most effective when provision is made for
>     participation both synchronously (ie. in real time) and
>     asynchronously. The remote hubs and moderators at the Vilnius IGF made
>     good progress towards this direction. Using such tools as blogs,
>     Twitter, mailing lists, Facebook and so on over an extended period may
>     also increase the awareness.
>
>     d) Organizing some sessions completely online will create "level
>     playing field" among all participants, and may also demonstrate the
>     effectiveness of these tools/technologies, and may also improve the
>     quality of services in turn.
>
>     e) Increase linguistic diversity. Using UN major languages other than
>     English at certain meetings and occasions as main working language
>     (translated into other UN languages) will increase the outreach to
>     non-English speaking population of the globe and will give more sense
>     of ownership. Currently, English is the only default working language,
>     but we think it does not have to be so.
>
>     8. How, if at all, do you think that the IGF process needs to change
>     to meet changing circumstances and priorities?
>
>     As we replied to the MAG questionnaire, the organizing work of IGF
>     primarily by MAG should be improved. More outcome oriented direction
>     might improve the quality and value of IGF, but this should be
>     carefully exercised so as not to lose the open and free spirit of IGF
>     which contributed a great deal.
>
>     9. Do you have any other comments?
>
>     No.
>
>     END
>     ____________________________________________________________
>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>     To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>     <mailto:governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org>
>
>     For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>     Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>     ____________________________________________________________
>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>     To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>     <mailto:governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org>
>
>     For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>     Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>


-- 
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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101118/1845deca/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From katitza at eff.org  Thu Nov 18 21:09:24 2010
From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez)
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 18:09:24 -0800
Subject: [governance] Consensus Call for CSTD IGF Questionnaire - Clean
In-Reply-To: <4CE5DAEE.8050103@eff.org>
References: <AANLkTinyo=oKJoJiz2wVHikpv7-nYBwgq+cf7p6qrj16@mail.gmail.com>	<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07448@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <AANLkTi=DFTPVO36vapwBWxiYq7kDnFg=f9RexLpE7rZc@mail.gmail.com> <4CE5DAEE.8050103@eff.org>
Message-ID: <4CE5DC54.4010306@eff.org>

Dear all,

My comments are in line with Wolfgang, Bill, and Miguel.

I have a few points to make:

I disagree with the use of the word "rough consensus". It is a dangerous 
one. It can force bad policy outcomes, and creates a "trade off" 
situation. This is a situation that some of us, from civil society, 
would not agree when it deals with fundamental human rights. For 
instance, you can get a good outcome incorporating on the text a 
provision on internet intermediaries limitation of liability but you 
accept a bad outcome (eg. a data retention provision that compels ISPs 
and telcos to retain innocent citizens' Internet traffic data). There 
are many situations were "rough consensus" might bring an outcome that 
some of us will not compromise.

"Messages from IGF" is a model that has been tested and work well in 
Eurodig. If the session is well structure, you can actually have a frank 
discussion, and understand not only those issues that you might agree 
on, but also you can get to know where the boundaries are.

At the last IGF, EFF and ISOC organized the workshop on the Future of 
Privacy. Based on that idea, we have recently released a report that try 
to identify the key messages that each speaker said. I found it quite 
useful as many of those statements are part of discussions that are 
being held in different spaces: national, regional, and international 
level.  Pls. see: https://www.eff.org/files/future-privacy.pdf

EFF Discusses the Future of Internet Privacy at UN Internet Governance Forum
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/11/future-privacy-internet-governance-forum

Many thanks,

Katitza


>
> On 11/18/10 7:04 AM, Miguel Alcaine wrote:
>> Dear all,
>>
>> I would suggest that:
>>
>> - for 3a, I will suggest "messages from the IGF" for the IGF meeting. 
>> I think, an IGF host with the assistance of the MAG and Secretariat 
>> could identify people from the organizers of a main session to draft 
>> the status of the discussion of the topic, either rough agreements or 
>> the different points of view of an important subject. After, the IGF 
>> host could prepare the whole message with the assistance of the 
>> Secretariat.
>>
>> Afterwards, the messages from the IGF could be used as a basis for 
>> mailing-list discussions as to identify the appropriate fora to 
>> present the message or to refine part of the message, but I will 
>> suggest such refinements to be Ad-hoc groups (open and voluntary) to 
>> take up messages, refine them and present them in other fora, but not 
>> in the IGF behalf. Such ad-hoc groups could only claim that they 
>> started their work based on X message from the IGF.
>>
>> I agree with Wolfang in avoiding recommendation and I will also 
>> suggest to get rid of "rough consensus" and rather apply the method 
>> described above.
>>
>>
>> - for 6a. IGF Secretariat will not be able to dedicate funds from its 
>> current level of funding in its voluntary fund for the engagement of 
>> Developing country actors. Either we can insist in inviting or 
>> strenghtening the voluntary fund and dedicate the additional funds to 
>> the engagement of developing countries or we can invite governments 
>> or the UN SG to consider a small transfer from the UN regular budget 
>> to the aforementioned IGF voluntary fund and dedicate such funds for 
>> the engagement of developing countries. I am suggesting a transfer 
>> around US$200,000 annually. Independently of the source of the funds, 
>> they should serve to make sinergies with the actors already improving 
>> the engagement of developing countries.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Miguel
>>
>> 2010/11/18 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" 
>> <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de 
>> <mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>>
>>
>>     Hi everybody
>>
>>     thanks for the work. I am sorry that I jump in in a very late
>>     stage. I have three comments:
>>
>>     1. 3a: The old debate on receommendations is not really helpful.
>>     In the past CS tried also to use the terminology "messages". The
>>     problem is as soon as you introduce a process to negotiate a text
>>     which then has been the subject of voting you change the nature
>>     of the the whole event. Even if you stress that these
>>     receommendations will be not binding, this does not matter. In
>>     the Un context (like in other intergovernmental mechanisms) the
>>     category "receommednation" is well defined and you can not avoid
>>     that an IGF recommendation is seen as something similar to what
>>     other Un bodies are doing with receommendations. Again I prefer
>>     the "message". BTW, I will circulate later this week the Interim
>>     Report of the Council of Europe Cross Border Expert Group where
>>     we propose also the elaboration of some instruments. The Council
>>     of Europe - or other organisations with an established procedure
>>     to negotiat texts - are a better place for such
>>     an excercise.
>>
>>     2. 6a: I thin SOC has an IGF Fellowship Programm.
>>
>>     3. Under nine we could say that we ould like to see that the IGF
>>     enhances its function and could become, inter alia, an
>>     observatory, a clearinghouse, an early warning system and a watchdog.
>>
>>     Sorry for the late reply. If it is too late then ignore it.
>>
>>     Best wishes
>>
>>     wolfgang
>>     ________________________________
>>
>>     Von: izumiaizu at gmail.com <mailto:izumiaizu at gmail.com> im Auftrag
>>     von Izumi AIZU
>>     Gesendet: Do 18.11.2010 03:13
>>     An: governance at lists.cpsr.org <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>>     Betreff: [governance] Consensus Call for CSTD IGF Questionnaire -
>>     Clean version
>>
>>
>>
>>     Here follows are the Clean version of the Final Draft for the
>>     CSTD IGF
>>     questionnaire answer
>>     in full text. Sorry for the confusion.
>>
>>     Please respond if you agree or disagree as soon as possible.
>>      Friday, Nov 19
>>     is the deadline for submission. More comments are also very much
>>     appreciated
>>     as we can further feed them into the Consultation meetings next
>>     week in Geneva.
>>
>>     Thanks!
>>
>>     izumi
>>
>>     ------------
>>
>>     FINAL Draft for Questionnaire on improvements to the IGF
>>
>>     1. What do you consider the most important achievements of the first
>>     five IGF meetings?
>>
>>     IGF created the space for dialogue by all stakeholders in an open,
>>     inclusive manner. These emergence and development of the
>>     multistakeholder principle and practice are perhaps the biggest
>>     contribution IGF has achieved so far. It helped many participants to
>>     understand the issues of their interest, as well as to understand how
>>     other actors understand, act and accept their issues. Emergence of
>>     Regional and National IGF with multistakeholder approach is another
>>     achievement.
>>
>>     2. How satisfied are you with the delivery of the results of
>>     discussions at the IGF and the impact they have had on
>>     developments in
>>     national, regional or international Internet governance?
>>
>>     IGF has made a reasonable advancement of the understanding of the
>>     issues. Yet, at national, regional and international levels, we have
>>     mixed assessment for the impact it brought.
>>
>>     3. Which, if any, new mechanisms would you propose to improve the
>>     impact of the IGF discussions, in particular as regards the
>>     interaction between the IGF and other stakeholders? Please
>>     specify the
>>     kind of mechanism (e.g. reporting, exchanges, recommendations,
>>     concrete advice, etc.) and the stakeholders (e.g. intergovernmental
>>     bodies, other fora dealing with Internet Governance, etc.).
>>
>>     a) One mechanism we can suggest is to come up with some form of
>>     recommendations where all stakeholders have [rough] consensus. They
>>     will not be binding, but could still function as model, reference or
>>     common framework. Working process towards achieving these rough
>>     consensus will create better and deeper understandings amongst
>>     different stakeholders.
>>
>>     b) The Secretariat and MAG should be strongly encouraged to directly
>>     foster discussion and debate of difficult issues in main sessions,
>>     instead of avoiding them.
>>
>>     4. In your view, what important new issues or themes concerning
>>     Internet governance have emerged or become important since the Tunis
>>     phase of the Summit, which deserve more attention in the next five
>>     years?
>>
>>     IGC feels that attention to the development agenda, issues concerning
>>     the marginalized groups or actors, have yet gained sufficient
>>     level of
>>     work at IGF and its outcome. These may not be the "new" issues,
>>     but we
>>     strongly feel they are very important.
>>
>>     Besides them, emergence of new technologies, tools and services, such
>>     as cloud computing; user-generated, SNS and online sharing services
>>     such as wiki, YouTube, Ustream, twitter and Facebook; DPI and
>>     behavioral targeting advertisements; wide deployment of mobile
>>     services including smart phones and tablet computers pose all kind of
>>     new challenges for governance.
>>
>>
>>     5. What do you think should be the priority themes and areas of work
>>     of the IGF during the next five years?
>>
>>     Followings will be the areas of themes and works that have
>>     priorities we think.
>>     a) Enhancing multi-stakeholder framework within IGF.
>>     b) Promote capacity building for developmental agenda of governance
>>     c) Balancing the interests - to empower those of marginalized and
>>     under-developed in all organizations and fora dealing with Internet
>>     governance - such as ICANN, W3C, IETF, RIRs, ITU, WIPO, CoE, OECD,
>>     UNCTAD/CSTD and United Nations itself.
>>
>>     6. How can the capacity of those groups that are not yet well
>>     represented at the IGF be improved? In particular, what could be done
>>     to improve the capacity of representatives from developing countries?
>>
>>     a) Establish special funding mechanism by IGF itself to help actors
>>     from developing countries to continuously engage in IGF and related
>>     organizations and meetings. Fellowship works carried out by
>>     DiploFoundation, dotAsia organization [other reference, please] and
>>     other institutions offer good reference for this, but they should be
>>     expanded in larger scale. Targeting youth groups or younger
>>     generation
>>     in profession, will have, in the long run, effective impact.
>>
>>     b) Providing technical training to policy makers and policy training
>>     to engineers will also help close the gap(s) within the
>>     under-represented and also even well-represented.
>>
>>     7. How do you think more awareness of Internet governance issues and
>>     the IGF process can be raised amongst groups whose lives are affected
>>     by Internet governance but who are not yet part of the IGF process?
>>
>>     a) Giving more weight to regional and national IGF meetings, making
>>     more direct "links" to the main IGF meeting will help outreach to
>>     those who have not yet involved in IGF process. Securing the same
>>     level of working framework of IGF, such as multi-stakeholder
>>     composition and inclusion of civil society groups (where such
>>     practice
>>     is relatively new or scarce) should be maintained.
>>
>>     b) Ensuring a plurality of civil society voices be heard in Internet
>>     governance processes will also be effective in reaching out to those
>>     yet to participate.
>>
>>     c) Online meetings are most effective when provision is made for
>>     participation both synchronously (ie. in real time) and
>>     asynchronously. The remote hubs and moderators at the Vilnius IGF
>>     made
>>     good progress towards this direction. Using such tools as blogs,
>>     Twitter, mailing lists, Facebook and so on over an extended
>>     period may
>>     also increase the awareness.
>>
>>     d) Organizing some sessions completely online will create "level
>>     playing field" among all participants, and may also demonstrate the
>>     effectiveness of these tools/technologies, and may also improve the
>>     quality of services in turn.
>>
>>     e) Increase linguistic diversity. Using UN major languages other than
>>     English at certain meetings and occasions as main working language
>>     (translated into other UN languages) will increase the outreach to
>>     non-English speaking population of the globe and will give more sense
>>     of ownership. Currently, English is the only default working
>>     language,
>>     but we think it does not have to be so.
>>
>>     8. How, if at all, do you think that the IGF process needs to change
>>     to meet changing circumstances and priorities?
>>
>>     As we replied to the MAG questionnaire, the organizing work of IGF
>>     primarily by MAG should be improved. More outcome oriented direction
>>     might improve the quality and value of IGF, but this should be
>>     carefully exercised so as not to lose the open and free spirit of IGF
>>     which contributed a great deal.
>>
>>     9. Do you have any other comments?
>>
>>     No.
>>
>>     END
>>     ____________________________________________________________
>>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>>     To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>     <mailto:governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org>
>>
>>     For all list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>
>>     Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>>     ____________________________________________________________
>>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>>     To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>     <mailto:governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org>
>>
>>     For all list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>
>>     Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>
>
> -- 
> 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


-- 
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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101118/279082a7/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From iza at anr.org  Thu Nov 18 21:11:12 2010
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 11:11:12 +0900
Subject: [governance] Consensus Call for CSTD IGF Questionnaire - Clean
In-Reply-To: <4CE5DAEE.8050103@eff.org>
References: <AANLkTinyo=oKJoJiz2wVHikpv7-nYBwgq+cf7p6qrj16@mail.gmail.com>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07448@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <AANLkTi=DFTPVO36vapwBWxiYq7kDnFg=f9RexLpE7rZc@mail.gmail.com> <4CE5DAEE.8050103@eff.org>
Message-ID: <AANLkTimUhwWk+owU1CLY4hvFYjnq_qz8OqgMVsfHXcdL@mail.gmail.com>

Dear list,

Many thanks for the comments made despite the last-minute rush.

I would like to urge all who have not replied to the call yet, to indicate
if you support the FINAL DRAFT, yes or no, and in case, add
your comments.

As the deadline is approaching I will consult with Jeremy and
make the final judgment based on the inputs from all.

Thanks again,

izumi


2010/11/19 Katitza Rodriguez <katitza at eff.org>:
> Dear all,
>
> My comments are in line with Wolfgang, Bill, and Miguel's comments.
>
> I have a few additional points to make:
>
> I disagree with the use of the word "rough consensus". It is a dangerous
> one. It can force bad policy outcomes, and creates a "trade off" situation.
> Something that some of us, from civil society would not agree  when it deals
> with fundamental human rights. For instance, you can get a good outcome
> incorporating on the text a provision on internet intermediaries limitation
> of liability but a bad outcome (eg. a data retention provision that compels
> ISPs and telcos to retain innocent citizens' Internet traffic data). There
> are many outcomes were "rough consensus" might bring an outcome that some of
> us will not compromise.
>
> "Messages from IGF" is a model that has been tested and work well in
> Eurodig. If the session is well structure, you can actually have a frank
> discussion, and understand not only those who points that you might agree
> but also where the boundaries are.
>
> At the last IGF, EFF and ISOC organized the workshop on the Future of
> Privacy. Based on that idea, we have recently released a report that try to
> identify the key messages that each speaker said. I found it quite useful as
> many of those statements are part of discussions that are being held in
> different spaces: national, regional, and international level.  Pls. see:
> https://www.eff.org/files/future-privacy.pdf
>
> EFF Discusses the Future of Internet Privacy at UN Internet Governance Forum
> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/11/future-privacy-internet-governance-forum
>
> Many thanks,
>
> Katitza
>
>
> On 11/18/10 7:04 AM, Miguel Alcaine wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
> I would suggest that:
>
> - for 3a, I will suggest "messages from the IGF" for the IGF meeting. I
> think, an IGF host with the assistance of the MAG and Secretariat could
> identify people from the organizers of a main session to draft the status of
> the discussion of the topic, either rough agreements or the different points
> of view of an important subject. After, the IGF host could prepare the whole
> message with the assistance of the Secretariat.
>
> Afterwards, the messages from the IGF could be used as a basis for
> mailing-list discussions as to identify the appropriate fora to present the
> message or to refine part of the message, but I will suggest such
> refinements to be Ad-hoc groups (open and voluntary) to take up messages,
> refine them and present them in other fora, but not in the IGF behalf. Such
> ad-hoc groups could only claim that they started their work based on X
> message from the IGF.
>
> I agree with Wolfang in avoiding recommendation and I will also suggest to
> get rid of "rough consensus" and rather apply the method described above.
>
>
> - for 6a. IGF Secretariat will not be able to dedicate funds from its
> current level of funding in its voluntary fund for the engagement of
> Developing country actors. Either we can insist in inviting or strenghtening
> the voluntary fund and dedicate the additional funds to the engagement of
> developing countries or we can invite governments or the UN SG to consider a
> small transfer from the UN regular budget to the aforementioned IGF
> voluntary fund and dedicate such funds for the engagement of developing
> countries. I am suggesting a transfer around US$200,000 annually.
> Independently of the source of the funds, they should serve to make
> sinergies with the actors already improving the engagement of developing
> countries.
>
> Best,
>
> Miguel
>
> 2010/11/18 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"
> <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
>>
>> Hi everybody
>>
>> thanks for the work. I am sorry that I jump in in a very late stage. I
>> have three comments:
>>
>> 1. 3a: The old debate on receommendations is not really helpful. In the
>> past CS tried also to use the terminology "messages". The problem is as soon
>> as you introduce a process to negotiate a text which then has been the
>> subject of voting you change the nature of the the whole event. Even if you
>> stress that these receommendations will be not binding, this does not
>> matter. In the Un context (like in other intergovernmental mechanisms) the
>> category "receommednation" is well defined and you can not avoid that an IGF
>> recommendation is seen as something similar to what other Un bodies are
>> doing with receommendations. Again I prefer the "message". BTW, I will
>> circulate later this week the Interim Report of the Council of Europe Cross
>> Border Expert Group where we propose also the elaboration of some
>> instruments. The Council of Europe - or other organisations with an
>> established procedure to negotiat texts - are a better place for such
>> an excercise.
>>
>> 2. 6a: I thin SOC has an IGF Fellowship Programm.
>>
>> 3. Under nine we could say that we ould like to see that the IGF enhances
>> its function and could become, inter alia, an observatory, a clearinghouse,
>> an early warning system and a watchdog.
>>
>> Sorry for the late reply. If it is too late then ignore it.
>>
>> Best wishes
>>
>> wolfgang
>> ________________________________
>>
>> Von: izumiaizu at gmail.com im Auftrag von Izumi AIZU
>> Gesendet: Do 18.11.2010 03:13
>> An: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> Betreff: [governance] Consensus Call for CSTD IGF Questionnaire - Clean
>> version
>>
>>
>>
>> Here follows are the Clean version of the Final Draft for the CSTD IGF
>> questionnaire answer
>> in full text. Sorry for the confusion.
>>
>> Please respond if you agree or disagree as soon as possible.  Friday, Nov
>> 19
>> is the deadline for submission. More comments are also very much
>> appreciated
>> as we can further feed them into the Consultation meetings next week in
>> Geneva.
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> izumi
>>
>> ------------
>>
>> FINAL Draft for Questionnaire on improvements to the IGF
>>
>> 1. What do you consider the most important achievements of the first
>> five IGF meetings?
>>
>> IGF created the space for dialogue by all stakeholders in an open,
>> inclusive manner. These emergence and development of the
>> multistakeholder principle and practice are perhaps the biggest
>> contribution IGF has achieved so far. It helped many participants to
>> understand the issues of their interest, as well as to understand how
>> other actors understand, act and accept their issues. Emergence of
>> Regional and National IGF with multistakeholder approach is another
>> achievement.
>>
>> 2. How satisfied are you with the delivery of the results of
>> discussions at the IGF and the impact they have had on developments in
>> national, regional or international Internet governance?
>>
>> IGF has made a reasonable advancement of the understanding of the
>> issues. Yet, at national, regional and international levels, we have
>> mixed assessment for the impact it brought.
>>
>> 3. Which, if any, new mechanisms would you propose to improve the
>> impact of the IGF discussions, in particular as regards the
>> interaction between the IGF and other stakeholders? Please specify the
>> kind of mechanism (e.g. reporting, exchanges, recommendations,
>> concrete advice, etc.) and the stakeholders (e.g. intergovernmental
>> bodies, other fora dealing with Internet Governance, etc.).
>>
>> a) One mechanism we can suggest is to come up with some form of
>> recommendations where all stakeholders have [rough] consensus. They
>> will not be binding, but could still function as model, reference or
>> common framework. Working process towards achieving these rough
>> consensus will create better and deeper understandings amongst
>> different stakeholders.
>>
>> b) The Secretariat and MAG should be strongly encouraged to directly
>> foster discussion and debate of difficult issues in main sessions,
>> instead of avoiding them.
>>
>> 4. In your view, what important new issues or themes concerning
>> Internet governance have emerged or become important since the Tunis
>> phase of the Summit, which deserve more attention in the next five
>> years?
>>
>> IGC feels that attention to the development agenda, issues concerning
>> the marginalized groups or actors, have yet gained sufficient level of
>> work at IGF and its outcome. These may not be the "new" issues, but we
>> strongly feel they are very important.
>>
>> Besides them, emergence of new technologies, tools and services, such
>> as cloud computing; user-generated, SNS and online sharing services
>> such as wiki, YouTube, Ustream, twitter and Facebook; DPI and
>> behavioral targeting advertisements; wide deployment of mobile
>> services including smart phones and tablet computers pose all kind of
>> new challenges for governance.
>>
>>
>> 5. What do you think should be the priority themes and areas of work
>> of the IGF during the next five years?
>>
>> Followings will be the areas of themes and works that have priorities we
>> think.
>> a) Enhancing multi-stakeholder framework within IGF.
>> b) Promote capacity building for developmental agenda of governance
>> c) Balancing the interests - to empower those of marginalized and
>> under-developed in all organizations and fora dealing with Internet
>> governance - such as ICANN, W3C, IETF, RIRs, ITU, WIPO, CoE, OECD,
>> UNCTAD/CSTD and United Nations itself.
>>
>> 6. How can the capacity of those groups that are not yet well
>> represented at the IGF be improved? In particular, what could be done
>> to improve the capacity of representatives from developing countries?
>>
>> a) Establish special funding mechanism by IGF itself to help actors
>> from developing countries to continuously engage in IGF and related
>> organizations and meetings. Fellowship works carried out by
>> DiploFoundation, dotAsia organization [other reference, please] and
>> other institutions offer good reference for this, but they should be
>> expanded in larger scale. Targeting youth groups or younger generation
>> in profession, will have, in the long run, effective impact.
>>
>> b) Providing technical training to policy makers and policy training
>> to engineers will also help close the gap(s) within the
>> under-represented and also even well-represented.
>>
>> 7. How do you think more awareness of Internet governance issues and
>> the IGF process can be raised amongst groups whose lives are affected
>> by Internet governance but who are not yet part of the IGF process?
>>
>> a) Giving more weight to regional and national IGF meetings, making
>> more direct "links" to the main IGF meeting will help outreach to
>> those who have not yet involved in IGF process. Securing the same
>> level of working framework of IGF, such as multi-stakeholder
>> composition and inclusion of civil society groups (where such practice
>> is relatively new or scarce) should be maintained.
>>
>> b) Ensuring a plurality of civil society voices be heard in Internet
>> governance processes will also be effective in reaching out to those
>> yet to participate.
>>
>> c) Online meetings are most effective when provision is made for
>> participation both synchronously (ie. in real time) and
>> asynchronously. The remote hubs and moderators at the Vilnius IGF made
>> good progress towards this direction. Using such tools as blogs,
>> Twitter, mailing lists, Facebook and so on over an extended period may
>> also increase the awareness.
>>
>> d) Organizing some sessions completely online will create "level
>> playing field" among all participants, and may also demonstrate the
>> effectiveness of these tools/technologies, and may also improve the
>> quality of services in turn.
>>
>> e) Increase linguistic diversity. Using UN major languages other than
>> English at certain meetings and occasions as main working language
>> (translated into other UN languages) will increase the outreach to
>> non-English speaking population of the globe and will give more sense
>> of ownership. Currently, English is the only default working language,
>> but we think it does not have to be so.
>>
>> 8. How, if at all, do you think that the IGF process needs to change
>> to meet changing circumstances and priorities?
>>
>> As we replied to the MAG questionnaire, the organizing work of IGF
>> primarily by MAG should be improved. More outcome oriented direction
>> might improve the quality and value of IGF, but this should be
>> carefully exercised so as not to lose the open and free spirit of IGF
>> which contributed a great deal.
>>
>> 9. Do you have any other comments?
>>
>> No.
>>
>> END
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>
> --
> Katitza Rodriguez
> International Rights Director
> Electronic Frontier Foundation
> katitza at eff.org
> katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email)
>
> Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of
> speech since 1990



-- 
                        >> Izumi Aizu <<

          Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo

           Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,
                                  Japan
                                 * * * * *
           << Writing the Future of the History >>
                                www.anr.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 ias_pk at yahoo.com  Fri Nov 19 02:23:45 2010
From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah)
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 23:23:45 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [governance] Consensus Call for CSTD IGF Questionnaire - Clean
Message-ID: <411110.91188.qm@web33008.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Dear Katitza
Reservations about consensus are valid to some extend
But practically if we need broader impact of a any discussion, 
we have to care about the opinion and recommendations
of the majority, even for positive decisions, we had to convince them. By the way, we are use to with the consensus at this CS IGC.
 If you read the question again, they are asking that how to 
Improve the impact of the discussion, in my honest opinion 
IMHO: "a discussion may have deeper and longer impact 
if the professional/ public opinion is considered with justice.
Higher results may be obtained if the ownership of the system/tasks
are accepted by the stakeholders.

I have suggested an alternate para for 3a.
If you read my previous email.

One mechanism we can suggest that “Solutions & Recommendations 
regarding governance common issues may please be vetted through 
consensus. The outcomes of the consensus will not be binding but would be 
recommended to stakeholders to be followed. This model of consensus 
with better & deeper understanding amongst different stakeholders 
will improve the impact of discussions. 

Thanks

Imran Ahmed Shah

On Fri, 19 Nov 2010 07:09 PKT Katitza Rodriguez wrote:

>Dear all,
>
>My comments are in line with Wolfgang, Bill, and Miguel.
>
>I have a few points to make:
>
>I disagree with the use of the word "rough consensus". It is a dangerous one. It can force bad policy outcomes, and creates a "trade off" situation. This is a situation that some of us, from civil society, would not agree when it deals with fundamental human rights. For instance, you can get a good outcome incorporating on the text a provision on internet intermediaries limitation of liability but you accept a bad outcome (eg. a data retention provision that compels ISPs and telcos to retain innocent citizens' Internet traffic data). There are many situations were "rough consensus" might bring an outcome that some of us will not compromise.
>
>"Messages from IGF" is a model that has been tested and work well in Eurodig. If the session is well structure, you can actually have a frank discussion, and understand not only those issues that you might agree on, but also you can get to know where the boundaries are.
>
>At the last IGF, EFF and ISOC organized the workshop on the Future of Privacy. Based on that idea, we have recently released a report that try to identify the key messages that each speaker said. I found it quite useful as many of those statements are part of discussions that are being held in different spaces: national, regional, and international level.  Pls. see: https://www.eff.org/files/future-privacy.pdf
>
>EFF Discusses the Future of Internet Privacy at UN Internet Governance Forum
>https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/11/future-privacy-internet-governance-forum
>
>Many thanks,
>
>Katitza
>
>
>> 
>> On 11/18/10 7:04 AM, Miguel Alcaine wrote:
>>> Dear all,
>>> 
>>> I would suggest that:
>>> 
>>> - for 3a, I will suggest "messages from the IGF" for the IGF meeting. I think, an IGF host with the assistance of the MAG and Secretariat could identify people from the organizers of a main session to draft the status of the discussion of the topic, either rough agreements or the different points of view of an important subject. After, the IGF host could prepare the whole message with the assistance of the Secretariat.
>>> 
>>> Afterwards, the messages from the IGF could be used as a basis for mailing-list discussions as to identify the appropriate fora to present the message or to refine part of the message, but I will suggest such refinements to be Ad-hoc groups (open and voluntary) to take up messages, refine them and present them in other fora, but not in the IGF behalf. Such ad-hoc groups could only claim that they started their work based on X message from the IGF.
>>> 
>>> I agree with Wolfang in avoiding recommendation and I will also suggest to get rid of "rough consensus" and rather apply the method described above.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> - for 6a. IGF Secretariat will not be able to dedicate funds from its current level of funding in its voluntary fund for the engagement of Developing country actors. Either we can insist in inviting or strenghtening the voluntary fund and dedicate the additional funds to the engagement of developing countries or we can invite governments or the UN SG to consider a small transfer from the UN regular budget to the aforementioned IGF voluntary fund and dedicate such funds for the engagement of developing countries. I am suggesting a transfer around US$200,000 annually. Independently of the source of the funds, they should serve to make sinergies with the actors already improving the engagement of developing countries.
>>> 
>>> Best,
>>> 
>>> Miguel
>>> 
>>> 2010/11/18 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de <mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>>
>>> 
>>>     Hi everybody
>>> 
>>>     thanks for the work. I am sorry that I jump in in a very late
>>>     stage. I have three comments:
>>> 
>>>     1. 3a: The old debate on receommendations is not really helpful.
>>>     In the past CS tried also to use the terminology "messages". The
>>>     problem is as soon as you introduce a process to negotiate a text
>>>     which then has been the subject of voting you change the nature
>>>     of the the whole event. Even if you stress that these
>>>     receommendations will be not binding, this does not matter. In
>>>     the Un context (like in other intergovernmental mechanisms) the
>>>     category "receommednation" is well defined and you can not avoid
>>>     that an IGF recommendation is seen as something similar to what
>>>     other Un bodies are doing with receommendations. Again I prefer
>>>     the "message". BTW, I will circulate later this week the Interim
>>>     Report of the Council of Europe Cross Border Expert Group where
>>>     we propose also the elaboration of some instruments. The Council
>>>     of Europe - or other organisations with an established procedure
>>>     to negotiat texts - are a better place for such
>>>     an excercise.
>>> 
>>>     2. 6a: I thin SOC has an IGF Fellowship Programm.
>>> 
>>>     3. Under nine we could say that we ould like to see that the IGF
>>>     enhances its function and could become, inter alia, an
>>>     observatory, a clearinghouse, an early warning system and a watchdog.
>>> 
>>>     Sorry for the late reply. If it is too late then ignore it.
>>> 
>>>     Best wishes
>>> 
>>>     wolfgang
>>>     ________________________________
>>> 
>>>     Von: izumiaizu at gmail.com <mailto:izumiaizu at gmail.com> im Auftrag
>>>     von Izumi AIZU
>>>     Gesendet: Do 18.11.2010 03:13
>>>     An: governance at lists.cpsr.org <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>>>     Betreff: [governance] Consensus Call for CSTD IGF Questionnaire -
>>>     Clean version
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>     Here follows are the Clean version of the Final Draft for the
>>>     CSTD IGF
>>>     questionnaire answer
>>>     in full text. Sorry for the confusion.
>>> 
>>>     Please respond if you agree or disagree as soon as possible.
>>>      Friday, Nov 19
>>>     is the deadline for submission. More comments are also very much
>>>     appreciated
>>>     as we can further feed them into the Consultation meetings next
>>>     week in Geneva.
>>> 
>>>     Thanks!
>>> 
>>>     izumi
>>> 
>>>     ------------
>>> 
>>>     FINAL Draft for Questionnaire on improvements to the IGF
>>> 
>>>     1. What do you consider the most important achievements of the first
>>>     five IGF meetings?
>>> 
>>>     IGF created the space for dialogue by all stakeholders in an open,
>>>     inclusive manner. These emergence and development of the
>>>     multistakeholder principle and practice are perhaps the biggest
>>>     contribution IGF has achieved so far. It helped many participants to
>>>     understand the issues of their interest, as well as to understand how
>>>     other actors understand, act and accept their issues. Emergence of
>>>     Regional and National IGF with multistakeholder approach is another
>>>     achievement.
>>> 
>>>     2. How satisfied are you with the delivery of the results of
>>>     discussions at the IGF and the impact they have had on
>>>     developments in
>>>     national, regional or international Internet governance?
>>> 
>>>     IGF has made a reasonable advancement of the understanding of the
>>>     issues. Yet, at national, regional and international levels, we have
>>>     mixed assessment for the impact it brought.
>>> 
>>>     3. Which, if any, new mechanisms would you propose to improve the
>>>     impact of the IGF discussions, in particular as regards the
>>>     interaction between the IGF and other stakeholders? Please
>>>     specify the
>>>     kind of mechanism (e.g. reporting, exchanges, recommendations,
>>>     concrete advice, etc.) and the stakeholders (e.g. intergovernmental
>>>     bodies, other fora dealing with Internet Governance, etc.).
>>> 
>>>     a) One mechanism we can suggest is to come up with some form of
>>>     recommendations where all stakeholders have [rough] consensus. They
>>>     will not be binding, but could still function as model, reference or
>>>     common framework. Working process towards achieving these rough
>>>     consensus will create better and deeper understandings amongst
>>>     different stakeholders.
>>> 
>>>     b) The Secretariat and MAG should be strongly encouraged to directly
>>>     foster discussion and debate of difficult issues in main sessions,
>>>     instead of avoiding them.
>>> 
>>>     4. In your view, what important new issues or themes concerning
>>>     Internet governance have emerged or become important since the Tunis
>>>     phase of the Summit, which deserve more attention in the next five
>>>     years?
>>> 
>>>     IGC feels that attention to the development agenda, issues concerning
>>>     the marginalized groups or actors, have yet gained sufficient
>>>     level of
>>>     work at IGF and its outcome. These may not be the "new" issues,
>>>     but we
>>>     strongly feel they are very important.
>>> 
>>>     Besides them, emergence of new technologies, tools and services, such
>>>     as cloud computing; user-generated, SNS and online sharing services
>>>     such as wiki, YouTube, Ustream, twitter and Facebook; DPI and
>>>     behavioral targeting advertisements; wide deployment of mobile
>>>     services including smart phones and tablet computers pose all kind of
>>>     new challenges for governance.
>>> 
>>> 
>>>     5. What do you think should be the priority themes and areas of work
>>>     of the IGF during the next five years?
>>> 
>>>     Followings will be the areas of themes and works that have
>>>     priorities we think.
>>>     a) Enhancing multi-stakeholder framework within IGF.
>>>     b) Promote capacity building for developmental agenda of governance
>>>     c) Balancing the interests - to empower those of marginalized and
>>>     under-developed in all organizations and fora dealing with Internet
>>>     governance - such as ICANN, W3C, IETF, RIRs, ITU, WIPO, CoE, OECD,
>>>     UNCTAD/CSTD and United Nations itself.
>>> 
>>>     6. How can the capacity of those groups that are not yet well
>>>     represented at the IGF be improved? In particular, what could be done
>>>     to improve the capacity of representatives from developing countries?
>>> 
>>>     a) Establish special funding mechanism by IGF itself to help actors
>>>     from developing countries to continuously engage in IGF and related
>>>     organizations and meetings. Fellowship works carried out by
>>>     DiploFoundation, dotAsia organization [other reference, please] and
>>>     other institutions offer good reference for this, but they should be
>>>     expanded in larger scale. Targeting youth groups or younger
>>>     generation
>>>     in profession, will have, in the long run, effective impact.
>>> 
>>>     b) Providing technical training to policy makers and policy training
>>>     to engineers will also help close the gap(s) within the
>>>     under-represented and also even well-represented.
>>> 
>>>     7. How do you think more awareness of Internet governance issues and
>>>     the IGF process can be raised amongst groups whose lives are affected
>>>     by Internet governance but who are not yet part of the IGF process?
>>> 
>>>     a) Giving more weight to regional and national IGF meetings, making
>>>     more direct "links" to the main IGF meeting will help outreach to
>>>     those who have not yet involved in IGF process. Securing the same
>>>     level of working framework of IGF, such as multi-stakeholder
>>>     composition and inclusion of civil society groups (where such
>>>     practice
>>>     is relatively new or scarce) should be maintained.
>>> 
>>>     b) Ensuring a plurality of civil society voices be heard in Internet
>>>     governance processes will also be effective in reaching out to those
>>>     yet to participate.
>>> 
>>>     c) Online meetings are most effective when provision is made for
>>>     participation both synchronously (ie. in real time) and
>>>     asynchronously. The remote hubs and moderators at the Vilnius IGF
>>>     made
>>>     good progress towards this direction. Using such tools as blogs,
>>>     Twitter, mailing lists, Facebook and so on over an extended
>>>     period may
>>>     also increase the awareness.
>>> 
>>>     d) Organizing some sessions completely online will create "level
>>>     playing field" among all participants, and may also demonstrate the
>>>     effectiveness of these tools/technologies, and may also improve the
>>>     quality of services in turn.
>>> 
>>>     e) Increase linguistic diversity. Using UN major languages other than
>>>     English at certain meetings and occasions as main working language
>>>     (translated into other UN languages) will increase the outreach to
>>>     non-English speaking population of the globe and will give more sense
>>>     of ownership. Currently, English is the only default working
>>>     language,
>>>     but we think it does not have to be so.
>>> 
>>>     8. How, if at all, do you think that the IGF process needs to change
>>>     to meet changing circumstances and priorities?
>>> 
>>>     As we replied to the MAG questionnaire, the organizing work of IGF
>>>     primarily by MAG should be improved. More outcome oriented direction
>>>     might improve the quality and value of IGF, but this should be
>>>     carefully exercised so as not to lose the open and free spirit of IGF
>>>     which contributed a great deal.
>>> 
>>>     9. Do you have any other comments?
>>> 
>>>     No.
>>> 
>>>     END
>>>     ____________________________________________________________
>>>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>>>     To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>>     <mailto:governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org>
>>> 
>>>     For all list information and functions, see:
>>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>> 
>>>     Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>> 
>>> 
>>>     ____________________________________________________________
>>>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>>>     To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>>     <mailto:governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org>
>>> 
>>>     For all list information and functions, see:
>>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>> 
>>>     Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 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
>
>
>-- Katitza Rodriguez
>International Rights Director
>Electronic Frontier Foundation
>katitza at eff.org
>katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email)
>
>Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990
>

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

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

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

From katitza at eff.org  Fri Nov 19 03:17:25 2010
From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez)
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 00:17:25 -0800
Subject: [governance] Consensus Call for CSTD IGF Questionnaire - Clean
In-Reply-To: <411110.91188.qm@web33008.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <411110.91188.qm@web33008.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <4CE63295.70207@eff.org>

Dear Imran,

In policy process discussions, consensus among civil society is not only 
necessary but also important in order to move an unify agenda, specially 
in front of other stakeholders. In special cases, people/organizations 
can have a dissent opinion.

Consensus with other stakeholders is a different approach and not an 
easy task. There are even litigation in Courts on many  proposals that 
might be table. We know the boundaries. If we concentrate in negotiating 
a text, we will spend all our hours and energy on each detail of the 
document. We will have less substantive discussions and focus our energy 
in a more political discussion (word by word). We are changing the 
nature of IGF. To negotiate a text, you need a process to carry out that 
consultation. It is a very heavy task.

I am less concerned of having this kind of discussions about 
recommendations/messages within the framework of this questionary, and 
through the CSTD since this is the right way to go. I would like to 
explore more the proposal table by Wolfgang about the "IGF enhances its 
function and could become, inter alia, an observatory, a clearinghouse, 
an early warning system of what happen in other forums."

I also think that there are many NGOs who would have strong opinions in 
many of the issues we are discussing but are not on this list.... Many 
of them has memberships behind them that support their work or are 
umbrellas organizations.

I agree with Miguel when he suggested: "- for 3a, I will suggest 
"messages from the IGF" for the IGF meeting. I think, an IGF host with 
the assistance of the MAG and Secretariat could identify people from the 
organizers of a main session to draft the status of the discussion of 
the topic, either rough agreements or the different points of view of an 
important subject. After, the IGF host could prepare the whole message 
with the assistance of the Secretariat."

We also need to evaluate how realistics our proposals are. All the 
proposals regarding recommendations has been always rejected, including 
the Message of IGF. We work hard in the last IGF within the MAG to get 
that in. It was not possible. How to present a proposal also matters.

I want to support also Miguel's proposal:

- for 6a. IGF Secretariat will not be able to dedicate funds from its current level of funding in its voluntary fund for the engagement of Developing country actors. Either we can insist in inviting or strenghtening the voluntary fund and dedicate the additional funds to the engagement of developing countries or we can invite governments or the UN SG to consider a small transfer from the UN regular budget to the aforementioned IGF voluntary fund and dedicate such funds for the engagement of developing countries. I am suggesting a transfer around US$200,000 annually. Independently of the source of the funds, they should serve to make sinergies with the actors already improving the engagement of developing countries.

This is an on going dialogue, and I am sharing some thoughts with you on 
my personal capacity.

Katitza


On 11/18/10 11:23 PM, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote:
> Dear Katitza
> Reservations about consensus are valid to some extend
> But practically if we need broader impact of a any discussion,
> we have to care about the opinion and recommendations
> of the majority, even for positive decisions, we had to convince them. By the way, we are use to with the consensus at this CS IGC.
>   If you read the question again, they are asking that how to
> Improve the impact of the discussion, in my honest opinion
> IMHO: "a discussion may have deeper and longer impact
> if the professional/ public opinion is considered with justice.
> Higher results may be obtained if the ownership of the system/tasks
> are accepted by the stakeholders.
>
> I have suggested an alternate para for 3a.
> If you read my previous email.
>
> One mechanism we can suggest that “Solutions&  Recommendations
> regarding governance common issues may please be vetted through
> consensus. The outcomes of the consensus will not be binding but would be
> recommended to stakeholders to be followed. This model of consensus
> with better&  deeper understanding amongst different stakeholders
> will improve the impact of discussions.
>
> Thanks
>
> Imran Ahmed Shah
>
> On Fri, 19 Nov 2010 07:09 PKT Katitza Rodriguez wrote:
>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> My comments are in line with Wolfgang, Bill, and Miguel.
>>
>> I have a few points to make:
>>
>> I disagree with the use of the word "rough consensus". It is a dangerous one. It can force bad policy outcomes, and creates a "trade off" situation. This is a situation that some of us, from civil society, would not agree when it deals with fundamental human rights. For instance, you can get a good outcome incorporating on the text a provision on internet intermediaries limitation of liability but you accept a bad outcome (eg. a data retention provision that compels ISPs and telcos to retain innocent citizens' Internet traffic data). There are many situations were "rough consensus" might bring an outcome that some of us will not compromise.
>>
>> "Messages from IGF" is a model that has been tested and work well in Eurodig. If the session is well structure, you can actually have a frank discussion, and understand not only those issues that you might agree on, but also you can get to know where the boundaries are.
>>
>> At the last IGF, EFF and ISOC organized the workshop on the Future of Privacy. Based on that idea, we have recently released a report that try to identify the key messages that each speaker said. I found it quite useful as many of those statements are part of discussions that are being held in different spaces: national, regional, and international level.  Pls. see: https://www.eff.org/files/future-privacy.pdf
>>
>> EFF Discusses the Future of Internet Privacy at UN Internet Governance Forum
>> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/11/future-privacy-internet-governance-forum
>>
>> Many thanks,
>>
>> Katitza
>>
>>
>>> On 11/18/10 7:04 AM, Miguel Alcaine wrote:
>>>> Dear all,
>>>>
>>>> I would suggest that:
>>>>
>>>> - for 3a, I will suggest "messages from the IGF" for the IGF meeting. I think, an IGF host with the assistance of the MAG and Secretariat could identify people from the organizers of a main session to draft the status of the discussion of the topic, either rough agreements or the different points of view of an important subject. After, the IGF host could prepare the whole message with the assistance of the Secretariat.
>>>>
>>>> Afterwards, the messages from the IGF could be used as a basis for mailing-list discussions as to identify the appropriate fora to present the message or to refine part of the message, but I will suggest such refinements to be Ad-hoc groups (open and voluntary) to take up messages, refine them and present them in other fora, but not in the IGF behalf. Such ad-hoc groups could only claim that they started their work based on X message from the IGF.
>>>>
>>>> I agree with Wolfang in avoiding recommendation and I will also suggest to get rid of "rough consensus" and rather apply the method described above.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> - for 6a. IGF Secretariat will not be able to dedicate funds from its current level of funding in its voluntary fund for the engagement of Developing country actors. Either we can insist in inviting or strenghtening the voluntary fund and dedicate the additional funds to the engagement of developing countries or we can invite governments or the UN SG to consider a small transfer from the UN regular budget to the aforementioned IGF voluntary fund and dedicate such funds for the engagement of developing countries. I am suggesting a transfer around US$200,000 annually. Independently of the source of the funds, they should serve to make sinergies with the actors already improving the engagement of developing countries.
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>>
>>>> Miguel
>>>>
>>>> 2010/11/18 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"<wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de<mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>>
>>>>
>>>>      Hi everybody
>>>>
>>>>      thanks for the work. I am sorry that I jump in in a very late
>>>>      stage. I have three comments:
>>>>
>>>>      1. 3a: The old debate on receommendations is not really helpful.
>>>>      In the past CS tried also to use the terminology "messages". The
>>>>      problem is as soon as you introduce a process to negotiate a text
>>>>      which then has been the subject of voting you change the nature
>>>>      of the the whole event. Even if you stress that these
>>>>      receommendations will be not binding, this does not matter. In
>>>>      the Un context (like in other intergovernmental mechanisms) the
>>>>      category "receommednation" is well defined and you can not avoid
>>>>      that an IGF recommendation is seen as something similar to what
>>>>      other Un bodies are doing with receommendations. Again I prefer
>>>>      the "message". BTW, I will circulate later this week the Interim
>>>>      Report of the Council of Europe Cross Border Expert Group where
>>>>      we propose also the elaboration of some instruments. The Council
>>>>      of Europe - or other organisations with an established procedure
>>>>      to negotiat texts - are a better place for such
>>>>      an excercise.
>>>>
>>>>      2. 6a: I thin SOC has an IGF Fellowship Programm.
>>>>
>>>>      3. Under nine we could say that we ould like to see that the IGF
>>>>      enhances its function and could become, inter alia, an
>>>>      observatory, a clearinghouse, an early warning system and a watchdog.
>>>>
>>>>      Sorry for the late reply. If it is too late then ignore it.
>>>>
>>>>      Best wishes
>>>>
>>>>      wolfgang
>>>>      ________________________________
>>>>
>>>>      Von: izumiaizu at gmail.com<mailto:izumiaizu at gmail.com>  im Auftrag
>>>>      von Izumi AIZU
>>>>      Gesendet: Do 18.11.2010 03:13
>>>>      An: governance at lists.cpsr.org<mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>>>>      Betreff: [governance] Consensus Call for CSTD IGF Questionnaire -
>>>>      Clean version
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>      Here follows are the Clean version of the Final Draft for the
>>>>      CSTD IGF
>>>>      questionnaire answer
>>>>      in full text. Sorry for the confusion.
>>>>
>>>>      Please respond if you agree or disagree as soon as possible.
>>>>       Friday, Nov 19
>>>>      is the deadline for submission. More comments are also very much
>>>>      appreciated
>>>>      as we can further feed them into the Consultation meetings next
>>>>      week in Geneva.
>>>>
>>>>      Thanks!
>>>>
>>>>      izumi
>>>>
>>>>      ------------
>>>>
>>>>      FINAL Draft for Questionnaire on improvements to the IGF
>>>>
>>>>      1. What do you consider the most important achievements of the first
>>>>      five IGF meetings?
>>>>
>>>>      IGF created the space for dialogue by all stakeholders in an open,
>>>>      inclusive manner. These emergence and development of the
>>>>      multistakeholder principle and practice are perhaps the biggest
>>>>      contribution IGF has achieved so far. It helped many participants to
>>>>      understand the issues of their interest, as well as to understand how
>>>>      other actors understand, act and accept their issues. Emergence of
>>>>      Regional and National IGF with multistakeholder approach is another
>>>>      achievement.
>>>>
>>>>      2. How satisfied are you with the delivery of the results of
>>>>      discussions at the IGF and the impact they have had on
>>>>      developments in
>>>>      national, regional or international Internet governance?
>>>>
>>>>      IGF has made a reasonable advancement of the understanding of the
>>>>      issues. Yet, at national, regional and international levels, we have
>>>>      mixed assessment for the impact it brought.
>>>>
>>>>      3. Which, if any, new mechanisms would you propose to improve the
>>>>      impact of the IGF discussions, in particular as regards the
>>>>      interaction between the IGF and other stakeholders? Please
>>>>      specify the
>>>>      kind of mechanism (e.g. reporting, exchanges, recommendations,
>>>>      concrete advice, etc.) and the stakeholders (e.g. intergovernmental
>>>>      bodies, other fora dealing with Internet Governance, etc.).
>>>>
>>>>      a) One mechanism we can suggest is to come up with some form of
>>>>      recommendations where all stakeholders have [rough] consensus. They
>>>>      will not be binding, but could still function as model, reference or
>>>>      common framework. Working process towards achieving these rough
>>>>      consensus will create better and deeper understandings amongst
>>>>      different stakeholders.
>>>>
>>>>      b) The Secretariat and MAG should be strongly encouraged to directly
>>>>      foster discussion and debate of difficult issues in main sessions,
>>>>      instead of avoiding them.
>>>>
>>>>      4. In your view, what important new issues or themes concerning
>>>>      Internet governance have emerged or become important since the Tunis
>>>>      phase of the Summit, which deserve more attention in the next five
>>>>      years?
>>>>
>>>>      IGC feels that attention to the development agenda, issues concerning
>>>>      the marginalized groups or actors, have yet gained sufficient
>>>>      level of
>>>>      work at IGF and its outcome. These may not be the "new" issues,
>>>>      but we
>>>>      strongly feel they are very important.
>>>>
>>>>      Besides them, emergence of new technologies, tools and services, such
>>>>      as cloud computing; user-generated, SNS and online sharing services
>>>>      such as wiki, YouTube, Ustream, twitter and Facebook; DPI and
>>>>      behavioral targeting advertisements; wide deployment of mobile
>>>>      services including smart phones and tablet computers pose all kind of
>>>>      new challenges for governance.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>      5. What do you think should be the priority themes and areas of work
>>>>      of the IGF during the next five years?
>>>>
>>>>      Followings will be the areas of themes and works that have
>>>>      priorities we think.
>>>>      a) Enhancing multi-stakeholder framework within IGF.
>>>>      b) Promote capacity building for developmental agenda of governance
>>>>      c) Balancing the interests - to empower those of marginalized and
>>>>      under-developed in all organizations and fora dealing with Internet
>>>>      governance - such as ICANN, W3C, IETF, RIRs, ITU, WIPO, CoE, OECD,
>>>>      UNCTAD/CSTD and United Nations itself.
>>>>
>>>>      6. How can the capacity of those groups that are not yet well
>>>>      represented at the IGF be improved? In particular, what could be done
>>>>      to improve the capacity of representatives from developing countries?
>>>>
>>>>      a) Establish special funding mechanism by IGF itself to help actors
>>>>      from developing countries to continuously engage in IGF and related
>>>>      organizations and meetings. Fellowship works carried out by
>>>>      DiploFoundation, dotAsia organization [other reference, please] and
>>>>      other institutions offer good reference for this, but they should be
>>>>      expanded in larger scale. Targeting youth groups or younger
>>>>      generation
>>>>      in profession, will have, in the long run, effective impact.
>>>>
>>>>      b) Providing technical training to policy makers and policy training
>>>>      to engineers will also help close the gap(s) within the
>>>>      under-represented and also even well-represented.
>>>>
>>>>      7. How do you think more awareness of Internet governance issues and
>>>>      the IGF process can be raised amongst groups whose lives are affected
>>>>      by Internet governance but who are not yet part of the IGF process?
>>>>
>>>>      a) Giving more weight to regional and national IGF meetings, making
>>>>      more direct "links" to the main IGF meeting will help outreach to
>>>>      those who have not yet involved in IGF process. Securing the same
>>>>      level of working framework of IGF, such as multi-stakeholder
>>>>      composition and inclusion of civil society groups (where such
>>>>      practice
>>>>      is relatively new or scarce) should be maintained.
>>>>
>>>>      b) Ensuring a plurality of civil society voices be heard in Internet
>>>>      governance processes will also be effective in reaching out to those
>>>>      yet to participate.
>>>>
>>>>      c) Online meetings are most effective when provision is made for
>>>>      participation both synchronously (ie. in real time) and
>>>>      asynchronously. The remote hubs and moderators at the Vilnius IGF
>>>>      made
>>>>      good progress towards this direction. Using such tools as blogs,
>>>>      Twitter, mailing lists, Facebook and so on over an extended
>>>>      period may
>>>>      also increase the awareness.
>>>>
>>>>      d) Organizing some sessions completely online will create "level
>>>>      playing field" among all participants, and may also demonstrate the
>>>>      effectiveness of these tools/technologies, and may also improve the
>>>>      quality of services in turn.
>>>>
>>>>      e) Increase linguistic diversity. Using UN major languages other than
>>>>      English at certain meetings and occasions as main working language
>>>>      (translated into other UN languages) will increase the outreach to
>>>>      non-English speaking population of the globe and will give more sense
>>>>      of ownership. Currently, English is the only default working
>>>>      language,
>>>>      but we think it does not have to be so.
>>>>
>>>>      8. How, if at all, do you think that the IGF process needs to change
>>>>      to meet changing circumstances and priorities?
>>>>
>>>>      As we replied to the MAG questionnaire, the organizing work of IGF
>>>>      primarily by MAG should be improved. More outcome oriented direction
>>>>      might improve the quality and value of IGF, but this should be
>>>>      carefully exercised so as not to lose the open and free spirit of IGF
>>>>      which contributed a great deal.
>>>>
>>>>      9. Do you have any other comments?
>>>>
>>>>      No.
>>>>
>>>>      END
>>>>      ____________________________________________________________
>>>>      You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org<mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>>>>      To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>>>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>>>      <mailto:governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org>
>>>>
>>>>      For all list information and functions, see:
>>>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>>>
>>>>      Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>      ____________________________________________________________
>>>>      You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org<mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>>>>      To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>>>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>>>      <mailto:governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org>
>>>>
>>>>      For all list information and functions, see:
>>>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>>>
>>>>      Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> -- 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
>>
>> -- Katitza Rodriguez
>> International Rights Director
>> Electronic Frontier Foundation
>> katitza at eff.org
>> katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email)
>>
>> Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990
>>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>       governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>       governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>       http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


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

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

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

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

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


From parminder at itforchange.net  Fri Nov 19 04:27:54 2010
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 14:57:54 +0530
Subject: [governance] Consensus Call for CSTD IGF Questionnaire - Clean
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimUhwWk+owU1CLY4hvFYjnq_qz8OqgMVsfHXcdL@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTinyo=oKJoJiz2wVHikpv7-nYBwgq+cf7p6qrj16@mail.gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07448@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <AANLkTi=DFTPVO36vapwBWxiYq7kDnFg=f9RexLpE7rZc@mail.gmail.com> <4CE5DAEE.8050103@eff.org> <AANLkTimUhwWk+owU1CLY4hvFYjnq_qz8OqgMVsfHXcdL@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4CE6431A.8030303@itforchange.net>

I say 'yes'

We can also specifically mention that we will closely follow the CSTD WG 
process and will keep coming up with other comments and suggestions. 
thanks. parminder

On Friday 19 November 2010 07:41 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote:
> Dear list,
>
> Many thanks for the comments made despite the last-minute rush.
>
> I would like to urge all who have not replied to the call yet, to indicate
> if you support the FINAL DRAFT, yes or no, and in case, add
> your comments.
>
> As the deadline is approaching I will consult with Jeremy and
> make the final judgment based on the inputs from all.
>
> Thanks again,
>
> izumi
>
>
> 2010/11/19 Katitza Rodriguez<katitza at eff.org>:
>    
>> Dear all,
>>
>> My comments are in line with Wolfgang, Bill, and Miguel's comments.
>>
>> I have a few additional points to make:
>>
>> I disagree with the use of the word "rough consensus". It is a dangerous
>> one. It can force bad policy outcomes, and creates a "trade off" situation.
>> Something that some of us, from civil society would not agree  when it deals
>> with fundamental human rights. For instance, you can get a good outcome
>> incorporating on the text a provision on internet intermediaries limitation
>> of liability but a bad outcome (eg. a data retention provision that compels
>> ISPs and telcos to retain innocent citizens' Internet traffic data). There
>> are many outcomes were "rough consensus" might bring an outcome that some of
>> us will not compromise.
>>
>> "Messages from IGF" is a model that has been tested and work well in
>> Eurodig. If the session is well structure, you can actually have a frank
>> discussion, and understand not only those who points that you might agree
>> but also where the boundaries are.
>>
>> At the last IGF, EFF and ISOC organized the workshop on the Future of
>> Privacy. Based on that idea, we have recently released a report that try to
>> identify the key messages that each speaker said. I found it quite useful as
>> many of those statements are part of discussions that are being held in
>> different spaces: national, regional, and international level.  Pls. see:
>> https://www.eff.org/files/future-privacy.pdf
>>
>> EFF Discusses the Future of Internet Privacy at UN Internet Governance Forum
>> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/11/future-privacy-internet-governance-forum
>>
>> Many thanks,
>>
>> Katitza
>>
>>
>> On 11/18/10 7:04 AM, Miguel Alcaine wrote:
>>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> I would suggest that:
>>
>> - for 3a, I will suggest "messages from the IGF" for the IGF meeting. I
>> think, an IGF host with the assistance of the MAG and Secretariat could
>> identify people from the organizers of a main session to draft the status of
>> the discussion of the topic, either rough agreements or the different points
>> of view of an important subject. After, the IGF host could prepare the whole
>> message with the assistance of the Secretariat.
>>
>> Afterwards, the messages from the IGF could be used as a basis for
>> mailing-list discussions as to identify the appropriate fora to present the
>> message or to refine part of the message, but I will suggest such
>> refinements to be Ad-hoc groups (open and voluntary) to take up messages,
>> refine them and present them in other fora, but not in the IGF behalf. Such
>> ad-hoc groups could only claim that they started their work based on X
>> message from the IGF.
>>
>> I agree with Wolfang in avoiding recommendation and I will also suggest to
>> get rid of "rough consensus" and rather apply the method described above.
>>
>>
>> - for 6a. IGF Secretariat will not be able to dedicate funds from its
>> current level of funding in its voluntary fund for the engagement of
>> Developing country actors. Either we can insist in inviting or strenghtening
>> the voluntary fund and dedicate the additional funds to the engagement of
>> developing countries or we can invite governments or the UN SG to consider a
>> small transfer from the UN regular budget to the aforementioned IGF
>> voluntary fund and dedicate such funds for the engagement of developing
>> countries. I am suggesting a transfer around US$200,000 annually.
>> Independently of the source of the funds, they should serve to make
>> sinergies with the actors already improving the engagement of developing
>> countries.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Miguel
>>
>> 2010/11/18 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"
>> <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
>>      
>>> Hi everybody
>>>
>>> thanks for the work. I am sorry that I jump in in a very late stage. I
>>> have three comments:
>>>
>>> 1. 3a: The old debate on receommendations is not really helpful. In the
>>> past CS tried also to use the terminology "messages". The problem is as soon
>>> as you introduce a process to negotiate a text which then has been the
>>> subject of voting you change the nature of the the whole event. Even if you
>>> stress that these receommendations will be not binding, this does not
>>> matter. In the Un context (like in other intergovernmental mechanisms) the
>>> category "receommednation" is well defined and you can not avoid that an IGF
>>> recommendation is seen as something similar to what other Un bodies are
>>> doing with receommendations. Again I prefer the "message". BTW, I will
>>> circulate later this week the Interim Report of the Council of Europe Cross
>>> Border Expert Group where we propose also the elaboration of some
>>> instruments. The Council of Europe - or other organisations with an
>>> established procedure to negotiat texts - are a better place for such
>>> an excercise.
>>>
>>> 2. 6a: I thin SOC has an IGF Fellowship Programm.
>>>
>>> 3. Under nine we could say that we ould like to see that the IGF enhances
>>> its function and could become, inter alia, an observatory, a clearinghouse,
>>> an early warning system and a watchdog.
>>>
>>> Sorry for the late reply. If it is too late then ignore it.
>>>
>>> Best wishes
>>>
>>> wolfgang
>>> ________________________________
>>>
>>> Von: izumiaizu at gmail.com im Auftrag von Izumi AIZU
>>> Gesendet: Do 18.11.2010 03:13
>>> An: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>> Betreff: [governance] Consensus Call for CSTD IGF Questionnaire - Clean
>>> version
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Here follows are the Clean version of the Final Draft for the CSTD IGF
>>> questionnaire answer
>>> in full text. Sorry for the confusion.
>>>
>>> Please respond if you agree or disagree as soon as possible.  Friday, Nov
>>> 19
>>> is the deadline for submission. More comments are also very much
>>> appreciated
>>> as we can further feed them into the Consultation meetings next week in
>>> Geneva.
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>> izumi
>>>
>>> ------------
>>>
>>> FINAL Draft for Questionnaire on improvements to the IGF
>>>
>>> 1. What do you consider the most important achievements of the first
>>> five IGF meetings?
>>>
>>> IGF created the space for dialogue by all stakeholders in an open,
>>> inclusive manner. These emergence and development of the
>>> multistakeholder principle and practice are perhaps the biggest
>>> contribution IGF has achieved so far. It helped many participants to
>>> understand the issues of their interest, as well as to understand how
>>> other actors understand, act and accept their issues. Emergence of
>>> Regional and National IGF with multistakeholder approach is another
>>> achievement.
>>>
>>> 2. How satisfied are you with the delivery of the results of
>>> discussions at the IGF and the impact they have had on developments in
>>> national, regional or international Internet governance?
>>>
>>> IGF has made a reasonable advancement of the understanding of the
>>> issues. Yet, at national, regional and international levels, we have
>>> mixed assessment for the impact it brought.
>>>
>>> 3. Which, if any, new mechanisms would you propose to improve the
>>> impact of the IGF discussions, in particular as regards the
>>> interaction between the IGF and other stakeholders? Please specify the
>>> kind of mechanism (e.g. reporting, exchanges, recommendations,
>>> concrete advice, etc.) and the stakeholders (e.g. intergovernmental
>>> bodies, other fora dealing with Internet Governance, etc.).
>>>
>>> a) One mechanism we can suggest is to come up with some form of
>>> recommendations where all stakeholders have [rough] consensus. They
>>> will not be binding, but could still function as model, reference or
>>> common framework. Working process towards achieving these rough
>>> consensus will create better and deeper understandings amongst
>>> different stakeholders.
>>>
>>> b) The Secretariat and MAG should be strongly encouraged to directly
>>> foster discussion and debate of difficult issues in main sessions,
>>> instead of avoiding them.
>>>
>>> 4. In your view, what important new issues or themes concerning
>>> Internet governance have emerged or become important since the Tunis
>>> phase of the Summit, which deserve more attention in the next five
>>> years?
>>>
>>> IGC feels that attention to the development agenda, issues concerning
>>> the marginalized groups or actors, have yet gained sufficient level of
>>> work at IGF and its outcome. These may not be the "new" issues, but we
>>> strongly feel they are very important.
>>>
>>> Besides them, emergence of new technologies, tools and services, such
>>> as cloud computing; user-generated, SNS and online sharing services
>>> such as wiki, YouTube, Ustream, twitter and Facebook; DPI and
>>> behavioral targeting advertisements; wide deployment of mobile
>>> services including smart phones and tablet computers pose all kind of
>>> new challenges for governance.
>>>
>>>
>>> 5. What do you think should be the priority themes and areas of work
>>> of the IGF during the next five years?
>>>
>>> Followings will be the areas of themes and works that have priorities we
>>> think.
>>> a) Enhancing multi-stakeholder framework within IGF.
>>> b) Promote capacity building for developmental agenda of governance
>>> c) Balancing the interests - to empower those of marginalized and
>>> under-developed in all organizations and fora dealing with Internet
>>> governance - such as ICANN, W3C, IETF, RIRs, ITU, WIPO, CoE, OECD,
>>> UNCTAD/CSTD and United Nations itself.
>>>
>>> 6. How can the capacity of those groups that are not yet well
>>> represented at the IGF be improved? In particular, what could be done
>>> to improve the capacity of representatives from developing countries?
>>>
>>> a) Establish special funding mechanism by IGF itself to help actors
>>> from developing countries to continuously engage in IGF and related
>>> organizations and meetings. Fellowship works carried out by
>>> DiploFoundation, dotAsia organization [other reference, please] and
>>> other institutions offer good reference for this, but they should be
>>> expanded in larger scale. Targeting youth groups or younger generation
>>> in profession, will have, in the long run, effective impact.
>>>
>>> b) Providing technical training to policy makers and policy training
>>> to engineers will also help close the gap(s) within the
>>> under-represented and also even well-represented.
>>>
>>> 7. How do you think more awareness of Internet governance issues and
>>> the IGF process can be raised amongst groups whose lives are affected
>>> by Internet governance but who are not yet part of the IGF process?
>>>
>>> a) Giving more weight to regional and national IGF meetings, making
>>> more direct "links" to the main IGF meeting will help outreach to
>>> those who have not yet involved in IGF process. Securing the same
>>> level of working framework of IGF, such as multi-stakeholder
>>> composition and inclusion of civil society groups (where such practice
>>> is relatively new or scarce) should be maintained.
>>>
>>> b) Ensuring a plurality of civil society voices be heard in Internet
>>> governance processes will also be effective in reaching out to those
>>> yet to participate.
>>>
>>> c) Online meetings are most effective when provision is made for
>>> participation both synchronously (ie. in real time) and
>>> asynchronously. The remote hubs and moderators at the Vilnius IGF made
>>> good progress towards this direction. Using such tools as blogs,
>>> Twitter, mailing lists, Facebook and so on over an extended period may
>>> also increase the awareness.
>>>
>>> d) Organizing some sessions completely online will create "level
>>> playing field" among all participants, and may also demonstrate the
>>> effectiveness of these tools/technologies, and may also improve the
>>> quality of services in turn.
>>>
>>> e) Increase linguistic diversity. Using UN major languages other than
>>> English at certain meetings and occasions as main working language
>>> (translated into other UN languages) will increase the outreach to
>>> non-English speaking population of the globe and will give more sense
>>> of ownership. Currently, English is the only default working language,
>>> but we think it does not have to be so.
>>>
>>> 8. How, if at all, do you think that the IGF process needs to change
>>> to meet changing circumstances and priorities?
>>>
>>> As we replied to the MAG questionnaire, the organizing work of IGF
>>> primarily by MAG should be improved. More outcome oriented direction
>>> might improve the quality and value of IGF, but this should be
>>> carefully exercised so as not to lose the open and free spirit of IGF
>>> which contributed a great deal.
>>>
>>> 9. Do you have any other comments?
>>>
>>> No.
>>>
>>> END
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>>
>>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>>
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>>
>>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>>
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>        
>>
>>
>> --
>> Katitza Rodriguez
>> International Rights Director
>> Electronic Frontier Foundation
>> katitza at eff.org
>> katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email)
>>
>> Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of
>> speech since 1990
>>      
>
>
>    
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101119/fb643ccb/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From avri at psg.com  Fri Nov 19 04:39:50 2010
From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 10:39:50 +0100
Subject: [governance] Consensus Call for CSTD IGF Questionnaire - Clean
In-Reply-To: <4CE63295.70207@eff.org>
References: <411110.91188.qm@web33008.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4CE63295.70207@eff.org>
Message-ID: <D47B8970-97EC-4090-BAD0-8F6723B0D898@psg.com>

But Katitza,

Such a full consensus is not possible unless you say nothing.

Your only choices are majority rule, or near consensus (since you dislike the term rough consensus).  It is not political purity, but it has a chance of making progress.

To demand full consensus is to insist on having nothing other than the most  watered down ambiguous text.

I agree it would be really cool if you or EFF could convince everyone that 100% of your program was the right thing for all of us to agree to, but I will truly be amazed on the day that happens.

Or do you suggest that groups like this say nothing if they can't agree to the maximalist program and move the discussion the streets.  Which is always an option.

a.

On 19 Nov 2010, at 09:17, Katitza Rodriguez wrote:

> Dear Imran,
> 
> In policy process discussions, consensus among civil society is not only necessary but also important in order to move an unify agenda, specially in front of other stakeholders. In special cases, people/organizations can have a dissent opinion.
> 
> Consensus with other stakeholders is a different approach and not an easy task. There are even litigation in Courts on many  proposals that might be table. We know the boundaries. If we concentrate in negotiating a text, we will spend all our hours and energy on each detail of the document. We will have less substantive discussions and focus our energy in a more political discussion (word by word). We are changing the nature of IGF. To negotiate a text, you need a process to carry out that consultation. It is a very heavy task.
> 
> I am less concerned of having this kind of discussions about recommendations/messages within the framework of this questionary, and through the CSTD since this is the right way to go. I would like to explore more the proposal table by Wolfgang about the "IGF enhances its function and could become, inter alia, an observatory, a clearinghouse, an early warning system of what happen in other forums."
> 
> I also think that there are many NGOs who would have strong opinions in many of the issues we are discussing but are not on this list.... Many of them has memberships behind them that support their work or are umbrellas organizations.
> 
> I agree with Miguel when he suggested: "- for 3a, I will suggest "messages from the IGF" for the IGF meeting. I think, an IGF host with the assistance of the MAG and Secretariat could identify people from the organizers of a main session to draft the status of the discussion of the topic, either rough agreements or the different points of view of an important subject. After, the IGF host could prepare the whole message with the assistance of the Secretariat."
> 
> We also need to evaluate how realistics our proposals are. All the proposals regarding recommendations has been always rejected, including the Message of IGF. We work hard in the last IGF within the MAG to get that in. It was not possible. How to present a proposal also matters.
> 
> I want to support also Miguel's proposal:
> 
> - for 6a. IGF Secretariat will not be able to dedicate funds from its current level of funding in its voluntary fund for the engagement of Developing country actors. Either we can insist in inviting or strenghtening the voluntary fund and dedicate the additional funds to the engagement of developing countries or we can invite governments or the UN SG to consider a small transfer from the UN regular budget to the aforementioned IGF voluntary fund and dedicate such funds for the engagement of developing countries. I am suggesting a transfer around US$200,000 annually. Independently of the source of the funds, they should serve to make sinergies with the actors already improving the engagement of developing countries.
> 
> This is an on going dialogue, and I am sharing some thoughts with you on my personal capacity.
> 
> Katitza
> 
> 
> On 11/18/10 11:23 PM, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote:
>> Dear Katitza
>> Reservations about consensus are valid to some extend
>> But practically if we need broader impact of a any discussion,
>> we have to care about the opinion and recommendations
>> of the majority, even for positive decisions, we had to convince them. By the way, we are use to with the consensus at this CS IGC.
>>  If you read the question again, they are asking that how to
>> Improve the impact of the discussion, in my honest opinion
>> IMHO: "a discussion may have deeper and longer impact
>> if the professional/ public opinion is considered with justice.
>> Higher results may be obtained if the ownership of the system/tasks
>> are accepted by the stakeholders.
>> 
>> I have suggested an alternate para for 3a.
>> If you read my previous email.
>> 
>> One mechanism we can suggest that “Solutions&  Recommendations
>> regarding governance common issues may please be vetted through
>> consensus. The outcomes of the consensus will not be binding but would be
>> recommended to stakeholders to be followed. This model of consensus
>> with better&  deeper understanding amongst different stakeholders
>> will improve the impact of discussions.
>> 
>> Thanks
>> 
>> Imran Ahmed Shah
>> 
>> On Fri, 19 Nov 2010 07:09 PKT Katitza Rodriguez wrote:
>> 
>>> Dear all,
>>> 
>>> My comments are in line with Wolfgang, Bill, and Miguel.
>>> 
>>> I have a few points to make:
>>> 
>>> I disagree with the use of the word "rough consensus". It is a dangerous one. It can force bad policy outcomes, and creates a "trade off" situation. This is a situation that some of us, from civil society, would not agree when it deals with fundamental human rights. For instance, you can get a good outcome incorporating on the text a provision on internet intermediaries limitation of liability but you accept a bad outcome (eg. a data retention provision that compels ISPs and telcos to retain innocent citizens' Internet traffic data). There are many situations were "rough consensus" might bring an outcome that some of us will not compromise.
>>> 
>>> "Messages from IGF" is a model that has been tested and work well in Eurodig. If the session is well structure, you can actually have a frank discussion, and understand not only those issues that you might agree on, but also you can get to know where the boundaries are.
>>> 
>>> At the last IGF, EFF and ISOC organized the workshop on the Future of Privacy. Based on that idea, we have recently released a report that try to identify the key messages that each speaker said. I found it quite useful as many of those statements are part of discussions that are being held in different spaces: national, regional, and international level.  Pls. see: https://www.eff.org/files/future-privacy.pdf
>>> 
>>> EFF Discusses the Future of Internet Privacy at UN Internet Governance Forum
>>> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/11/future-privacy-internet-governance-forum
>>> 
>>> Many thanks,
>>> 
>>> Katitza
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On 11/18/10 7:04 AM, Miguel Alcaine wrote:
>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>> 
>>>>> I would suggest that:
>>>>> 
>>>>> - for 3a, I will suggest "messages from the IGF" for the IGF meeting. I think, an IGF host with the assistance of the MAG and Secretariat could identify people from the organizers of a main session to draft the status of the discussion of the topic, either rough agreements or the different points of view of an important subject. After, the IGF host could prepare the whole message with the assistance of the Secretariat.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Afterwards, the messages from the IGF could be used as a basis for mailing-list discussions as to identify the appropriate fora to present the message or to refine part of the message, but I will suggest such refinements to be Ad-hoc groups (open and voluntary) to take up messages, refine them and present them in other fora, but not in the IGF behalf. Such ad-hoc groups could only claim that they started their work based on X message from the IGF.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I agree with Wolfang in avoiding recommendation and I will also suggest to get rid of "rough consensus" and rather apply the method described above.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> - for 6a. IGF Secretariat will not be able to dedicate funds from its current level of funding in its voluntary fund for the engagement of Developing country actors. Either we can insist in inviting or strenghtening the voluntary fund and dedicate the additional funds to the engagement of developing countries or we can invite governments or the UN SG to consider a small transfer from the UN regular budget to the aforementioned IGF voluntary fund and dedicate such funds for the engagement of developing countries. I am suggesting a transfer around US$200,000 annually. Independently of the source of the funds, they should serve to make sinergies with the actors already improving the engagement of developing countries.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Best,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Miguel
>>>>> 
>>>>> 2010/11/18 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"<wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de<mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>>
>>>>> 
>>>>>     Hi everybody
>>>>> 
>>>>>     thanks for the work. I am sorry that I jump in in a very late
>>>>>     stage. I have three comments:
>>>>> 
>>>>>     1. 3a: The old debate on receommendations is not really helpful.
>>>>>     In the past CS tried also to use the terminology "messages". The
>>>>>     problem is as soon as you introduce a process to negotiate a text
>>>>>     which then has been the subject of voting you change the nature
>>>>>     of the the whole event. Even if you stress that these
>>>>>     receommendations will be not binding, this does not matter. In
>>>>>     the Un context (like in other intergovernmental mechanisms) the
>>>>>     category "receommednation" is well defined and you can not avoid
>>>>>     that an IGF recommendation is seen as something similar to what
>>>>>     other Un bodies are doing with receommendations. Again I prefer
>>>>>     the "message". BTW, I will circulate later this week the Interim
>>>>>     Report of the Council of Europe Cross Border Expert Group where
>>>>>     we propose also the elaboration of some instruments. The Council
>>>>>     of Europe - or other organisations with an established procedure
>>>>>     to negotiat texts - are a better place for such
>>>>>     an excercise.
>>>>> 
>>>>>     2. 6a: I thin SOC has an IGF Fellowship Programm.
>>>>> 
>>>>>     3. Under nine we could say that we ould like to see that the IGF
>>>>>     enhances its function and could become, inter alia, an
>>>>>     observatory, a clearinghouse, an early warning system and a watchdog.
>>>>> 
>>>>>     Sorry for the late reply. If it is too late then ignore it.
>>>>> 
>>>>>     Best wishes
>>>>> 
>>>>>     wolfgang
>>>>>     ________________________________
>>>>> 
>>>>>     Von: izumiaizu at gmail.com<mailto:izumiaizu at gmail.com>  im Auftrag
>>>>>     von Izumi AIZU
>>>>>     Gesendet: Do 18.11.2010 03:13
>>>>>     An: governance at lists.cpsr.org<mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>>>>>     Betreff: [governance] Consensus Call for CSTD IGF Questionnaire -
>>>>>     Clean version
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>     Here follows are the Clean version of the Final Draft for the
>>>>>     CSTD IGF
>>>>>     questionnaire answer
>>>>>     in full text. Sorry for the confusion.
>>>>> 
>>>>>     Please respond if you agree or disagree as soon as possible.
>>>>>      Friday, Nov 19
>>>>>     is the deadline for submission. More comments are also very much
>>>>>     appreciated
>>>>>     as we can further feed them into the Consultation meetings next
>>>>>     week in Geneva.
>>>>> 
>>>>>     Thanks!
>>>>> 
>>>>>     izumi
>>>>> 
>>>>>     ------------
>>>>> 
>>>>>     FINAL Draft for Questionnaire on improvements to the IGF
>>>>> 
>>>>>     1. What do you consider the most important achievements of the first
>>>>>     five IGF meetings?
>>>>> 
>>>>>     IGF created the space for dialogue by all stakeholders in an open,
>>>>>     inclusive manner. These emergence and development of the
>>>>>     multistakeholder principle and practice are perhaps the biggest
>>>>>     contribution IGF has achieved so far. It helped many participants to
>>>>>     understand the issues of their interest, as well as to understand how
>>>>>     other actors understand, act and accept their issues. Emergence of
>>>>>     Regional and National IGF with multistakeholder approach is another
>>>>>     achievement.
>>>>> 
>>>>>     2. How satisfied are you with the delivery of the results of
>>>>>     discussions at the IGF and the impact they have had on
>>>>>     developments in
>>>>>     national, regional or international Internet governance?
>>>>> 
>>>>>     IGF has made a reasonable advancement of the understanding of the
>>>>>     issues. Yet, at national, regional and international levels, we have
>>>>>     mixed assessment for the impact it brought.
>>>>> 
>>>>>     3. Which, if any, new mechanisms would you propose to improve the
>>>>>     impact of the IGF discussions, in particular as regards the
>>>>>     interaction between the IGF and other stakeholders? Please
>>>>>     specify the
>>>>>     kind of mechanism (e.g. reporting, exchanges, recommendations,
>>>>>     concrete advice, etc.) and the stakeholders (e.g. intergovernmental
>>>>>     bodies, other fora dealing with Internet Governance, etc.).
>>>>> 
>>>>>     a) One mechanism we can suggest is to come up with some form of
>>>>>     recommendations where all stakeholders have [rough] consensus. They
>>>>>     will not be binding, but could still function as model, reference or
>>>>>     common framework. Working process towards achieving these rough
>>>>>     consensus will create better and deeper understandings amongst
>>>>>     different stakeholders.
>>>>> 
>>>>>     b) The Secretariat and MAG should be strongly encouraged to directly
>>>>>     foster discussion and debate of difficult issues in main sessions,
>>>>>     instead of avoiding them.
>>>>> 
>>>>>     4. In your view, what important new issues or themes concerning
>>>>>     Internet governance have emerged or become important since the Tunis
>>>>>     phase of the Summit, which deserve more attention in the next five
>>>>>     years?
>>>>> 
>>>>>     IGC feels that attention to the development agenda, issues concerning
>>>>>     the marginalized groups or actors, have yet gained sufficient
>>>>>     level of
>>>>>     work at IGF and its outcome. These may not be the "new" issues,
>>>>>     but we
>>>>>     strongly feel they are very important.
>>>>> 
>>>>>     Besides them, emergence of new technologies, tools and services, such
>>>>>     as cloud computing; user-generated, SNS and online sharing services
>>>>>     such as wiki, YouTube, Ustream, twitter and Facebook; DPI and
>>>>>     behavioral targeting advertisements; wide deployment of mobile
>>>>>     services including smart phones and tablet computers pose all kind of
>>>>>     new challenges for governance.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>     5. What do you think should be the priority themes and areas of work
>>>>>     of the IGF during the next five years?
>>>>> 
>>>>>     Followings will be the areas of themes and works that have
>>>>>     priorities we think.
>>>>>     a) Enhancing multi-stakeholder framework within IGF.
>>>>>     b) Promote capacity building for developmental agenda of governance
>>>>>     c) Balancing the interests - to empower those of marginalized and
>>>>>     under-developed in all organizations and fora dealing with Internet
>>>>>     governance - such as ICANN, W3C, IETF, RIRs, ITU, WIPO, CoE, OECD,
>>>>>     UNCTAD/CSTD and United Nations itself.
>>>>> 
>>>>>     6. How can the capacity of those groups that are not yet well
>>>>>     represented at the IGF be improved? In particular, what could be done
>>>>>     to improve the capacity of representatives from developing countries?
>>>>> 
>>>>>     a) Establish special funding mechanism by IGF itself to help actors
>>>>>     from developing countries to continuously engage in IGF and related
>>>>>     organizations and meetings. Fellowship works carried out by
>>>>>     DiploFoundation, dotAsia organization [other reference, please] and
>>>>>     other institutions offer good reference for this, but they should be
>>>>>     expanded in larger scale. Targeting youth groups or younger
>>>>>     generation
>>>>>     in profession, will have, in the long run, effective impact.
>>>>> 
>>>>>     b) Providing technical training to policy makers and policy training
>>>>>     to engineers will also help close the gap(s) within the
>>>>>     under-represented and also even well-represented.
>>>>> 
>>>>>     7. How do you think more awareness of Internet governance issues and
>>>>>     the IGF process can be raised amongst groups whose lives are affected
>>>>>     by Internet governance but who are not yet part of the IGF process?
>>>>> 
>>>>>     a) Giving more weight to regional and national IGF meetings, making
>>>>>     more direct "links" to the main IGF meeting will help outreach to
>>>>>     those who have not yet involved in IGF process. Securing the same
>>>>>     level of working framework of IGF, such as multi-stakeholder
>>>>>     composition and inclusion of civil society groups (where such
>>>>>     practice
>>>>>     is relatively new or scarce) should be maintained.
>>>>> 
>>>>>     b) Ensuring a plurality of civil society voices be heard in Internet
>>>>>     governance processes will also be effective in reaching out to those
>>>>>     yet to participate.
>>>>> 
>>>>>     c) Online meetings are most effective when provision is made for
>>>>>     participation both synchronously (ie. in real time) and
>>>>>     asynchronously. The remote hubs and moderators at the Vilnius IGF
>>>>>     made
>>>>>     good progress towards this direction. Using such tools as blogs,
>>>>>     Twitter, mailing lists, Facebook and so on over an extended
>>>>>     period may
>>>>>     also increase the awareness.
>>>>> 
>>>>>     d) Organizing some sessions completely online will create "level
>>>>>     playing field" among all participants, and may also demonstrate the
>>>>>     effectiveness of these tools/technologies, and may also improve the
>>>>>     quality of services in turn.
>>>>> 
>>>>>     e) Increase linguistic diversity. Using UN major languages other than
>>>>>     English at certain meetings and occasions as main working language
>>>>>     (translated into other UN languages) will increase the outreach to
>>>>>     non-English speaking population of the globe and will give more sense
>>>>>     of ownership. Currently, English is the only default working
>>>>>     language,
>>>>>     but we think it does not have to be so.
>>>>> 
>>>>>     8. How, if at all, do you think that the IGF process needs to change
>>>>>     to meet changing circumstances and priorities?
>>>>> 
>>>>>     As we replied to the MAG questionnaire, the organizing work of IGF
>>>>>     primarily by MAG should be improved. More outcome oriented direction
>>>>>     might improve the quality and value of IGF, but this should be
>>>>>     carefully exercised so as not to lose the open and free spirit of IGF
>>>>>     which contributed a great deal.
>>>>> 
>>>>>     9. Do you have any other comments?
>>>>> 
>>>>>     No.
>>>>> 
>>>>>     END
>>>>>     ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org<mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>>>>>     To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>>>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>>>>     <mailto:governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org>
>>>>> 
>>>>>     For all list information and functions, see:
>>>>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>>>> 
>>>>>     Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>     ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org<mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>>>>>     To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>>>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>>>>     <mailto:governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org>
>>>>> 
>>>>>     For all list information and functions, see:
>>>>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>>>> 
>>>>>     Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> -- 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
>>> 
>>> -- Katitza Rodriguez
>>> International Rights Director
>>> Electronic Frontier Foundation
>>> katitza at eff.org
>>> katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email)
>>> 
>>> Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990
>>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>> 
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> 
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
> 
> -- 
> Katitza Rodriguez
> International Rights Director
> Electronic Frontier Foundation
> katitza at eff.org
> katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email)
> 
> Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

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

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

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

From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch  Fri Nov 19 05:01:55 2010
From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake)
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 11:01:55 +0100
Subject: [governance] Geneva Sunday
Message-ID: <1E8653E0-927A-4C7C-B373-9E8D4D18BE58@graduateinstitute.ch>

Hi Izumi

Lost track of something in the mail mountains.  Do I recall correctly that you wanted to organize a caucus meeting at Diplo on Sunday?  If so, 

*when?
*did you have an agenda in mind?  
*do we know that there will be members in town by then who are planning to attend?

Thanks,

Bill



***********************************************************
William J. Drake
Senior Associate
Centre for International Governance
Graduate Institute of International and
 Development Studies
Geneva, Switzerland
william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch
www.williamdrake.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 anriette at apc.org  Fri Nov 19 05:07:39 2010
From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen)
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 12:07:39 +0200
Subject: [governance] Consensus Call for CSTD IGF Questionnaire - Clean
In-Reply-To: <4CE6431A.8030303@itforchange.net>
References: <AANLkTinyo=oKJoJiz2wVHikpv7-nYBwgq+cf7p6qrj16@mail.gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07448@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <AANLkTi=DFTPVO36vapwBWxiYq7kDnFg=f9RexLpE7rZc@mail.gmail.com> <4CE5DAEE.8050103@eff.org> <AANLkTimUhwWk+owU1CLY4hvFYjnq_qz8OqgMVsfHXcdL@mail.gmail.com> <4CE6431A.8030303@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <4CE64C6B.3010905@apc.org>

Also yes from me.

Anriette


On 19/11/10 11:27, parminder wrote:
> I say 'yes'
>
> We can also specifically mention that we will closely follow the CSTD 
> WG process and will keep coming up with other comments and 
> suggestions. thanks. parminder
>
> On Friday 19 November 2010 07:41 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote:
>> Dear list,
>>
>> Many thanks for the comments made despite the last-minute rush.
>>
>> I would like to urge all who have not replied to the call yet, to indicate
>> if you support the FINAL DRAFT, yes or no, and in case, add
>> your comments.
>>
>> As the deadline is approaching I will consult with Jeremy and
>> make the final judgment based on the inputs from all.
>>
>> Thanks again,
>>
>> izumi
>>
>>
>> 2010/11/19 Katitza Rodriguez<katitza at eff.org>:
>>    
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>> My comments are in line with Wolfgang, Bill, and Miguel's comments.
>>>
>>> I have a few additional points to make:
>>>
>>> I disagree with the use of the word "rough consensus". It is a dangerous
>>> one. It can force bad policy outcomes, and creates a "trade off" situation.
>>> Something that some of us, from civil society would not agree  when it deals
>>> with fundamental human rights. For instance, you can get a good outcome
>>> incorporating on the text a provision on internet intermediaries limitation
>>> of liability but a bad outcome (eg. a data retention provision that compels
>>> ISPs and telcos to retain innocent citizens' Internet traffic data). There
>>> are many outcomes were "rough consensus" might bring an outcome that some of
>>> us will not compromise.
>>>
>>> "Messages from IGF" is a model that has been tested and work well in
>>> Eurodig. If the session is well structure, you can actually have a frank
>>> discussion, and understand not only those who points that you might agree
>>> but also where the boundaries are.
>>>
>>> At the last IGF, EFF and ISOC organized the workshop on the Future of
>>> Privacy. Based on that idea, we have recently released a report that try to
>>> identify the key messages that each speaker said. I found it quite useful as
>>> many of those statements are part of discussions that are being held in
>>> different spaces: national, regional, and international level.  Pls. see:
>>> https://www.eff.org/files/future-privacy.pdf
>>>
>>> EFF Discusses the Future of Internet Privacy at UN Internet Governance Forum
>>> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/11/future-privacy-internet-governance-forum
>>>
>>> Many thanks,
>>>
>>> Katitza
>>>
>>>
>>> On 11/18/10 7:04 AM, Miguel Alcaine wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>> I would suggest that:
>>>
>>> - for 3a, I will suggest "messages from the IGF" for the IGF meeting. I
>>> think, an IGF host with the assistance of the MAG and Secretariat could
>>> identify people from the organizers of a main session to draft the status of
>>> the discussion of the topic, either rough agreements or the different points
>>> of view of an important subject. After, the IGF host could prepare the whole
>>> message with the assistance of the Secretariat.
>>>
>>> Afterwards, the messages from the IGF could be used as a basis for
>>> mailing-list discussions as to identify the appropriate fora to present the
>>> message or to refine part of the message, but I will suggest such
>>> refinements to be Ad-hoc groups (open and voluntary) to take up messages,
>>> refine them and present them in other fora, but not in the IGF behalf. Such
>>> ad-hoc groups could only claim that they started their work based on X
>>> message from the IGF.
>>>
>>> I agree with Wolfang in avoiding recommendation and I will also suggest to
>>> get rid of "rough consensus" and rather apply the method described above.
>>>
>>>
>>> - for 6a. IGF Secretariat will not be able to dedicate funds from its
>>> current level of funding in its voluntary fund for the engagement of
>>> Developing country actors. Either we can insist in inviting or strenghtening
>>> the voluntary fund and dedicate the additional funds to the engagement of
>>> developing countries or we can invite governments or the UN SG to consider a
>>> small transfer from the UN regular budget to the aforementioned IGF
>>> voluntary fund and dedicate such funds for the engagement of developing
>>> countries. I am suggesting a transfer around US$200,000 annually.
>>> Independently of the source of the funds, they should serve to make
>>> sinergies with the actors already improving the engagement of developing
>>> countries.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Miguel
>>>
>>> 2010/11/18 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"
>>> <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
>>>      
>>>> Hi everybody
>>>>
>>>> thanks for the work. I am sorry that I jump in in a very late stage. I
>>>> have three comments:
>>>>
>>>> 1. 3a: The old debate on receommendations is not really helpful. In the
>>>> past CS tried also to use the terminology "messages". The problem is as soon
>>>> as you introduce a process to negotiate a text which then has been the
>>>> subject of voting you change the nature of the the whole event. Even if you
>>>> stress that these receommendations will be not binding, this does not
>>>> matter. In the Un context (like in other intergovernmental mechanisms) the
>>>> category "receommednation" is well defined and you can not avoid that an IGF
>>>> recommendation is seen as something similar to what other Un bodies are
>>>> doing with receommendations. Again I prefer the "message". BTW, I will
>>>> circulate later this week the Interim Report of the Council of Europe Cross
>>>> Border Expert Group where we propose also the elaboration of some
>>>> instruments. The Council of Europe - or other organisations with an
>>>> established procedure to negotiat texts - are a better place for such
>>>> an excercise.
>>>>
>>>> 2. 6a: I thin SOC has an IGF Fellowship Programm.
>>>>
>>>> 3. Under nine we could say that we ould like to see that the IGF enhances
>>>> its function and could become, inter alia, an observatory, a clearinghouse,
>>>> an early warning system and a watchdog.
>>>>
>>>> Sorry for the late reply. If it is too late then ignore it.
>>>>
>>>> Best wishes
>>>>
>>>> wolfgang
>>>> ________________________________
>>>>
>>>> Von:izumiaizu at gmail.com  im Auftrag von Izumi AIZU
>>>> Gesendet: Do 18.11.2010 03:13
>>>> An:governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>> Betreff: [governance] Consensus Call for CSTD IGF Questionnaire - Clean
>>>> version
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Here follows are the Clean version of the Final Draft for the CSTD IGF
>>>> questionnaire answer
>>>> in full text. Sorry for the confusion.
>>>>
>>>> Please respond if you agree or disagree as soon as possible.  Friday, Nov
>>>> 19
>>>> is the deadline for submission. More comments are also very much
>>>> appreciated
>>>> as we can further feed them into the Consultation meetings next week in
>>>> Geneva.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks!
>>>>
>>>> izumi
>>>>
>>>> ------------
>>>>
>>>> FINAL Draft for Questionnaire on improvements to the IGF
>>>>
>>>> 1. What do you consider the most important achievements of the first
>>>> five IGF meetings?
>>>>
>>>> IGF created the space for dialogue by all stakeholders in an open,
>>>> inclusive manner. These emergence and development of the
>>>> multistakeholder principle and practice are perhaps the biggest
>>>> contribution IGF has achieved so far. It helped many participants to
>>>> understand the issues of their interest, as well as to understand how
>>>> other actors understand, act and accept their issues. Emergence of
>>>> Regional and National IGF with multistakeholder approach is another
>>>> achievement.
>>>>
>>>> 2. How satisfied are you with the delivery of the results of
>>>> discussions at the IGF and the impact they have had on developments in
>>>> national, regional or international Internet governance?
>>>>
>>>> IGF has made a reasonable advancement of the understanding of the
>>>> issues. Yet, at national, regional and international levels, we have
>>>> mixed assessment for the impact it brought.
>>>>
>>>> 3. Which, if any, new mechanisms would you propose to improve the
>>>> impact of the IGF discussions, in particular as regards the
>>>> interaction between the IGF and other stakeholders? Please specify the
>>>> kind of mechanism (e.g. reporting, exchanges, recommendations,
>>>> concrete advice, etc.) and the stakeholders (e.g. intergovernmental
>>>> bodies, other fora dealing with Internet Governance, etc.).
>>>>
>>>> a) One mechanism we can suggest is to come up with some form of
>>>> recommendations where all stakeholders have [rough] consensus. They
>>>> will not be binding, but could still function as model, reference or
>>>> common framework. Working process towards achieving these rough
>>>> consensus will create better and deeper understandings amongst
>>>> different stakeholders.
>>>>
>>>> b) The Secretariat and MAG should be strongly encouraged to directly
>>>> foster discussion and debate of difficult issues in main sessions,
>>>> instead of avoiding them.
>>>>
>>>> 4. In your view, what important new issues or themes concerning
>>>> Internet governance have emerged or become important since the Tunis
>>>> phase of the Summit, which deserve more attention in the next five
>>>> years?
>>>>
>>>> IGC feels that attention to the development agenda, issues concerning
>>>> the marginalized groups or actors, have yet gained sufficient level of
>>>> work at IGF and its outcome. These may not be the "new" issues, but we
>>>> strongly feel they are very important.
>>>>
>>>> Besides them, emergence of new technologies, tools and services, such
>>>> as cloud computing; user-generated, SNS and online sharing services
>>>> such as wiki, YouTube, Ustream, twitter and Facebook; DPI and
>>>> behavioral targeting advertisements; wide deployment of mobile
>>>> services including smart phones and tablet computers pose all kind of
>>>> new challenges for governance.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 5. What do you think should be the priority themes and areas of work
>>>> of the IGF during the next five years?
>>>>
>>>> Followings will be the areas of themes and works that have priorities we
>>>> think.
>>>> a) Enhancing multi-stakeholder framework within IGF.
>>>> b) Promote capacity building for developmental agenda of governance
>>>> c) Balancing the interests - to empower those of marginalized and
>>>> under-developed in all organizations and fora dealing with Internet
>>>> governance - such as ICANN, W3C, IETF, RIRs, ITU, WIPO, CoE, OECD,
>>>> UNCTAD/CSTD and United Nations itself.
>>>>
>>>> 6. How can the capacity of those groups that are not yet well
>>>> represented at the IGF be improved? In particular, what could be done
>>>> to improve the capacity of representatives from developing countries?
>>>>
>>>> a) Establish special funding mechanism by IGF itself to help actors
>>>> from developing countries to continuously engage in IGF and related
>>>> organizations and meetings. Fellowship works carried out by
>>>> DiploFoundation, dotAsia organization [other reference, please] and
>>>> other institutions offer good reference for this, but they should be
>>>> expanded in larger scale. Targeting youth groups or younger generation
>>>> in profession, will have, in the long run, effective impact.
>>>>
>>>> b) Providing technical training to policy makers and policy training
>>>> to engineers will also help close the gap(s) within the
>>>> under-represented and also even well-represented.
>>>>
>>>> 7. How do you think more awareness of Internet governance issues and
>>>> the IGF process can be raised amongst groups whose lives are affected
>>>> by Internet governance but who are not yet part of the IGF process?
>>>>
>>>> a) Giving more weight to regional and national IGF meetings, making
>>>> more direct "links" to the main IGF meeting will help outreach to
>>>> those who have not yet involved in IGF process. Securing the same
>>>> level of working framework of IGF, such as multi-stakeholder
>>>> composition and inclusion of civil society groups (where such practice
>>>> is relatively new or scarce) should be maintained.
>>>>
>>>> b) Ensuring a plurality of civil society voices be heard in Internet
>>>> governance processes will also be effective in reaching out to those
>>>> yet to participate.
>>>>
>>>> c) Online meetings are most effective when provision is made for
>>>> participation both synchronously (ie. in real time) and
>>>> asynchronously. The remote hubs and moderators at the Vilnius IGF made
>>>> good progress towards this direction. Using such tools as blogs,
>>>> Twitter, mailing lists, Facebook and so on over an extended period may
>>>> also increase the awareness.
>>>>
>>>> d) Organizing some sessions completely online will create "level
>>>> playing field" among all participants, and may also demonstrate the
>>>> effectiveness of these tools/technologies, and may also improve the
>>>> quality of services in turn.
>>>>
>>>> e) Increase linguistic diversity. Using UN major languages other than
>>>> English at certain meetings and occasions as main working language
>>>> (translated into other UN languages) will increase the outreach to
>>>> non-English speaking population of the globe and will give more sense
>>>> of ownership. Currently, English is the only default working language,
>>>> but we think it does not have to be so.
>>>>
>>>> 8. How, if at all, do you think that the IGF process needs to change
>>>> to meet changing circumstances and priorities?
>>>>
>>>> As we replied to the MAG questionnaire, the organizing work of IGF
>>>> primarily by MAG should be improved. More outcome oriented direction
>>>> might improve the quality and value of IGF, but this should be
>>>> carefully exercised so as not to lose the open and free spirit of IGF
>>>> which contributed a great deal.
>>>>
>>>> 9. Do you have any other comments?
>>>>
>>>> No.
>>>>
>>>> END
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>>>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>>>
>>>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>>>
>>>> Translate this email:http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>>>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>>>
>>>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>>>
>>>> Translate this email:http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>>        
>>>
>>> --
>>> Katitza Rodriguez
>>> International Rights Director
>>> Electronic Frontier Foundation
>>> katitza at eff.org
>>> katitza at datos-personales.org  (personal email)
>>>
>>> Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of
>>> speech since 1990
>>>      
>>
>>    

-- 
------------------------------------------------------
anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org
executive director
association for progressive communications
www.apc.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101119/15cebb88/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From gpaque at gmail.com  Fri Nov 19 06:37:19 2010
From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque)
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 07:07:19 -0430
Subject: [governance] Consensus Call for CSTD IGF Questionnaire - Clean
In-Reply-To: <4CE64C6B.3010905@apc.org>
References: <AANLkTinyo=oKJoJiz2wVHikpv7-nYBwgq+cf7p6qrj16@mail.gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07448@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <AANLkTi=DFTPVO36vapwBWxiYq7kDnFg=f9RexLpE7rZc@mail.gmail.com> <4CE5DAEE.8050103@eff.org> <AANLkTimUhwWk+owU1CLY4hvFYjnq_qz8OqgMVsfHXcdL@mail.gmail.com> <4CE6431A.8030303@itforchange.net> <4CE64C6B.3010905@apc.org>
Message-ID: <4CE6616F.4090305@paque.net>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101119/3915f7b8/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From parminder at itforchange.net  Fri Nov 19 06:45:52 2010
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 17:15:52 +0530
Subject: AW: [governance] Consensus Call for CSTD IGF Questionnaire -
In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07448@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <AANLkTinyo=oKJoJiz2wVHikpv7-nYBwgq+cf7p6qrj16@mail.gmail.com>  <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07448@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <4CE66370.40506@itforchange.net>



On Thursday 18 November 2010 01:52 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
> Hi everybody
>
> thanks for the work. I am sorry that I jump in in a very late stage. I have three comments:
>
> 1. 3a: The old debate on receommendations is not really helpful. In the past CS tried also to use the terminology "messages".
Wolfgang

  Global CS did never abandon the concept of recommendations in the IGF 
context, though at places 'messages' may also have been used. 
Recommendations (or 'recommend') is mentioned in the Tunis Agenda's 
mandate for the IGF and we seem to have largely supported it, in some 
form or the other.
>   The problem is as soon as you introduce a process to negotiate a text which then has been the subject of voting you change the nature of the the whole event. Even if you stress that these receommendations will be not binding, this does not matter. In the Un context (like in other intergovernmental mechanisms) the category "receommednation" is well defined and you can not avoid that an IGF recommendation is seen as something similar to what other Un bodies are doing with receommendations. Again I prefer the "message". BTW, I will circulate later this week the Interim Report of the Council of Europe Cross Border Expert Group where we propose also the elaboration of some instruments. The Council of Europe - or other organisations with an established procedure to negotiat texts - are a better place for such
> an excercise.
>    
Sure, it may be a better place. But I or my country in not in the CoE 
(though CoE instruments finally do impact me). So which 'better place' 
do you think I can look upto? Can you please provide me an answer to this.

I continue to be (unpleasantly) surprised at the manner in which the 
concerns of developing countries in terms of their non-participation in 
global policy making and the global shaping of the ICT pehnomenon is 
ignored so blatantly, in a group which wants to describe itself as a 
global civil society group.

We may all glibly talk about development issues or IG for development. 
Pl take note that in the IGF plenary on IG for development the prime 
issue which came up was that IG for development first of all means due 
participation of developing countries in global IG related policy making 
(see the Chairman's summary). What does the IGC plan to do on this 
issue? Ask us to watch and cheer on CoE and OECD policy making processes?

I can still understand the stand of someone like Milton (though I do not 
agree with it) who is a bit afraid of supporting new institutional 
development for democratic global policy making as coming out of the 
current 'core' UN configurations (which is why he is afraid of the 
enhanced cooperation or EC process), even as an positively evolutionary 
process (which is my considered expectation of the EC process). Because 
he does, correspondingly, support a more open, diverse, multistakeholder 
process like the IGF making some clear positive contributions towards 
development of global Internet policies through making policy 
recommendations.

What I cant understand is the position of those who both oppose the EC 
process (in whichever evolutionary form) as well as oppose possibilities 
of the IGF making recommendations (I see Wolfgang, Katitza, Bill, 
Jeanette among others state that position). Moreover, they all seem to 
closely associate with OECD/ CoE policy making processes, which are in 
fact much less open, transparent, multistakeholder etc than even the 
'enhanced cooperation' model which, for instance, I proposed and they 
strongly resisted.

I am unable to understand why a comity of powerful nations needs 
specific well-structured systems of making inter-country policies (which 
then become default global ones) and all countires as a global group, 
which (unfortunately?)  include developing countries, should not aspire 
to any such structures. So, it appears, that while (global?) CS should 
enthusiastically support the former (CoE / OECD kind of process) it is 
presented as its bounden duty to strongly oppose any such - or in fact 
structurally even much better - institutional developments  at the 
global level.

And I also do hope that the IGC members form developing countries both 
increase their participation in IGC kind of groups, and become more 
vocal in articulating their interests.

parminder









>
> 2. 6a: I thin SOC has an IGF Fellowship Programm.
>
> 3. Under nine we could say that we ould like to see that the IGF enhances its function and could become, inter alia, an observatory, a clearinghouse, an early warning system and a watchdog.
>
> Sorry for the late reply. If it is too late then ignore it.
>
> Best wishes
>
> wolfgang
> ________________________________
>
> Von: izumiaizu at gmail.com im Auftrag von Izumi AIZU
> Gesendet: Do 18.11.2010 03:13
> An: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Betreff: [governance] Consensus Call for CSTD IGF Questionnaire - Clean version
>
>
>
> Here follows are the Clean version of the Final Draft for the CSTD IGF
> questionnaire answer
> in full text. Sorry for the confusion.
>
> Please respond if you agree or disagree as soon as possible.  Friday, Nov 19
> is the deadline for submission. More comments are also very much appreciated
> as we can further feed them into the Consultation meetings next week in Geneva.
>
> Thanks!
>
> izumi
>
> ------------
>
> FINAL Draft for Questionnaire on improvements to the IGF
>
> 1. What do you consider the most important achievements of the first
> five IGF meetings?
>
> IGF created the space for dialogue by all stakeholders in an open,
> inclusive manner. These emergence and development of the
> multistakeholder principle and practice are perhaps the biggest
> contribution IGF has achieved so far. It helped many participants to
> understand the issues of their interest, as well as to understand how
> other actors understand, act and accept their issues. Emergence of
> Regional and National IGF with multistakeholder approach is another
> achievement.
>
> 2. How satisfied are you with the delivery of the results of
> discussions at the IGF and the impact they have had on developments in
> national, regional or international Internet governance?
>
> IGF has made a reasonable advancement of the understanding of the
> issues. Yet, at national, regional and international levels, we have
> mixed assessment for the impact it brought.
>
> 3. Which, if any, new mechanisms would you propose to improve the
> impact of the IGF discussions, in particular as regards the
> interaction between the IGF and other stakeholders? Please specify the
> kind of mechanism (e.g. reporting, exchanges, recommendations,
> concrete advice, etc.) and the stakeholders (e.g. intergovernmental
> bodies, other fora dealing with Internet Governance, etc.).
>
> a) One mechanism we can suggest is to come up with some form of
> recommendations where all stakeholders have [rough] consensus. They
> will not be binding, but could still function as model, reference or
> common framework. Working process towards achieving these rough
> consensus will create better and deeper understandings amongst
> different stakeholders.
>
> b) The Secretariat and MAG should be strongly encouraged to directly
> foster discussion and debate of difficult issues in main sessions,
> instead of avoiding them.
>
> 4. In your view, what important new issues or themes concerning
> Internet governance have emerged or become important since the Tunis
> phase of the Summit, which deserve more attention in the next five
> years?
>
> IGC feels that attention to the development agenda, issues concerning
> the marginalized groups or actors, have yet gained sufficient level of
> work at IGF and its outcome. These may not be the "new" issues, but we
> strongly feel they are very important.
>
> Besides them, emergence of new technologies, tools and services, such
> as cloud computing; user-generated, SNS and online sharing services
> such as wiki, YouTube, Ustream, twitter and Facebook; DPI and
> behavioral targeting advertisements; wide deployment of mobile
> services including smart phones and tablet computers pose all kind of
> new challenges for governance.
>
>
> 5. What do you think should be the priority themes and areas of work
> of the IGF during the next five years?
>
> Followings will be the areas of themes and works that have priorities we think.
> a) Enhancing multi-stakeholder framework within IGF.
> b) Promote capacity building for developmental agenda of governance
> c) Balancing the interests - to empower those of marginalized and
> under-developed in all organizations and fora dealing with Internet
> governance - such as ICANN, W3C, IETF, RIRs, ITU, WIPO, CoE, OECD,
> UNCTAD/CSTD and United Nations itself.
>
> 6. How can the capacity of those groups that are not yet well
> represented at the IGF be improved? In particular, what could be done
> to improve the capacity of representatives from developing countries?
>
> a) Establish special funding mechanism by IGF itself to help actors
> from developing countries to continuously engage in IGF and related
> organizations and meetings. Fellowship works carried out by
> DiploFoundation, dotAsia organization [other reference, please] and
> other institutions offer good reference for this, but they should be
> expanded in larger scale. Targeting youth groups or younger generation
> in profession, will have, in the long run, effective impact.
>
> b) Providing technical training to policy makers and policy training
> to engineers will also help close the gap(s) within the
> under-represented and also even well-represented.
>
> 7. How do you think more awareness of Internet governance issues and
> the IGF process can be raised amongst groups whose lives are affected
> by Internet governance but who are not yet part of the IGF process?
>
> a) Giving more weight to regional and national IGF meetings, making
> more direct "links" to the main IGF meeting will help outreach to
> those who have not yet involved in IGF process. Securing the same
> level of working framework of IGF, such as multi-stakeholder
> composition and inclusion of civil society groups (where such practice
> is relatively new or scarce) should be maintained.
>
> b) Ensuring a plurality of civil society voices be heard in Internet
> governance processes will also be effective in reaching out to those
> yet to participate.
>
> c) Online meetings are most effective when provision is made for
> participation both synchronously (ie. in real time) and
> asynchronously. The remote hubs and moderators at the Vilnius IGF made
> good progress towards this direction. Using such tools as blogs,
> Twitter, mailing lists, Facebook and so on over an extended period may
> also increase the awareness.
>
> d) Organizing some sessions completely online will create "level
> playing field" among all participants, and may also demonstrate the
> effectiveness of these tools/technologies, and may also improve the
> quality of services in turn.
>
> e) Increase linguistic diversity. Using UN major languages other than
> English at certain meetings and occasions as main working language
> (translated into other UN languages) will increase the outreach to
> non-English speaking population of the globe and will give more sense
> of ownership. Currently, English is the only default working language,
> but we think it does not have to be so.
>
> 8. How, if at all, do you think that the IGF process needs to change
> to meet changing circumstances and priorities?
>
> As we replied to the MAG questionnaire, the organizing work of IGF
> primarily by MAG should be improved. More outcome oriented direction
> might improve the quality and value of IGF, but this should be
> carefully exercised so as not to lose the open and free spirit of IGF
> which contributed a great deal.
>
> 9. Do you have any other comments?
>
> No.
>
> END
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>       governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>       governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>       http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>       governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>       governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>       http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>    
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101119/de908f6e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From lmcknigh at syr.edu  Fri Nov 19 06:49:22 2010
From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight)
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 06:49:22 -0500
Subject: [governance] Consensus Call for CSTD IGF Questionnaire - Clean
In-Reply-To: <4CE64C6B.3010905@apc.org>
References: <AANLkTinyo=oKJoJiz2wVHikpv7-nYBwgq+cf7p6qrj16@mail.gmail.com>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07448@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <AANLkTi=DFTPVO36vapwBWxiYq7kDnFg=f9RexLpE7rZc@mail.gmail.com>
 <4CE5DAEE.8050103@eff.org>
 <AANLkTimUhwWk+owU1CLY4hvFYjnq_qz8OqgMVsfHXcdL@mail.gmail.com>
 <4CE6431A.8030303@itforchange.net>,<4CE64C6B.3010905@apc.org>
Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006E6E@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>

Yes from me too...let's see if we can reach a 'rough consensus' amongst ourselves at least.
________________________________________
From: Anriette Esterhuysen [anriette at apc.org]
Sent: Friday, November 19, 2010 5:07 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; parminder
Subject: Re: [governance] Consensus Call for CSTD IGF Questionnaire - Clean

Also yes from me.

Anriette


On 19/11/10 11:27, parminder wrote:
I say 'yes'

We can also specifically mention that we will closely follow the CSTD WG process and will keep coming up with other comments and suggestions. thanks. parminder

On Friday 19 November 2010 07:41 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote:

Dear list,

Many thanks for the comments made despite the last-minute rush.

I would like to urge all who have not replied to the call yet, to indicate
if you support the FINAL DRAFT, yes or no, and in case, add
your comments.

As the deadline is approaching I will consult with Jeremy and
make the final judgment based on the inputs from all.

Thanks again,

izumi


2010/11/19 Katitza Rodriguez <katitza at eff.org><mailto:katitza at eff.org>:


Dear all,

My comments are in line with Wolfgang, Bill, and Miguel's comments.

I have a few additional points to make:

I disagree with the use of the word "rough consensus". It is a dangerous
one. It can force bad policy outcomes, and creates a "trade off" situation.
Something that some of us, from civil society would not agree  when it deals
with fundamental human rights. For instance, you can get a good outcome
incorporating on the text a provision on internet intermediaries limitation
of liability but a bad outcome (eg. a data retention provision that compels
ISPs and telcos to retain innocent citizens' Internet traffic data). There
are many outcomes were "rough consensus" might bring an outcome that some of
us will not compromise.

"Messages from IGF" is a model that has been tested and work well in
Eurodig. If the session is well structure, you can actually have a frank
discussion, and understand not only those who points that you might agree
but also where the boundaries are.

At the last IGF, EFF and ISOC organized the workshop on the Future of
Privacy. Based on that idea, we have recently released a report that try to
identify the key messages that each speaker said. I found it quite useful as
many of those statements are part of discussions that are being held in
different spaces: national, regional, and international level.  Pls. see:
https://www.eff.org/files/future-privacy.pdf

EFF Discusses the Future of Internet Privacy at UN Internet Governance Forum
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/11/future-privacy-internet-governance-forum

Many thanks,

Katitza


On 11/18/10 7:04 AM, Miguel Alcaine wrote:

Dear all,

I would suggest that:

- for 3a, I will suggest "messages from the IGF" for the IGF meeting. I
think, an IGF host with the assistance of the MAG and Secretariat could
identify people from the organizers of a main session to draft the status of
the discussion of the topic, either rough agreements or the different points
of view of an important subject. After, the IGF host could prepare the whole
message with the assistance of the Secretariat.

Afterwards, the messages from the IGF could be used as a basis for
mailing-list discussions as to identify the appropriate fora to present the
message or to refine part of the message, but I will suggest such
refinements to be Ad-hoc groups (open and voluntary) to take up messages,
refine them and present them in other fora, but not in the IGF behalf. Such
ad-hoc groups could only claim that they started their work based on X
message from the IGF.

I agree with Wolfang in avoiding recommendation and I will also suggest to
get rid of "rough consensus" and rather apply the method described above.


- for 6a. IGF Secretariat will not be able to dedicate funds from its
current level of funding in its voluntary fund for the engagement of
Developing country actors. Either we can insist in inviting or strenghtening
the voluntary fund and dedicate the additional funds to the engagement of
developing countries or we can invite governments or the UN SG to consider a
small transfer from the UN regular budget to the aforementioned IGF
voluntary fund and dedicate such funds for the engagement of developing
countries. I am suggesting a transfer around US$200,000 annually.
Independently of the source of the funds, they should serve to make
sinergies with the actors already improving the engagement of developing
countries.

Best,

Miguel

2010/11/18 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"
<wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de><mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>


Hi everybody

thanks for the work. I am sorry that I jump in in a very late stage. I
have three comments:

1. 3a: The old debate on receommendations is not really helpful. In the
past CS tried also to use the terminology "messages". The problem is as soon
as you introduce a process to negotiate a text which then has been the
subject of voting you change the nature of the the whole event. Even if you
stress that these receommendations will be not binding, this does not
matter. In the Un context (like in other intergovernmental mechanisms) the
category "receommednation" is well defined and you can not avoid that an IGF
recommendation is seen as something similar to what other Un bodies are
doing with receommendations. Again I prefer the "message". BTW, I will
circulate later this week the Interim Report of the Council of Europe Cross
Border Expert Group where we propose also the elaboration of some
instruments. The Council of Europe - or other organisations with an
established procedure to negotiat texts - are a better place for such
an excercise.

2. 6a: I thin SOC has an IGF Fellowship Programm.

3. Under nine we could say that we ould like to see that the IGF enhances
its function and could become, inter alia, an observatory, a clearinghouse,
an early warning system and a watchdog.

Sorry for the late reply. If it is too late then ignore it.

Best wishes

wolfgang
________________________________

Von: izumiaizu at gmail.com<mailto:izumiaizu at gmail.com> im Auftrag von Izumi AIZU
Gesendet: Do 18.11.2010 03:13
An: governance at lists.cpsr.org<mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
Betreff: [governance] Consensus Call for CSTD IGF Questionnaire - Clean
version



Here follows are the Clean version of the Final Draft for the CSTD IGF
questionnaire answer
in full text. Sorry for the confusion.

Please respond if you agree or disagree as soon as possible.  Friday, Nov
19
is the deadline for submission. More comments are also very much
appreciated
as we can further feed them into the Consultation meetings next week in
Geneva.

Thanks!

izumi

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

FINAL Draft for Questionnaire on improvements to the IGF

1. What do you consider the most important achievements of the first
five IGF meetings?

IGF created the space for dialogue by all stakeholders in an open,
inclusive manner. These emergence and development of the
multistakeholder principle and practice are perhaps the biggest
contribution IGF has achieved so far. It helped many participants to
understand the issues of their interest, as well as to understand how
other actors understand, act and accept their issues. Emergence of
Regional and National IGF with multistakeholder approach is another
achievement.

2. How satisfied are you with the delivery of the results of
discussions at the IGF and the impact they have had on developments in
national, regional or international Internet governance?

IGF has made a reasonable advancement of the understanding of the
issues. Yet, at national, regional and international levels, we have
mixed assessment for the impact it brought.

3. Which, if any, new mechanisms would you propose to improve the
impact of the IGF discussions, in particular as regards the
interaction between the IGF and other stakeholders? Please specify the
kind of mechanism (e.g. reporting, exchanges, recommendations,
concrete advice, etc.) and the stakeholders (e.g. intergovernmental
bodies, other fora dealing with Internet Governance, etc.).

a) One mechanism we can suggest is to come up with some form of
recommendations where all stakeholders have [rough] consensus. They
will not be binding, but could still function as model, reference or
common framework. Working process towards achieving these rough
consensus will create better and deeper understandings amongst
different stakeholders.

b) The Secretariat and MAG should be strongly encouraged to directly
foster discussion and debate of difficult issues in main sessions,
instead of avoiding them.

4. In your view, what important new issues or themes concerning
Internet governance have emerged or become important since the Tunis
phase of the Summit, which deserve more attention in the next five
years?

IGC feels that attention to the development agenda, issues concerning
the marginalized groups or actors, have yet gained sufficient level of
work at IGF and its outcome. These may not be the "new" issues, but we
strongly feel they are very important.

Besides them, emergence of new technologies, tools and services, such
as cloud computing; user-generated, SNS and online sharing services
such as wiki, YouTube, Ustream, twitter and Facebook; DPI and
behavioral targeting advertisements; wide deployment of mobile
services including smart phones and tablet computers pose all kind of
new challenges for governance.


5. What do you think should be the priority themes and areas of work
of the IGF during the next five years?

Followings will be the areas of themes and works that have priorities we
think.
a) Enhancing multi-stakeholder framework within IGF.
b) Promote capacity building for developmental agenda of governance
c) Balancing the interests - to empower those of marginalized and
under-developed in all organizations and fora dealing with Internet
governance - such as ICANN, W3C, IETF, RIRs, ITU, WIPO, CoE, OECD,
UNCTAD/CSTD and United Nations itself.

6. How can the capacity of those groups that are not yet well
represented at the IGF be improved? In particular, what could be done
to improve the capacity of representatives from developing countries?

a) Establish special funding mechanism by IGF itself to help actors
from developing countries to continuously engage in IGF and related
organizations and meetings. Fellowship works carried out by
DiploFoundation, dotAsia organization [other reference, please] and
other institutions offer good reference for this, but they should be
expanded in larger scale. Targeting youth groups or younger generation
in profession, will have, in the long run, effective impact.

b) Providing technical training to policy makers and policy training
to engineers will also help close the gap(s) within the
under-represented and also even well-represented.

7. How do you think more awareness of Internet governance issues and
the IGF process can be raised amongst groups whose lives are affected
by Internet governance but who are not yet part of the IGF process?

a) Giving more weight to regional and national IGF meetings, making
more direct "links" to the main IGF meeting will help outreach to
those who have not yet involved in IGF process. Securing the same
level of working framework of IGF, such as multi-stakeholder
composition and inclusion of civil society groups (where such practice
is relatively new or scarce) should be maintained.

b) Ensuring a plurality of civil society voices be heard in Internet
governance processes will also be effective in reaching out to those
yet to participate.

c) Online meetings are most effective when provision is made for
participation both synchronously (ie. in real time) and
asynchronously. The remote hubs and moderators at the Vilnius IGF made
good progress towards this direction. Using such tools as blogs,
Twitter, mailing lists, Facebook and so on over an extended period may
also increase the awareness.

d) Organizing some sessions completely online will create "level
playing field" among all participants, and may also demonstrate the
effectiveness of these tools/technologies, and may also improve the
quality of services in turn.

e) Increase linguistic diversity. Using UN major languages other than
English at certain meetings and occasions as main working language
(translated into other UN languages) will increase the outreach to
non-English speaking population of the globe and will give more sense
of ownership. Currently, English is the only default working language,
but we think it does not have to be so.

8. How, if at all, do you think that the IGF process needs to change
to meet changing circumstances and priorities?

As we replied to the MAG questionnaire, the organizing work of IGF
primarily by MAG should be improved. More outcome oriented direction
might improve the quality and value of IGF, but this should be
carefully exercised so as not to lose the open and free spirit of IGF
which contributed a great deal.

9. Do you have any other comments?

No.

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

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

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


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

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

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




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

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







--
------------------------------------------------------
anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org<mailto:anriette at apc.org>
executive director
association for progressive communications
www.apc.org<http://www.apc.org>

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

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

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

From tracyhackshaw at gmail.com  Fri Nov 19 06:58:05 2010
From: tracyhackshaw at gmail.com (Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google)
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 07:58:05 -0400
Subject: AW: [governance] Consensus Call for CSTD IGF Questionnaire -
 Clean
In-Reply-To: <4CE6616F.4090305@paque.net>
References: <AANLkTinyo=oKJoJiz2wVHikpv7-nYBwgq+cf7p6qrj16@mail.gmail.com>
	<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07448@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
	<AANLkTi=DFTPVO36vapwBWxiYq7kDnFg=f9RexLpE7rZc@mail.gmail.com>
	<4CE5DAEE.8050103@eff.org>
	<AANLkTimUhwWk+owU1CLY4hvFYjnq_qz8OqgMVsfHXcdL@mail.gmail.com>
	<4CE6431A.8030303@itforchange.net>
	<4CE64C6B.3010905@apc.org>
	<4CE6616F.4090305@paque.net>
Message-ID: <AANLkTimXbesNb8-qxRoAjX_W8CdCrCnLbT7xJLNqvt_=@mail.gmail.com>

+1 for Yes

On 11/19/10, Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com> wrote:
> Agree. Tx.
> Ginger
>
> On 11/19/2010 5:37 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
>>
>> Also yes from me.
>>
>> Anriette
>>
>>
>> On 19/11/10 11:27, parminder wrote:
>>>
>>> I say 'yes'
>>>
>>> We can also specifically mention that we will closely follow the CSTD WG
>>> process and will keep coming up with other comments and suggestions.
>>> thanks. parminder
>>>
>>> On Friday 19 November 2010 07:41 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Dear list,
>>>>
>>>> Many thanks for the comments made despite the last-minute rush.
>>>>
>>>> I would like to urge all who have not replied to the call yet, to
>>>> indicate
>>>> if you support the FINAL DRAFT, yes or no, and in case, add
>>>> your comments.
>>>>
>>>> As the deadline is approaching I will consult with Jeremy and
>>>> make the final judgment based on the inputs from all.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks again,
>>>>
>>>> izumi
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2010/11/19 Katitza Rodriguez <katitza at eff.org>:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>>
>>>>> My comments are in line with Wolfgang, Bill, and Miguel's comments.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have a few additional points to make:
>>>>>
>>>>> I disagree with the use of the word "rough consensus". It is a
>>>>> dangerous
>>>>> one. It can force bad policy outcomes, and creates a "trade off"
>>>>> situation.
>>>>> Something that some of us, from civil society would not agree  when it
>>>>> deals
>>>>> with fundamental human rights. For instance, you can get a good outcome
>>>>> incorporating on the text a provision on internet intermediaries
>>>>> limitation
>>>>> of liability but a bad outcome (eg. a data retention provision that
>>>>> compels
>>>>> ISPs and telcos to retain innocent citizens' Internet traffic data).
>>>>> There
>>>>> are many outcomes were "rough consensus" might bring an outcome that
>>>>> some of
>>>>> us will not compromise.
>>>>>
>>>>> "Messages from IGF" is a model that has been tested and work well in
>>>>> Eurodig. If the session is well structure, you can actually have a
>>>>> frank
>>>>> discussion, and understand not only those who points that you might
>>>>> agree
>>>>> but also where the boundaries are.
>>>>>
>>>>> At the last IGF, EFF and ISOC organized the workshop on the Future of
>>>>> Privacy. Based on that idea, we have recently released a report that
>>>>> try to
>>>>> identify the key messages that each speaker said. I found it quite
>>>>> useful as
>>>>> many of those statements are part of discussions that are being held in
>>>>> different spaces: national, regional, and international level.  Pls.
>>>>> see:
>>>>> https://www.eff.org/files/future-privacy.pdf
>>>>>
>>>>> EFF Discusses the Future of Internet Privacy at UN Internet Governance
>>>>> Forum
>>>>> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/11/future-privacy-internet-governance-forum
>>>>>
>>>>> Many thanks,
>>>>>
>>>>> Katitza
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 11/18/10 7:04 AM, Miguel Alcaine wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>>
>>>>> I would suggest that:
>>>>>
>>>>> - for 3a, I will suggest "messages from the IGF" for the IGF meeting. I
>>>>> think, an IGF host with the assistance of the MAG and Secretariat could
>>>>> identify people from the organizers of a main session to draft the
>>>>> status of
>>>>> the discussion of the topic, either rough agreements or the different
>>>>> points
>>>>> of view of an important subject. After, the IGF host could prepare the
>>>>> whole
>>>>> message with the assistance of the Secretariat.
>>>>>
>>>>> Afterwards, the messages from the IGF could be used as a basis for
>>>>> mailing-list discussions as to identify the appropriate fora to present
>>>>> the
>>>>> message or to refine part of the message, but I will suggest such
>>>>> refinements to be Ad-hoc groups (open and voluntary) to take up
>>>>> messages,
>>>>> refine them and present them in other fora, but not in the IGF behalf.
>>>>> Such
>>>>> ad-hoc groups could only claim that they started their work based on X
>>>>> message from the IGF.
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree with Wolfang in avoiding recommendation and I will also suggest
>>>>> to
>>>>> get rid of "rough consensus" and rather apply the method described
>>>>> above.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> - for 6a. IGF Secretariat will not be able to dedicate funds from its
>>>>> current level of funding in its voluntary fund for the engagement of
>>>>> Developing country actors. Either we can insist in inviting or
>>>>> strenghtening
>>>>> the voluntary fund and dedicate the additional funds to the engagement
>>>>> of
>>>>> developing countries or we can invite governments or the UN SG to
>>>>> consider a
>>>>> small transfer from the UN regular budget to the aforementioned IGF
>>>>> voluntary fund and dedicate such funds for the engagement of developing
>>>>> countries. I am suggesting a transfer around US$200,000 annually.
>>>>> Independently of the source of the funds, they should serve to make
>>>>> sinergies with the actors already improving the engagement of
>>>>> developing
>>>>> countries.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best,
>>>>>
>>>>> Miguel
>>>>>
>>>>> 2010/11/18 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"
>>>>> <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi everybody
>>>>>>
>>>>>> thanks for the work. I am sorry that I jump in in a very late stage. I
>>>>>> have three comments:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. 3a: The old debate on receommendations is not really helpful. In
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> past CS tried also to use the terminology "messages". The problem is
>>>>>> as soon
>>>>>> as you introduce a process to negotiate a text which then has been the
>>>>>> subject of voting you change the nature of the the whole event. Even
>>>>>> if you
>>>>>> stress that these receommendations will be not binding, this does not
>>>>>> matter. In the Un context (like in other intergovernmental mechanisms)
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> category "receommednation" is well defined and you can not avoid that
>>>>>> an IGF
>>>>>> recommendation is seen as something similar to what other Un bodies
>>>>>> are
>>>>>> doing with receommendations. Again I prefer the "message". BTW, I will
>>>>>> circulate later this week the Interim Report of the Council of Europe
>>>>>> Cross
>>>>>> Border Expert Group where we propose also the elaboration of some
>>>>>> instruments. The Council of Europe - or other organisations with an
>>>>>> established procedure to negotiat texts - are a better place for such
>>>>>> an excercise.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2. 6a: I thin SOC has an IGF Fellowship Programm.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 3. Under nine we could say that we ould like to see that the IGF
>>>>>> enhances
>>>>>> its function and could become, inter alia, an observatory, a
>>>>>> clearinghouse,
>>>>>> an early warning system and a watchdog.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sorry for the late reply. If it is too late then ignore it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best wishes
>>>>>>
>>>>>> wolfgang
>>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Von: izumiaizu at gmail.com im Auftrag von Izumi AIZU
>>>>>> Gesendet: Do 18.11.2010 03:13
>>>>>> An: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>>>> Betreff: [governance] Consensus Call for CSTD IGF Questionnaire -
>>>>>> Clean
>>>>>> version
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Here follows are the Clean version of the Final Draft for the CSTD IGF
>>>>>> questionnaire answer
>>>>>> in full text. Sorry for the confusion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please respond if you agree or disagree as soon as possible.  Friday,
>>>>>> Nov
>>>>>> 19
>>>>>> is the deadline for submission. More comments are also very much
>>>>>> appreciated
>>>>>> as we can further feed them into the Consultation meetings next week
>>>>>> in
>>>>>> Geneva.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> izumi
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ------------
>>>>>>
>>>>>> FINAL Draft for Questionnaire on improvements to the IGF
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. What do you consider the most important achievements of the first
>>>>>> five IGF meetings?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> IGF created the space for dialogue by all stakeholders in an open,
>>>>>> inclusive manner. These emergence and development of the
>>>>>> multistakeholder principle and practice are perhaps the biggest
>>>>>> contribution IGF has achieved so far. It helped many participants to
>>>>>> understand the issues of their interest, as well as to understand how
>>>>>> other actors understand, act and accept their issues. Emergence of
>>>>>> Regional and National IGF with multistakeholder approach is another
>>>>>> achievement.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2. How satisfied are you with the delivery of the results of
>>>>>> discussions at the IGF and the impact they have had on developments in
>>>>>> national, regional or international Internet governance?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> IGF has made a reasonable advancement of the understanding of the
>>>>>> issues. Yet, at national, regional and international levels, we have
>>>>>> mixed assessment for the impact it brought.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 3. Which, if any, new mechanisms would you propose to improve the
>>>>>> impact of the IGF discussions, in particular as regards the
>>>>>> interaction between the IGF and other stakeholders? Please specify the
>>>>>> kind of mechanism (e.g. reporting, exchanges, recommendations,
>>>>>> concrete advice, etc.) and the stakeholders (e.g. intergovernmental
>>>>>> bodies, other fora dealing with Internet Governance, etc.).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> a) One mechanism we can suggest is to come up with some form of
>>>>>> recommendations where all stakeholders have [rough] consensus. They
>>>>>> will not be binding, but could still function as model, reference or
>>>>>> common framework. Working process towards achieving these rough
>>>>>> consensus will create better and deeper understandings amongst
>>>>>> different stakeholders.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> b) The Secretariat and MAG should be strongly encouraged to directly
>>>>>> foster discussion and debate of difficult issues in main sessions,
>>>>>> instead of avoiding them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 4. In your view, what important new issues or themes concerning
>>>>>> Internet governance have emerged or become important since the Tunis
>>>>>> phase of the Summit, which deserve more attention in the next five
>>>>>> years?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> IGC feels that attention to the development agenda, issues concerning
>>>>>> the marginalized groups or actors, have yet gained sufficient level of
>>>>>> work at IGF and its outcome. These may not be the "new" issues, but we
>>>>>> strongly feel they are very important.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Besides them, emergence of new technologies, tools and services, such
>>>>>> as cloud computing; user-generated, SNS and online sharing services
>>>>>> such as wiki, YouTube, Ustream, twitter and Facebook; DPI and
>>>>>> behavioral targeting advertisements; wide deployment of mobile
>>>>>> services including smart phones and tablet computers pose all kind of
>>>>>> new challenges for governance.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 5. What do you think should be the priority themes and areas of work
>>>>>> of the IGF during the next five years?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Followings will be the areas of themes and works that have priorities
>>>>>> we
>>>>>> think.
>>>>>> a) Enhancing multi-stakeholder framework within IGF.
>>>>>> b) Promote capacity building for developmental agenda of governance
>>>>>> c) Balancing the interests - to empower those of marginalized and
>>>>>> under-developed in all organizations and fora dealing with Internet
>>>>>> governance - such as ICANN, W3C, IETF, RIRs, ITU, WIPO, CoE, OECD,
>>>>>> UNCTAD/CSTD and United Nations itself.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 6. How can the capacity of those groups that are not yet well
>>>>>> represented at the IGF be improved? In particular, what could be done
>>>>>> to improve the capacity of representatives from developing countries?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> a) Establish special funding mechanism by IGF itself to help actors
>>>>>> from developing countries to continuously engage in IGF and related
>>>>>> organizations and meetings. Fellowship works carried out by
>>>>>> DiploFoundation, dotAsia organization [other reference, please] and
>>>>>> other institutions offer good reference for this, but they should be
>>>>>> expanded in larger scale. Targeting youth groups or younger generation
>>>>>> in profession, will have, in the long run, effective impact.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> b) Providing technical training to policy makers and policy training
>>>>>> to engineers will also help close the gap(s) within the
>>>>>> under-represented and also even well-represented.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 7. How do you think more awareness of Internet governance issues and
>>>>>> the IGF process can be raised amongst groups whose lives are affected
>>>>>> by Internet governance but who are not yet part of the IGF process?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> a) Giving more weight to regional and national IGF meetings, making
>>>>>> more direct "links" to the main IGF meeting will help outreach to
>>>>>> those who have not yet involved in IGF process. Securing the same
>>>>>> level of working framework of IGF, such as multi-stakeholder
>>>>>> composition and inclusion of civil society groups (where such practice
>>>>>> is relatively new or scarce) should be maintained.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> b) Ensuring a plurality of civil society voices be heard in Internet
>>>>>> governance processes will also be effective in reaching out to those
>>>>>> yet to participate.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> c) Online meetings are most effective when provision is made for
>>>>>> participation both synchronously (ie. in real time) and
>>>>>> asynchronously. The remote hubs and moderators at the Vilnius IGF made
>>>>>> good progress towards this direction. Using such tools as blogs,
>>>>>> Twitter, mailing lists, Facebook and so on over an extended period may
>>>>>> also increase the awareness.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> d) Organizing some sessions completely online will create "level
>>>>>> playing field" among all participants, and may also demonstrate the
>>>>>> effectiveness of these tools/technologies, and may also improve the
>>>>>> quality of services in turn.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> e) Increase linguistic diversity. Using UN major languages other than
>>>>>> English at certain meetings and occasions as main working language
>>>>>> (translated into other UN languages) will increase the outreach to
>>>>>> non-English speaking population of the globe and will give more sense
>>>>>> of ownership. Currently, English is the only default working language,
>>>>>> but we think it does not have to be so.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 8. How, if at all, do you think that the IGF process needs to change
>>>>>> to meet changing circumstances and priorities?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As we replied to the MAG questionnaire, the organizing work of IGF
>>>>>> primarily by MAG should be improved. More outcome oriented direction
>>>>>> might improve the quality and value of IGF, but this should be
>>>>>> carefully exercised so as not to lose the open and free spirit of IGF
>>>>>> which contributed a great deal.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 9. Do you have any other comments?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> END
>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>>>>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>>>>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>>>>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>>>>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Katitza Rodriguez
>>>>> International Rights Director
>>>>> Electronic Frontier Foundation
>>>>> katitza at eff.org
>>>>> katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email)
>>>>>
>>>>> Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom
>>>>> of
>>>>> speech since 1990
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> ------------------------------------------------------
>> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org
>> executive director
>> association for progressive communications
>> www.apc.org
>
>
> --
>
>
> Ginger (Virginia) Paque
> IGCBP Online Coordinator
> DiploFoundation
> www.diplomacy.edu/ig
>
> The latest from Diplo...
> http://igbook.diplomacy.edu is the online companion to An Introduction to
> Internet Governance, Diplo's publication on IG. Download the book, read the
> blogs and post your comments.

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

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

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

From dogwallah at gmail.com  Fri Nov 19 07:02:21 2010
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 15:02:21 +0300
Subject: AW: [governance] Consensus Call for CSTD IGF Questionnaire -
In-Reply-To: <4CE66370.40506@itforchange.net>
References: <AANLkTinyo=oKJoJiz2wVHikpv7-nYBwgq+cf7p6qrj16@mail.gmail.com>
	<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07448@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
	<4CE66370.40506@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <AANLkTim9sinx_z5nMe55hKoGPxp5OOvtz+mAkNQCf_ZR@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Parminder. Some of us dont think in terms of nation states as the
unit of Internet policy making, we think of networks and individuals
taking this role instead. At least, thats my position. Rgds, mctim

On 11/19/10, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>
>
> On Thursday 18 November 2010 01:52 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
>> Hi everybody
>>
>> thanks for the work. I am sorry that I jump in in a very late stage. I
>> have three comments:
>>
>> 1. 3a: The old debate on receommendations is not really helpful. In the
>> past CS tried also to use the terminology "messages".
> Wolfgang
>
>   Global CS did never abandon the concept of recommendations in the IGF
> context, though at places 'messages' may also have been used.
> Recommendations (or 'recommend') is mentioned in the Tunis Agenda's
> mandate for the IGF and we seem to have largely supported it, in some
> form or the other.
>>   The problem is as soon as you introduce a process to negotiate a text
>> which then has been the subject of voting you change the nature of the the
>> whole event. Even if you stress that these receommendations will be not
>> binding, this does not matter. In the Un context (like in other
>> intergovernmental mechanisms) the category "receommednation" is well
>> defined and you can not avoid that an IGF recommendation is seen as
>> something similar to what other Un bodies are doing with receommendations.
>> Again I prefer the "message". BTW, I will circulate later this week the
>> Interim Report of the Council of Europe Cross Border Expert Group where we
>> propose also the elaboration of some instruments. The Council of Europe -
>> or other organisations with an established procedure to negotiat texts -
>> are a better place for such
>> an excercise.
>>
> Sure, it may be a better place. But I or my country in not in the CoE
> (though CoE instruments finally do impact me). So which 'better place'
> do you think I can look upto? Can you please provide me an answer to this.
>
> I continue to be (unpleasantly) surprised at the manner in which the
> concerns of developing countries in terms of their non-participation in
> global policy making and the global shaping of the ICT pehnomenon is
> ignored so blatantly, in a group which wants to describe itself as a
> global civil society group.
>
> We may all glibly talk about development issues or IG for development.
> Pl take note that in the IGF plenary on IG for development the prime
> issue which came up was that IG for development first of all means due
> participation of developing countries in global IG related policy making
> (see the Chairman's summary). What does the IGC plan to do on this
> issue? Ask us to watch and cheer on CoE and OECD policy making processes?
>
> I can still understand the stand of someone like Milton (though I do not
> agree with it) who is a bit afraid of supporting new institutional
> development for democratic global policy making as coming out of the
> current 'core' UN configurations (which is why he is afraid of the
> enhanced cooperation or EC process), even as an positively evolutionary
> process (which is my considered expectation of the EC process). Because
> he does, correspondingly, support a more open, diverse, multistakeholder
> process like the IGF making some clear positive contributions towards
> development of global Internet policies through making policy
> recommendations.
>
> What I cant understand is the position of those who both oppose the EC
> process (in whichever evolutionary form) as well as oppose possibilities
> of the IGF making recommendations (I see Wolfgang, Katitza, Bill,
> Jeanette among others state that position). Moreover, they all seem to
> closely associate with OECD/ CoE policy making processes, which are in
> fact much less open, transparent, multistakeholder etc than even the
> 'enhanced cooperation' model which, for instance, I proposed and they
> strongly resisted.
>
> I am unable to understand why a comity of powerful nations needs
> specific well-structured systems of making inter-country policies (which
> then become default global ones) and all countires as a global group,
> which (unfortunately?)  include developing countries, should not aspire
> to any such structures. So, it appears, that while (global?) CS should
> enthusiastically support the former (CoE / OECD kind of process) it is
> presented as its bounden duty to strongly oppose any such - or in fact
> structurally even much better - institutional developments  at the
> global level.
>
> And I also do hope that the IGC members form developing countries both
> increase their participation in IGC kind of groups, and become more
> vocal in articulating their interests.
>
> parminder
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>> 2. 6a: I thin SOC has an IGF Fellowship Programm.
>>
>> 3. Under nine we could say that we ould like to see that the IGF enhances
>> its function and could become, inter alia, an observatory, a
>> clearinghouse, an early warning system and a watchdog.
>>
>> Sorry for the late reply. If it is too late then ignore it.
>>
>> Best wishes
>>
>> wolfgang
>> ________________________________
>>
>> Von: izumiaizu at gmail.com im Auftrag von Izumi AIZU
>> Gesendet: Do 18.11.2010 03:13
>> An: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> Betreff: [governance] Consensus Call for CSTD IGF Questionnaire - Clean
>> version
>>
>>
>>
>> Here follows are the Clean version of the Final Draft for the CSTD IGF
>> questionnaire answer
>> in full text. Sorry for the confusion.
>>
>> Please respond if you agree or disagree as soon as possible.  Friday, Nov
>> 19
>> is the deadline for submission. More comments are also very much
>> appreciated
>> as we can further feed them into the Consultation meetings next week in
>> Geneva.
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> izumi
>>
>> ------------
>>
>> FINAL Draft for Questionnaire on improvements to the IGF
>>
>> 1. What do you consider the most important achievements of the first
>> five IGF meetings?
>>
>> IGF created the space for dialogue by all stakeholders in an open,
>> inclusive manner. These emergence and development of the
>> multistakeholder principle and practice are perhaps the biggest
>> contribution IGF has achieved so far. It helped many participants to
>> understand the issues of their interest, as well as to understand how
>> other actors understand, act and accept their issues. Emergence of
>> Regional and National IGF with multistakeholder approach is another
>> achievement.
>>
>> 2. How satisfied are you with the delivery of the results of
>> discussions at the IGF and the impact they have had on developments in
>> national, regional or international Internet governance?
>>
>> IGF has made a reasonable advancement of the understanding of the
>> issues. Yet, at national, regional and international levels, we have
>> mixed assessment for the impact it brought.
>>
>> 3. Which, if any, new mechanisms would you propose to improve the
>> impact of the IGF discussions, in particular as regards the
>> interaction between the IGF and other stakeholders? Please specify the
>> kind of mechanism (e.g. reporting, exchanges, recommendations,
>> concrete advice, etc.) and the stakeholders (e.g. intergovernmental
>> bodies, other fora dealing with Internet Governance, etc.).
>>
>> a) One mechanism we can suggest is to come up with some form of
>> recommendations where all stakeholders have [rough] consensus. They
>> will not be binding, but could still function as model, reference or
>> common framework. Working process towards achieving these rough
>> consensus will create better and deeper understandings amongst
>> different stakeholders.
>>
>> b) The Secretariat and MAG should be strongly encouraged to directly
>> foster discussion and debate of difficult issues in main sessions,
>> instead of avoiding them.
>>
>> 4. In your view, what important new issues or themes concerning
>> Internet governance have emerged or become important since the Tunis
>> phase of the Summit, which deserve more attention in the next five
>> years?
>>
>> IGC feels that attention to the development agenda, issues concerning
>> the marginalized groups or actors, have yet gained sufficient level of
>> work at IGF and its outcome. These may not be the "new" issues, but we
>> strongly feel they are very important.
>>
>> Besides them, emergence of new technologies, tools and services, such
>> as cloud computing; user-generated, SNS and online sharing services
>> such as wiki, YouTube, Ustream, twitter and Facebook; DPI and
>> behavioral targeting advertisements; wide deployment of mobile
>> services including smart phones and tablet computers pose all kind of
>> new challenges for governance.
>>
>>
>> 5. What do you think should be the priority themes and areas of work
>> of the IGF during the next five years?
>>
>> Followings will be the areas of themes and works that have priorities we
>> think.
>> a) Enhancing multi-stakeholder framework within IGF.
>> b) Promote capacity building for developmental agenda of governance
>> c) Balancing the interests - to empower those of marginalized and
>> under-developed in all organizations and fora dealing with Internet
>> governance - such as ICANN, W3C, IETF, RIRs, ITU, WIPO, CoE, OECD,
>> UNCTAD/CSTD and United Nations itself.
>>
>> 6. How can the capacity of those groups that are not yet well
>> represented at the IGF be improved? In particular, what could be done
>> to improve the capacity of representatives from developing countries?
>>
>> a) Establish special funding mechanism by IGF itself to help actors
>> from developing countries to continuously engage in IGF and related
>> organizations and meetings. Fellowship works carried out by
>> DiploFoundation, dotAsia organization [other reference, please] and
>> other institutions offer good reference for this, but they should be
>> expanded in larger scale. Targeting youth groups or younger generation
>> in profession, will have, in the long run, effective impact.
>>
>> b) Providing technical training to policy makers and policy training
>> to engineers will also help close the gap(s) within the
>> under-represented and also even well-represented.
>>
>> 7. How do you think more awareness of Internet governance issues and
>> the IGF process can be raised amongst groups whose lives are affected
>> by Internet governance but who are not yet part of the IGF process?
>>
>> a) Giving more weight to regional and national IGF meetings, making
>> more direct "links" to the main IGF meeting will help outreach to
>> those who have not yet involved in IGF process. Securing the same
>> level of working framework of IGF, such as multi-stakeholder
>> composition and inclusion of civil society groups (where such practice
>> is relatively new or scarce) should be maintained.
>>
>> b) Ensuring a plurality of civil society voices be heard in Internet
>> governance processes will also be effective in reaching out to those
>> yet to participate.
>>
>> c) Online meetings are most effective when provision is made for
>> participation both synchronously (ie. in real time) and
>> asynchronously. The remote hubs and moderators at the Vilnius IGF made
>> good progress towards this direction. Using such tools as blogs,
>> Twitter, mailing lists, Facebook and so on over an extended period may
>> also increase the awareness.
>>
>> d) Organizing some sessions completely online will create "level
>> playing field" among all participants, and may also demonstrate the
>> effectiveness of these tools/technologies, and may also improve the
>> quality of services in turn.
>>
>> e) Increase linguistic diversity. Using UN major languages other than
>> English at certain meetings and occasions as main working language
>> (translated into other UN languages) will increase the outreach to
>> non-English speaking population of the globe and will give more sense
>> of ownership. Currently, English is the only default working language,
>> but we think it does not have to be so.
>>
>> 8. How, if at all, do you think that the IGF process needs to change
>> to meet changing circumstances and priorities?
>>
>> As we replied to the MAG questionnaire, the organizing work of IGF
>> primarily by MAG should be improved. More outcome oriented direction
>> might improve the quality and value of IGF, but this should be
>> carefully exercised so as not to lose the open and free spirit of IGF
>> which contributed a great deal.
>>
>> 9. Do you have any other comments?
>>
>> No.
>>
>> END
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>       governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>       governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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
>>
>>
>

-- 
Sent from my mobile device

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 parminder at itforchange.net  Fri Nov 19 07:12:57 2010
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 17:42:57 +0530
Subject: AW: [governance] Consensus Call for CSTD IGF Questionnaire -
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTim9sinx_z5nMe55hKoGPxp5OOvtz+mAkNQCf_ZR@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTinyo=oKJoJiz2wVHikpv7-nYBwgq+cf7p6qrj16@mail.gmail.com>	<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07448@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>	<4CE66370.40506@itforchange.net> <AANLkTim9sinx_z5nMe55hKoGPxp5OOvtz+mAkNQCf_ZR@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4CE669C9.2090003@itforchange.net>



On Friday 19 November 2010 05:32 PM, McTim wrote:
> Hi Parminder. Some of us dont think in terms of nation states as the
> unit of Internet policy making, we think of networks and individuals
> taking this role instead. At least, thats my position. Rgds, mctim
>    

Sure, McTim, for my present argument, i raise issues not with you but 
with those who do in fact consider OECD/ CoE countries pretty good 'unit 
of Internet policy making' and enthusiastically engage with these units, 
but pull away from more globally democratic structural possibilities. 
parminder
> On 11/19/10, parminder<parminder at itforchange.net>  wrote:
>    
>>
>> On Thursday 18 November 2010 01:52 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
>>      
>>> Hi everybody
>>>
>>> thanks for the work. I am sorry that I jump in in a very late stage. I
>>> have three comments:
>>>
>>> 1. 3a: The old debate on receommendations is not really helpful. In the
>>> past CS tried also to use the terminology "messages".
>>>        
>> Wolfgang
>>
>>    Global CS did never abandon the concept of recommendations in the IGF
>> context, though at places 'messages' may also have been used.
>> Recommendations (or 'recommend') is mentioned in the Tunis Agenda's
>> mandate for the IGF and we seem to have largely supported it, in some
>> form or the other.
>>      
>>>    The problem is as soon as you introduce a process to negotiate a text
>>> which then has been the subject of voting you change the nature of the the
>>> whole event. Even if you stress that these receommendations will be not
>>> binding, this does not matter. In the Un context (like in other
>>> intergovernmental mechanisms) the category "receommednation" is well
>>> defined and you can not avoid that an IGF recommendation is seen as
>>> something similar to what other Un bodies are doing with receommendations.
>>> Again I prefer the "message". BTW, I will circulate later this week the
>>> Interim Report of the Council of Europe Cross Border Expert Group where we
>>> propose also the elaboration of some instruments. The Council of Europe -
>>> or other organisations with an established procedure to negotiat texts -
>>> are a better place for such
>>> an excercise.
>>>
>>>        
>> Sure, it may be a better place. But I or my country in not in the CoE
>> (though CoE instruments finally do impact me). So which 'better place'
>> do you think I can look upto? Can you please provide me an answer to this.
>>
>> I continue to be (unpleasantly) surprised at the manner in which the
>> concerns of developing countries in terms of their non-participation in
>> global policy making and the global shaping of the ICT pehnomenon is
>> ignored so blatantly, in a group which wants to describe itself as a
>> global civil society group.
>>
>> We may all glibly talk about development issues or IG for development.
>> Pl take note that in the IGF plenary on IG for development the prime
>> issue which came up was that IG for development first of all means due
>> participation of developing countries in global IG related policy making
>> (see the Chairman's summary). What does the IGC plan to do on this
>> issue? Ask us to watch and cheer on CoE and OECD policy making processes?
>>
>> I can still understand the stand of someone like Milton (though I do not
>> agree with it) who is a bit afraid of supporting new institutional
>> development for democratic global policy making as coming out of the
>> current 'core' UN configurations (which is why he is afraid of the
>> enhanced cooperation or EC process), even as an positively evolutionary
>> process (which is my considered expectation of the EC process). Because
>> he does, correspondingly, support a more open, diverse, multistakeholder
>> process like the IGF making some clear positive contributions towards
>> development of global Internet policies through making policy
>> recommendations.
>>
>> What I cant understand is the position of those who both oppose the EC
>> process (in whichever evolutionary form) as well as oppose possibilities
>> of the IGF making recommendations (I see Wolfgang, Katitza, Bill,
>> Jeanette among others state that position). Moreover, they all seem to
>> closely associate with OECD/ CoE policy making processes, which are in
>> fact much less open, transparent, multistakeholder etc than even the
>> 'enhanced cooperation' model which, for instance, I proposed and they
>> strongly resisted.
>>
>> I am unable to understand why a comity of powerful nations needs
>> specific well-structured systems of making inter-country policies (which
>> then become default global ones) and all countires as a global group,
>> which (unfortunately?)  include developing countries, should not aspire
>> to any such structures. So, it appears, that while (global?) CS should
>> enthusiastically support the former (CoE / OECD kind of process) it is
>> presented as its bounden duty to strongly oppose any such - or in fact
>> structurally even much better - institutional developments  at the
>> global level.
>>
>> And I also do hope that the IGC members form developing countries both
>> increase their participation in IGC kind of groups, and become more
>> vocal in articulating their interests.
>>
>> parminder
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>      
>>> 2. 6a: I thin SOC has an IGF Fellowship Programm.
>>>
>>> 3. Under nine we could say that we ould like to see that the IGF enhances
>>> its function and could become, inter alia, an observatory, a
>>> clearinghouse, an early warning system and a watchdog.
>>>
>>> Sorry for the late reply. If it is too late then ignore it.
>>>
>>> Best wishes
>>>
>>> wolfgang
>>> ________________________________
>>>
>>> Von: izumiaizu at gmail.com im Auftrag von Izumi AIZU
>>> Gesendet: Do 18.11.2010 03:13
>>> An: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>> Betreff: [governance] Consensus Call for CSTD IGF Questionnaire - Clean
>>> version
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Here follows are the Clean version of the Final Draft for the CSTD IGF
>>> questionnaire answer
>>> in full text. Sorry for the confusion.
>>>
>>> Please respond if you agree or disagree as soon as possible.  Friday, Nov
>>> 19
>>> is the deadline for submission. More comments are also very much
>>> appreciated
>>> as we can further feed them into the Consultation meetings next week in
>>> Geneva.
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>> izumi
>>>
>>> ------------
>>>
>>> FINAL Draft for Questionnaire on improvements to the IGF
>>>
>>> 1. What do you consider the most important achievements of the first
>>> five IGF meetings?
>>>
>>> IGF created the space for dialogue by all stakeholders in an open,
>>> inclusive manner. These emergence and development of the
>>> multistakeholder principle and practice are perhaps the biggest
>>> contribution IGF has achieved so far. It helped many participants to
>>> understand the issues of their interest, as well as to understand how
>>> other actors understand, act and accept their issues. Emergence of
>>> Regional and National IGF with multistakeholder approach is another
>>> achievement.
>>>
>>> 2. How satisfied are you with the delivery of the results of
>>> discussions at the IGF and the impact they have had on developments in
>>> national, regional or international Internet governance?
>>>
>>> IGF has made a reasonable advancement of the understanding of the
>>> issues. Yet, at national, regional and international levels, we have
>>> mixed assessment for the impact it brought.
>>>
>>> 3. Which, if any, new mechanisms would you propose to improve the
>>> impact of the IGF discussions, in particular as regards the
>>> interaction between the IGF and other stakeholders? Please specify the
>>> kind of mechanism (e.g. reporting, exchanges, recommendations,
>>> concrete advice, etc.) and the stakeholders (e.g. intergovernmental
>>> bodies, other fora dealing with Internet Governance, etc.).
>>>
>>> a) One mechanism we can suggest is to come up with some form of
>>> recommendations where all stakeholders have [rough] consensus. They
>>> will not be binding, but could still function as model, reference or
>>> common framework. Working process towards achieving these rough
>>> consensus will create better and deeper understandings amongst
>>> different stakeholders.
>>>
>>> b) The Secretariat and MAG should be strongly encouraged to directly
>>> foster discussion and debate of difficult issues in main sessions,
>>> instead of avoiding them.
>>>
>>> 4. In your view, what important new issues or themes concerning
>>> Internet governance have emerged or become important since the Tunis
>>> phase of the Summit, which deserve more attention in the next five
>>> years?
>>>
>>> IGC feels that attention to the development agenda, issues concerning
>>> the marginalized groups or actors, have yet gained sufficient level of
>>> work at IGF and its outcome. These may not be the "new" issues, but we
>>> strongly feel they are very important.
>>>
>>> Besides them, emergence of new technologies, tools and services, such
>>> as cloud computing; user-generated, SNS and online sharing services
>>> such as wiki, YouTube, Ustream, twitter and Facebook; DPI and
>>> behavioral targeting advertisements; wide deployment of mobile
>>> services including smart phones and tablet computers pose all kind of
>>> new challenges for governance.
>>>
>>>
>>> 5. What do you think should be the priority themes and areas of work
>>> of the IGF during the next five years?
>>>
>>> Followings will be the areas of themes and works that have priorities we
>>> think.
>>> a) Enhancing multi-stakeholder framework within IGF.
>>> b) Promote capacity building for developmental agenda of governance
>>> c) Balancing the interests - to empower those of marginalized and
>>> under-developed in all organizations and fora dealing with Internet
>>> governance - such as ICANN, W3C, IETF, RIRs, ITU, WIPO, CoE, OECD,
>>> UNCTAD/CSTD and United Nations itself.
>>>
>>> 6. How can the capacity of those groups that are not yet well
>>> represented at the IGF be improved? In particular, what could be done
>>> to improve the capacity of representatives from developing countries?
>>>
>>> a) Establish special funding mechanism by IGF itself to help actors
>>> from developing countries to continuously engage in IGF and related
>>> organizations and meetings. Fellowship works carried out by
>>> DiploFoundation, dotAsia organization [other reference, please] and
>>> other institutions offer good reference for this, but they should be
>>> expanded in larger scale. Targeting youth groups or younger generation
>>> in profession, will have, in the long run, effective impact.
>>>
>>> b) Providing technical training to policy makers and policy training
>>> to engineers will also help close the gap(s) within the
>>> under-represented and also even well-represented.
>>>
>>> 7. How do you think more awareness of Internet governance issues and
>>> the IGF process can be raised amongst groups whose lives are affected
>>> by Internet governance but who are not yet part of the IGF process?
>>>
>>> a) Giving more weight to regional and national IGF meetings, making
>>> more direct "links" to the main IGF meeting will help outreach to
>>> those who have not yet involved in IGF process. Securing the same
>>> level of working framework of IGF, such as multi-stakeholder
>>> composition and inclusion of civil society groups (where such practice
>>> is relatively new or scarce) should be maintained.
>>>
>>> b) Ensuring a plurality of civil society voices be heard in Internet
>>> governance processes will also be effective in reaching out to those
>>> yet to participate.
>>>
>>> c) Online meetings are most effective when provision is made for
>>> participation both synchronously (ie. in real time) and
>>> asynchronously. The remote hubs and moderators at the Vilnius IGF made
>>> good progress towards this direction. Using such tools as blogs,
>>> Twitter, mailing lists, Facebook and so on over an extended period may
>>> also increase the awareness.
>>>
>>> d) Organizing some sessions completely online will create "level
>>> playing field" among all participants, and may also demonstrate the
>>> effectiveness of these tools/technologies, and may also improve the
>>> quality of services in turn.
>>>
>>> e) Increase linguistic diversity. Using UN major languages other than
>>> English at certain meetings and occasions as main working language
>>> (translated into other UN languages) will increase the outreach to
>>> non-English speaking population of the globe and will give more sense
>>> of ownership. Currently, English is the only default working language,
>>> but we think it does not have to be so.
>>>
>>> 8. How, if at all, do you think that the IGF process needs to change
>>> to meet changing circumstances and priorities?
>>>
>>> As we replied to the MAG questionnaire, the organizing work of IGF
>>> primarily by MAG should be improved. More outcome oriented direction
>>> might improve the quality and value of IGF, but this should be
>>> carefully exercised so as not to lose the open and free spirit of IGF
>>> which contributed a great deal.
>>>
>>> 9. Do you have any other comments?
>>>
>>> No.
>>>
>>> END
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>        governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>>        governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>>
>>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>>        http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>>
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>        governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>>        governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>>
>>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>>        http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>>
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>
>>>
>>>        
>>      
>    
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101119/a65e4e0f/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From iza at anr.org  Fri Nov 19 07:17:35 2010
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 21:17:35 +0900
Subject: [governance] Re: Geneva Sunday
In-Reply-To: <1E8653E0-927A-4C7C-B373-9E8D4D18BE58@graduateinstitute.ch>
References: <1E8653E0-927A-4C7C-B373-9E8D4D18BE58@graduateinstitute.ch>
Message-ID: <AANLkTimZhcB4yEcyAiYF3BvQ+PD4ddE54hrTkXnKnCMT@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Bill and all,

Yes, I do plan to organize a meeting on Sunday, Nov 21 in Geneva
At DiploFoundation office.

Let's meet at 3 pm till say 6 pm max, with optional dinner.

There are at least four or five of us to arrive on or before
Sunday.

As for Agenda, what is in my mind are:
a) How to intervene at IGF Consultaiton mtg on Monday and also
MAG mtg on Tuesdy when we cannot get in.
b) how to intervene at CSTD mtg on Wednesday
c) how to deal with Dec meetings: Dec 14, NYC by UNSESA on EC, and Dec
17, by CSTD on IGF in Geneva
d) planning for IGC activities - Strategy, Work Plan and Outreach in
mid- and long run
e) AOB

We will set up, at least Skype chat channel for remote participation.

Please send us if you plan to participate - physically or remotely by return.

best

Izumi



2010/11/19, William Drake <william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch>:
> Hi Izumi
>
> Lost track of something in the mail mountains.  Do I recall correctly that
> you wanted to organize a caucus meeting at Diplo on Sunday?  If so,
>
> *when?
> *did you have an agenda in mind?
> *do we know that there will be members in town by then who are planning to
> attend?
>
> 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 graciela at nupef.org.br  Fri Nov 19 07:26:55 2010
From: graciela at nupef.org.br (Graciela)
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 10:26:55 -0200
Subject: AW: [governance] Consensus Call for CSTD IGF Questionnaire -
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimXbesNb8-qxRoAjX_W8CdCrCnLbT7xJLNqvt_=@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTinyo=oKJoJiz2wVHikpv7-nYBwgq+cf7p6qrj16@mail.gmail.com>	<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07448@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>	<AANLkTi=DFTPVO36vapwBWxiYq7kDnFg=f9RexLpE7rZc@mail.gmail.com>	<4CE5DAEE.8050103@eff.org>	<AANLkTimUhwWk+owU1CLY4hvFYjnq_qz8OqgMVsfHXcdL@mail.gmail.com>	<4CE6431A.8030303@itforchange.net>	<4CE64C6B.3010905@apc.org>	<4CE6616F.4090305@paque.net> <AANLkTimXbesNb8-qxRoAjX_W8CdCrCnLbT7xJLNqvt_=@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4CE66D0F.4070607@nupef.org.br>

Yes from me.

Em 11/19/10 9:58 AM, Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google escreveu:
> +1 for Yes
>
> On 11/19/10, Ginger Paque<gpaque at gmail.com>  wrote:
>> Agree. Tx.
>> Ginger
>>
>> On 11/19/2010 5:37 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
>>> Also yes from me.
>>>
>>> Anriette
>>>
>>>
>>> On 19/11/10 11:27, parminder wrote:
>>>> I say 'yes'
>>>>
>>>> We can also specifically mention that we will closely follow the CSTD WG
>>>> process and will keep coming up with other comments and suggestions.
>>>> thanks. parminder
>>>>
>>>> On Friday 19 November 2010 07:41 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote:
>>>>> Dear list,
>>>>>
>>>>> Many thanks for the comments made despite the last-minute rush.
>>>>>
>>>>> I would like to urge all who have not replied to the call yet, to
>>>>> indicate
>>>>> if you support the FINAL DRAFT, yes or no, and in case, add
>>>>> your comments.
>>>>>
>>>>> As the deadline is approaching I will consult with Jeremy and
>>>>> make the final judgment based on the inputs from all.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks again,
>>>>>
>>>>> izumi
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 2010/11/19 Katitza Rodriguez<katitza at eff.org>:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My comments are in line with Wolfgang, Bill, and Miguel's comments.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have a few additional points to make:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I disagree with the use of the word "rough consensus". It is a
>>>>>> dangerous
>>>>>> one. It can force bad policy outcomes, and creates a "trade off"
>>>>>> situation.
>>>>>> Something that some of us, from civil society would not agree  when it
>>>>>> deals
>>>>>> with fundamental human rights. For instance, you can get a good outcome
>>>>>> incorporating on the text a provision on internet intermediaries
>>>>>> limitation
>>>>>> of liability but a bad outcome (eg. a data retention provision that
>>>>>> compels
>>>>>> ISPs and telcos to retain innocent citizens' Internet traffic data).
>>>>>> There
>>>>>> are many outcomes were "rough consensus" might bring an outcome that
>>>>>> some of
>>>>>> us will not compromise.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Messages from IGF" is a model that has been tested and work well in
>>>>>> Eurodig. If the session is well structure, you can actually have a
>>>>>> frank
>>>>>> discussion, and understand not only those who points that you might
>>>>>> agree
>>>>>> but also where the boundaries are.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> At the last IGF, EFF and ISOC organized the workshop on the Future of
>>>>>> Privacy. Based on that idea, we have recently released a report that
>>>>>> try to
>>>>>> identify the key messages that each speaker said. I found it quite
>>>>>> useful as
>>>>>> many of those statements are part of discussions that are being held in
>>>>>> different spaces: national, regional, and international level.  Pls.
>>>>>> see:
>>>>>> https://www.eff.org/files/future-privacy.pdf
>>>>>>
>>>>>> EFF Discusses the Future of Internet Privacy at UN Internet Governance
>>>>>> Forum
>>>>>> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/11/future-privacy-internet-governance-forum
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Many thanks,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Katitza
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 11/18/10 7:04 AM, Miguel Alcaine wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I would suggest that:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - for 3a, I will suggest "messages from the IGF" for the IGF meeting. I
>>>>>> think, an IGF host with the assistance of the MAG and Secretariat could
>>>>>> identify people from the organizers of a main session to draft the
>>>>>> status of
>>>>>> the discussion of the topic, either rough agreements or the different
>>>>>> points
>>>>>> of view of an important subject. After, the IGF host could prepare the
>>>>>> whole
>>>>>> message with the assistance of the Secretariat.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Afterwards, the messages from the IGF could be used as a basis for
>>>>>> mailing-list discussions as to identify the appropriate fora to present
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> message or to refine part of the message, but I will suggest such
>>>>>> refinements to be Ad-hoc groups (open and voluntary) to take up
>>>>>> messages,
>>>>>> refine them and present them in other fora, but not in the IGF behalf.
>>>>>> Such
>>>>>> ad-hoc groups could only claim that they started their work based on X
>>>>>> message from the IGF.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I agree with Wolfang in avoiding recommendation and I will also suggest
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> get rid of "rough consensus" and rather apply the method described
>>>>>> above.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - for 6a. IGF Secretariat will not be able to dedicate funds from its
>>>>>> current level of funding in its voluntary fund for the engagement of
>>>>>> Developing country actors. Either we can insist in inviting or
>>>>>> strenghtening
>>>>>> the voluntary fund and dedicate the additional funds to the engagement
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> developing countries or we can invite governments or the UN SG to
>>>>>> consider a
>>>>>> small transfer from the UN regular budget to the aforementioned IGF
>>>>>> voluntary fund and dedicate such funds for the engagement of developing
>>>>>> countries. I am suggesting a transfer around US$200,000 annually.
>>>>>> Independently of the source of the funds, they should serve to make
>>>>>> sinergies with the actors already improving the engagement of
>>>>>> developing
>>>>>> countries.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Miguel
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2010/11/18 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"
>>>>>> <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi everybody
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> thanks for the work. I am sorry that I jump in in a very late stage. I
>>>>>>> have three comments:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1. 3a: The old debate on receommendations is not really helpful. In
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> past CS tried also to use the terminology "messages". The problem is
>>>>>>> as soon
>>>>>>> as you introduce a process to negotiate a text which then has been the
>>>>>>> subject of voting you change the nature of the the whole event. Even
>>>>>>> if you
>>>>>>> stress that these receommendations will be not binding, this does not
>>>>>>> matter. In the Un context (like in other intergovernmental mechanisms)
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> category "receommednation" is well defined and you can not avoid that
>>>>>>> an IGF
>>>>>>> recommendation is seen as something similar to what other Un bodies
>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>> doing with receommendations. Again I prefer the "message". BTW, I will
>>>>>>> circulate later this week the Interim Report of the Council of Europe
>>>>>>> Cross
>>>>>>> Border Expert Group where we propose also the elaboration of some
>>>>>>> instruments. The Council of Europe - or other organisations with an
>>>>>>> established procedure to negotiat texts - are a better place for such
>>>>>>> an excercise.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2. 6a: I thin SOC has an IGF Fellowship Programm.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 3. Under nine we could say that we ould like to see that the IGF
>>>>>>> enhances
>>>>>>> its function and could become, inter alia, an observatory, a
>>>>>>> clearinghouse,
>>>>>>> an early warning system and a watchdog.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sorry for the late reply. If it is too late then ignore it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Best wishes
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> wolfgang
>>>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Von: izumiaizu at gmail.com im Auftrag von Izumi AIZU
>>>>>>> Gesendet: Do 18.11.2010 03:13
>>>>>>> An: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>>>>> Betreff: [governance] Consensus Call for CSTD IGF Questionnaire -
>>>>>>> Clean
>>>>>>> version
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Here follows are the Clean version of the Final Draft for the CSTD IGF
>>>>>>> questionnaire answer
>>>>>>> in full text. Sorry for the confusion.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Please respond if you agree or disagree as soon as possible.  Friday,
>>>>>>> Nov
>>>>>>> 19
>>>>>>> is the deadline for submission. More comments are also very much
>>>>>>> appreciated
>>>>>>> as we can further feed them into the Consultation meetings next week
>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>> Geneva.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> izumi
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ------------
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> FINAL Draft for Questionnaire on improvements to the IGF
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1. What do you consider the most important achievements of the first
>>>>>>> five IGF meetings?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> IGF created the space for dialogue by all stakeholders in an open,
>>>>>>> inclusive manner. These emergence and development of the
>>>>>>> multistakeholder principle and practice are perhaps the biggest
>>>>>>> contribution IGF has achieved so far. It helped many participants to
>>>>>>> understand the issues of their interest, as well as to understand how
>>>>>>> other actors understand, act and accept their issues. Emergence of
>>>>>>> Regional and National IGF with multistakeholder approach is another
>>>>>>> achievement.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2. How satisfied are you with the delivery of the results of
>>>>>>> discussions at the IGF and the impact they have had on developments in
>>>>>>> national, regional or international Internet governance?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> IGF has made a reasonable advancement of the understanding of the
>>>>>>> issues. Yet, at national, regional and international levels, we have
>>>>>>> mixed assessment for the impact it brought.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 3. Which, if any, new mechanisms would you propose to improve the
>>>>>>> impact of the IGF discussions, in particular as regards the
>>>>>>> interaction between the IGF and other stakeholders? Please specify the
>>>>>>> kind of mechanism (e.g. reporting, exchanges, recommendations,
>>>>>>> concrete advice, etc.) and the stakeholders (e.g. intergovernmental
>>>>>>> bodies, other fora dealing with Internet Governance, etc.).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> a) One mechanism we can suggest is to come up with some form of
>>>>>>> recommendations where all stakeholders have [rough] consensus. They
>>>>>>> will not be binding, but could still function as model, reference or
>>>>>>> common framework. Working process towards achieving these rough
>>>>>>> consensus will create better and deeper understandings amongst
>>>>>>> different stakeholders.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> b) The Secretariat and MAG should be strongly encouraged to directly
>>>>>>> foster discussion and debate of difficult issues in main sessions,
>>>>>>> instead of avoiding them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 4. In your view, what important new issues or themes concerning
>>>>>>> Internet governance have emerged or become important since the Tunis
>>>>>>> phase of the Summit, which deserve more attention in the next five
>>>>>>> years?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> IGC feels that attention to the development agenda, issues concerning
>>>>>>> the marginalized groups or actors, have yet gained sufficient level of
>>>>>>> work at IGF and its outcome. These may not be the "new" issues, but we
>>>>>>> strongly feel they are very important.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Besides them, emergence of new technologies, tools and services, such
>>>>>>> as cloud computing; user-generated, SNS and online sharing services
>>>>>>> such as wiki, YouTube, Ustream, twitter and Facebook; DPI and
>>>>>>> behavioral targeting advertisements; wide deployment of mobile
>>>>>>> services including smart phones and tablet computers pose all kind of
>>>>>>> new challenges for governance.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 5. What do you think should be the priority themes and areas of work
>>>>>>> of the IGF during the next five years?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Followings will be the areas of themes and works that have priorities
>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>> think.
>>>>>>> a) Enhancing multi-stakeholder framework within IGF.
>>>>>>> b) Promote capacity building for developmental agenda of governance
>>>>>>> c) Balancing the interests - to empower those of marginalized and
>>>>>>> under-developed in all organizations and fora dealing with Internet
>>>>>>> governance - such as ICANN, W3C, IETF, RIRs, ITU, WIPO, CoE, OECD,
>>>>>>> UNCTAD/CSTD and United Nations itself.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 6. How can the capacity of those groups that are not yet well
>>>>>>> represented at the IGF be improved? In particular, what could be done
>>>>>>> to improve the capacity of representatives from developing countries?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> a) Establish special funding mechanism by IGF itself to help actors
>>>>>>> from developing countries to continuously engage in IGF and related
>>>>>>> organizations and meetings. Fellowship works carried out by
>>>>>>> DiploFoundation, dotAsia organization [other reference, please] and
>>>>>>> other institutions offer good reference for this, but they should be
>>>>>>> expanded in larger scale. Targeting youth groups or younger generation
>>>>>>> in profession, will have, in the long run, effective impact.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> b) Providing technical training to policy makers and policy training
>>>>>>> to engineers will also help close the gap(s) within the
>>>>>>> under-represented and also even well-represented.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 7. How do you think more awareness of Internet governance issues and
>>>>>>> the IGF process can be raised amongst groups whose lives are affected
>>>>>>> by Internet governance but who are not yet part of the IGF process?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> a) Giving more weight to regional and national IGF meetings, making
>>>>>>> more direct "links" to the main IGF meeting will help outreach to
>>>>>>> those who have not yet involved in IGF process. Securing the same
>>>>>>> level of working framework of IGF, such as multi-stakeholder
>>>>>>> composition and inclusion of civil society groups (where such practice
>>>>>>> is relatively new or scarce) should be maintained.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> b) Ensuring a plurality of civil society voices be heard in Internet
>>>>>>> governance processes will also be effective in reaching out to those
>>>>>>> yet to participate.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> c) Online meetings are most effective when provision is made for
>>>>>>> participation both synchronously (ie. in real time) and
>>>>>>> asynchronously. The remote hubs and moderators at the Vilnius IGF made
>>>>>>> good progress towards this direction. Using such tools as blogs,
>>>>>>> Twitter, mailing lists, Facebook and so on over an extended period may
>>>>>>> also increase the awareness.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> d) Organizing some sessions completely online will create "level
>>>>>>> playing field" among all participants, and may also demonstrate the
>>>>>>> effectiveness of these tools/technologies, and may also improve the
>>>>>>> quality of services in turn.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> e) Increase linguistic diversity. Using UN major languages other than
>>>>>>> English at certain meetings and occasions as main working language
>>>>>>> (translated into other UN languages) will increase the outreach to
>>>>>>> non-English speaking population of the globe and will give more sense
>>>>>>> of ownership. Currently, English is the only default working language,
>>>>>>> but we think it does not have to be so.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 8. How, if at all, do you think that the IGF process needs to change
>>>>>>> to meet changing circumstances and priorities?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As we replied to the MAG questionnaire, the organizing work of IGF
>>>>>>> primarily by MAG should be improved. More outcome oriented direction
>>>>>>> might improve the quality and value of IGF, but this should be
>>>>>>> carefully exercised so as not to lose the open and free spirit of IGF
>>>>>>> which contributed a great deal.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 9. Do you have any other comments?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> END
>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>>>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>>>>>>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>>>>>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>>>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>>>>>>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>>>>>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Katitza Rodriguez
>>>>>> International Rights Director
>>>>>> Electronic Frontier Foundation
>>>>>> katitza at eff.org
>>>>>> katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> speech since 1990
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> ------------------------------------------------------
>>> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org
>>> executive director
>>> association for progressive communications
>>> www.apc.org
>>
>> --
>>
>>
>> Ginger (Virginia) Paque
>> IGCBP Online Coordinator
>> DiploFoundation
>> www.diplomacy.edu/ig
>>
>> The latest from Diplo...
>> http://igbook.diplomacy.edu is the online companion to An Introduction to
>> Internet Governance, Diplo's publication on IG. Download the book, read the
>> blogs and post your comments.
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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


From b.schombe at gmail.com  Fri Nov 19 07:30:19 2010
From: b.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin SCHOMBE)
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 13:30:19 +0100
Subject: AW: [governance] Consensus Call for CSTD IGF Questionnaire -
In-Reply-To: <4CE66370.40506@itforchange.net>
References: <AANLkTinyo=oKJoJiz2wVHikpv7-nYBwgq+cf7p6qrj16@mail.gmail.com>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07448@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4CE66370.40506@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=sDZiaxeD6R0=vrZVpaHmHMJn_s_y=D=EbWBqg@mail.gmail.com>

I totally notice with your argument, Parminder, when you explain the need
for participation of developing countries in discussions to defend their
interests.
It is for this reason that I insisted on national and regional IGF before
world  IGF.
In this way, civil society can come to mobilize actors at both national and
regional levels through training workshops and multi-stakeholder forum on
issues of Internet governance.
This work must be done in synergy with the IGC, to convey the same
information while allowing the flexibility to respond to national and
express their views.


BAUDOUIN


2010/11/19 parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>

>
>
> On Thursday 18 November 2010 01:52 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
>
> Hi everybody
>
> thanks for the work. I am sorry that I jump in in a very late stage. I have three comments:
>
> 1. 3a: The old debate on receommendations is not really helpful. In the past CS tried also to use the terminology "messages".
>
>  Wolfgang
>
>  Global CS did never abandon the concept of recommendations in the IGF
> context, though at places 'messages' may also have been used.
> Recommendations (or 'recommend') is mentioned in the Tunis Agenda's mandate
> for the IGF and we seem to have largely supported it, in some form or the
> other.
>
>  The problem is as soon as you introduce a process to negotiate a text which then has been the subject of voting you change the nature of the the whole event. Even if you stress that these receommendations will be not binding, this does not matter. In the Un context (like in other intergovernmental mechanisms) the category "receommednation" is well defined and you can not avoid that an IGF recommendation is seen as something similar to what other Un bodies are doing with receommendations. Again I prefer the "message". BTW, I will circulate later this week the Interim Report of the Council of Europe Cross Border Expert Group where we propose also the elaboration of some instruments. The Council of Europe - or other organisations with an established procedure to negotiat texts - are a better place for such
> an excercise.
>
>
>  Sure, it may be a better place. But I or my country in not in the CoE
> (though CoE instruments finally do impact me). So which 'better place' do
> you think I can look upto? Can you please provide me an answer to this.
>
> I continue to be (unpleasantly) surprised at the manner in which the
> concerns of developing countries in terms of their non-participation in
> global policy making and the global shaping of the ICT pehnomenon is ignored
> so blatantly, in a group which wants to describe itself as a global civil
> society group.
>
> We may all glibly talk about development issues or IG for development. Pl
> take note that in the IGF plenary on IG for development the prime issue
> which came up was that IG for development first of all means due
> participation of developing countries in global IG related policy making
> (see the Chairman's summary). What does the IGC plan to do on this issue?
> Ask us to watch and cheer on CoE and OECD policy making processes?
>
> I can still understand the stand of someone like Milton (though I do not
> agree with it) who is a bit afraid of supporting new institutional
> development for democratic global policy making as coming out of the current
> 'core' UN configurations (which is why he is afraid of the enhanced
> cooperation or EC process), even as an positively evolutionary process
> (which is my considered expectation of the EC process). Because he does,
> correspondingly, support a more open, diverse, multistakeholder process like
> the IGF making some clear positive contributions towards development of
> global Internet policies through making policy recommendations.
>
> What I cant understand is the position of those who both oppose the EC
> process (in whichever evolutionary form) as well as oppose possibilities of
> the IGF making recommendations (I see Wolfgang, Katitza, Bill, Jeanette
> among others state that position). Moreover, they all seem to closely
> associate with OECD/ CoE policy making processes, which are in fact much
> less open, transparent, multistakeholder etc than even the 'enhanced
> cooperation' model which, for instance, I proposed and they strongly
> resisted.
>
> I am unable to understand why a comity of powerful nations needs specific
> well-structured systems of making inter-country policies (which then become
> default global ones) and all countires as a global group, which
> (unfortunately?)  include developing countries, should not aspire to any
> such structures. So, it appears, that while (global?) CS should
> enthusiastically support the former (CoE / OECD kind of process) it is
> presented as its bounden duty to strongly oppose any such - or in fact
> structurally even much better - institutional developments  at the global
> level.
>
> And I also do hope that the IGC members form developing countries both
> increase their participation in IGC kind of groups, and become more vocal in
> articulating their interests.
>
> parminder
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 2. 6a: I thin SOC has an IGF Fellowship Programm.
>
> 3. Under nine we could say that we ould like to see that the IGF enhances its function and could become, inter alia, an observatory, a clearinghouse, an early warning system and a watchdog.
>
> Sorry for the late reply. If it is too late then ignore it.
>
> Best wishes
>
> wolfgang
> ________________________________
>
> Von: izumiaizu at gmail.com im Auftrag von Izumi AIZU
> Gesendet: Do 18.11.2010 03:13
> An: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Betreff: [governance] Consensus Call for CSTD IGF Questionnaire - Clean version
>
>
>
> Here follows are the Clean version of the Final Draft for the CSTD IGF
> questionnaire answer
> in full text. Sorry for the confusion.
>
> Please respond if you agree or disagree as soon as possible.  Friday, Nov 19
> is the deadline for submission. More comments are also very much appreciated
> as we can further feed them into the Consultation meetings next week in Geneva.
>
> Thanks!
>
> izumi
>
> ------------
>
> FINAL Draft for Questionnaire on improvements to the IGF
>
> 1. What do you consider the most important achievements of the first
> five IGF meetings?
>
> IGF created the space for dialogue by all stakeholders in an open,
> inclusive manner. These emergence and development of the
> multistakeholder principle and practice are perhaps the biggest
> contribution IGF has achieved so far. It helped many participants to
> understand the issues of their interest, as well as to understand how
> other actors understand, act and accept their issues. Emergence of
> Regional and National IGF with multistakeholder approach is another
> achievement.
>
> 2. How satisfied are you with the delivery of the results of
> discussions at the IGF and the impact they have had on developments in
> national, regional or international Internet governance?
>
> IGF has made a reasonable advancement of the understanding of the
> issues. Yet, at national, regional and international levels, we have
> mixed assessment for the impact it brought.
>
> 3. Which, if any, new mechanisms would you propose to improve the
> impact of the IGF discussions, in particular as regards the
> interaction between the IGF and other stakeholders? Please specify the
> kind of mechanism (e.g. reporting, exchanges, recommendations,
> concrete advice, etc.) and the stakeholders (e.g. intergovernmental
> bodies, other fora dealing with Internet Governance, etc.).
>
> a) One mechanism we can suggest is to come up with some form of
> recommendations where all stakeholders have [rough] consensus. They
> will not be binding, but could still function as model, reference or
> common framework. Working process towards achieving these rough
> consensus will create better and deeper understandings amongst
> different stakeholders.
>
> b) The Secretariat and MAG should be strongly encouraged to directly
> foster discussion and debate of difficult issues in main sessions,
> instead of avoiding them.
>
> 4. In your view, what important new issues or themes concerning
> Internet governance have emerged or become important since the Tunis
> phase of the Summit, which deserve more attention in the next five
> years?
>
> IGC feels that attention to the development agenda, issues concerning
> the marginalized groups or actors, have yet gained sufficient level of
> work at IGF and its outcome. These may not be the "new" issues, but we
> strongly feel they are very important.
>
> Besides them, emergence of new technologies, tools and services, such
> as cloud computing; user-generated, SNS and online sharing services
> such as wiki, YouTube, Ustream, twitter and Facebook; DPI and
> behavioral targeting advertisements; wide deployment of mobile
> services including smart phones and tablet computers pose all kind of
> new challenges for governance.
>
>
> 5. What do you think should be the priority themes and areas of work
> of the IGF during the next five years?
>
> Followings will be the areas of themes and works that have priorities we think.
> a) Enhancing multi-stakeholder framework within IGF.
> b) Promote capacity building for developmental agenda of governance
> c) Balancing the interests - to empower those of marginalized and
> under-developed in all organizations and fora dealing with Internet
> governance - such as ICANN, W3C, IETF, RIRs, ITU, WIPO, CoE, OECD,
> UNCTAD/CSTD and United Nations itself.
>
> 6. How can the capacity of those groups that are not yet well
> represented at the IGF be improved? In particular, what could be done
> to improve the capacity of representatives from developing countries?
>
> a) Establish special funding mechanism by IGF itself to help actors
> from developing countries to continuously engage in IGF and related
> organizations and meetings. Fellowship works carried out by
> DiploFoundation, dotAsia organization [other reference, please] and
> other institutions offer good reference for this, but they should be
> expanded in larger scale. Targeting youth groups or younger generation
> in profession, will have, in the long run, effective impact.
>
> b) Providing technical training to policy makers and policy training
> to engineers will also help close the gap(s) within the
> under-represented and also even well-represented.
>
> 7. How do you think more awareness of Internet governance issues and
> the IGF process can be raised amongst groups whose lives are affected
> by Internet governance but who are not yet part of the IGF process?
>
> a) Giving more weight to regional and national IGF meetings, making
> more direct "links" to the main IGF meeting will help outreach to
> those who have not yet involved in IGF process. Securing the same
> level of working framework of IGF, such as multi-stakeholder
> composition and inclusion of civil society groups (where such practice
> is relatively new or scarce) should be maintained.
>
> b) Ensuring a plurality of civil society voices be heard in Internet
> governance processes will also be effective in reaching out to those
> yet to participate.
>
> c) Online meetings are most effective when provision is made for
> participation both synchronously (ie. in real time) and
> asynchronously. The remote hubs and moderators at the Vilnius IGF made
> good progress towards this direction. Using such tools as blogs,
> Twitter, mailing lists, Facebook and so on over an extended period may
> also increase the awareness.
>
> d) Organizing some sessions completely online will create "level
> playing field" among all participants, and may also demonstrate the
> effectiveness of these tools/technologies, and may also improve the
> quality of services in turn.
>
> e) Increase linguistic diversity. Using UN major languages other than
> English at certain meetings and occasions as main working language
> (translated into other UN languages) will increase the outreach to
> non-English speaking population of the globe and will give more sense
> of ownership. Currently, English is the only default working language,
> but we think it does not have to be so.
>
> 8. How, if at all, do you think that the IGF process needs to change
> to meet changing circumstances and priorities?
>
> As we replied to the MAG questionnaire, the organizing work of IGF
> primarily by MAG should be improved. More outcome oriented direction
> might improve the quality and value of IGF, but this should be
> carefully exercised so as not to lose the open and free spirit of IGF
> which contributed a great deal.
>
> 9. Do you have any other comments?
>
> No.
>
> END
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101119/9df363b8/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From anriette at apc.org  Fri Nov 19 07:31:30 2010
From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen)
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 14:31:30 +0200
Subject: [governance] Re: Geneva Sunday
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimZhcB4yEcyAiYF3BvQ+PD4ddE54hrTkXnKnCMT@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1E8653E0-927A-4C7C-B373-9E8D4D18BE58@graduateinstitute.ch> <AANLkTimZhcB4yEcyAiYF3BvQ+PD4ddE54hrTkXnKnCMT@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4CE66E22.9020302@apc.org>

I can be there.

Anriette



On 19/11/10 14:17, Izumi AIZU wrote:
> Dear Bill and all,
>
> Yes, I do plan to organize a meeting on Sunday, Nov 21 in Geneva
> At DiploFoundation office.
>
> Let's meet at 3 pm till say 6 pm max, with optional dinner.
>
> There are at least four or five of us to arrive on or before
> Sunday.
>
> As for Agenda, what is in my mind are:
> a) How to intervene at IGF Consultaiton mtg on Monday and also
> MAG mtg on Tuesdy when we cannot get in.
> b) how to intervene at CSTD mtg on Wednesday
> c) how to deal with Dec meetings: Dec 14, NYC by UNSESA on EC, and Dec
> 17, by CSTD on IGF in Geneva
> d) planning for IGC activities - Strategy, Work Plan and Outreach in
> mid- and long run
> e) AOB
>
> We will set up, at least Skype chat channel for remote participation.
>
> Please send us if you plan to participate - physically or remotely by return.
>
> best
>
> Izumi
>
>
>
> 2010/11/19, William Drake<william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch>:
>    
>> Hi Izumi
>>
>> Lost track of something in the mail mountains.  Do I recall correctly that
>> you wanted to organize a caucus meeting at Diplo on Sunday?  If so,
>>
>> *when?
>> *did you have an agenda in mind?
>> *do we know that there will be members in town by then who are planning to
>> attend?
>>
>> 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
>
>    

-- 
------------------------------------------------------
anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org
executive director
association for progressive communications
www.apc.org

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

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

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


From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de  Fri Nov 19 07:34:27 2010
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=)
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 13:34:27 +0100
Subject: SV: AW: [governance] Consensus Call for CSTD IGF Questionnaire -
References: <AANLkTinyo=oKJoJiz2wVHikpv7-nYBwgq+cf7p6qrj16@mail.gmail.com>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07448@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <4CE66370.40506@itforchange.net>
 <AANLkTim9sinx_z5nMe55hKoGPxp5OOvtz+mAkNQCf_ZR@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID:  <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0746A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

Hi Parminder
 
I understand your concerns and we have discussed this at length during the previous years. 
 
I fully support 100 percent involvement of developing countries into policy development and decision making with regard to the Internet. I am not in favour for exclusive rights of OECD or COE.
 
When I mentioned the COE as a "better place" my argument was that institutions which have a procedure in place for the negotiation of texts are better prepared to work on consensus language than an institution like the IGF which is a platform for innovative and creative discussion, or, as said in my article for the IGF book, it is primarily an observatory, a laboratory, a clearing house, a watchdog, a scout, a school and an early warning system and not a negotiation body. 
 
With regard to the Council of Europe (COE), where I chair the Cross Border Internet expert group (established in March this year) we have succesfully argued so far - also with the help of experts from non COE countries during the recent workshop at the IGF in Vilnjus - that a possible COE Declaration makes only sense as a global instrument which has to involve also countries like India, Brazil, China and many others. BTW, a lot of COE members are developing countries from Asia. Also Russia is a member of the COE. It has 47 member states much more than the 27 member states of the EU. 
 
When the COE offered the Cybercrime Convention in 2001 for global signature, a lot of states which are no members of the COE, joined. However some countries, like Brazil, rejected the concept because they were not involved in the making of the instrument. The COE has learned. What our small group will propose to the COE is that they should convene a "global" multistakeholder conference with high level governmental participation in April 2011 in Strasvbourg to identify ways how to move towards such an "Instrument". BTW we propose to be innovative also with the tilte. We will probably not propose to call it a "Declaration of Principles" but a "Framework of Commitments". Embedded into such a multistakeholder framework governments among themselves should work towards a more specific non-binding "Recommendation on Rights, Duties and Responsibilities of Government in the Cross Border Internet" which would specify the "respective roles" of governments, as called for in the Internet Governance definition, adopted by more than 150 heads of States and govenrments of the UN member states. And further embedded into this two layers governments can move forward to identify very concrete issues were a legally binding regulation is needed in form of a series of individual "Intergovernmental Internet Protocols". 
 
But all this is work in progress. We have just started. And we will start asking for public comment before the end of the year on the COE website. And the April 2011 conference will give us an opportunity to discuss very concretly what should be done in this field. Nothing is decided, nobody is excluded. We are just in the beginning of a process which has been triggered by the IGF and EC discussions of the last five years. 
 
Indeed one can argue that the IGF has inspired the CEO to put this on its agenda and to start doing something which is needed. The COE sees this as a "service for the global community" by putting human rights into the center. As you know the COE is based upon the European Human Rights convention and sees itself as a key player in the field of human rights. And it provides an environment where you can take a next step and make a substantial cotribution to enhance further communication, coordination and collaboration (EC3) in an "Enhanced cooperation mechanism for Internet Governance".      
 
Hope this brings us a little bit foreward.
 
best wishes
 
Wolfgang

________________________________

Fra: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com]
Sendt: fr 19-11-2010 13:02
Til: governance at lists.cpsr.org; parminder
Emne: Re: AW: [governance] Consensus Call for CSTD IGF Questionnaire -



Hi Parminder. Some of us dont think in terms of nation states as the
unit of Internet policy making, we think of networks and individuals
taking this role instead. At least, thats my position. Rgds, mctim

On 11/19/10, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>
>
> On Thursday 18 November 2010 01:52 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
>> Hi everybody
>>
>> thanks for the work. I am sorry that I jump in in a very late stage. I
>> have three comments:
>>
>> 1. 3a: The old debate on receommendations is not really helpful. In the
>> past CS tried also to use the terminology "messages".
> Wolfgang
>
>   Global CS did never abandon the concept of recommendations in the IGF
> context, though at places 'messages' may also have been used.
> Recommendations (or 'recommend') is mentioned in the Tunis Agenda's
> mandate for the IGF and we seem to have largely supported it, in some
> form or the other.
>>   The problem is as soon as you introduce a process to negotiate a text
>> which then has been the subject of voting you change the nature of the the
>> whole event. Even if you stress that these receommendations will be not
>> binding, this does not matter. In the Un context (like in other
>> intergovernmental mechanisms) the category "receommednation" is well
>> defined and you can not avoid that an IGF recommendation is seen as
>> something similar to what other Un bodies are doing with receommendations.
>> Again I prefer the "message". BTW, I will circulate later this week the
>> Interim Report of the Council of Europe Cross Border Expert Group where we
>> propose also the elaboration of some instruments. The Council of Europe -
>> or other organisations with an established procedure to negotiat texts -
>> are a better place for such
>> an excercise.
>>
> Sure, it may be a better place. But I or my country in not in the CoE
> (though CoE instruments finally do impact me). So which 'better place'
> do you think I can look upto? Can you please provide me an answer to this.
>
> I continue to be (unpleasantly) surprised at the manner in which the
> concerns of developing countries in terms of their non-participation in
> global policy making and the global shaping of the ICT pehnomenon is
> ignored so blatantly, in a group which wants to describe itself as a
> global civil society group.
>
> We may all glibly talk about development issues or IG for development.
> Pl take note that in the IGF plenary on IG for development the prime
> issue which came up was that IG for development first of all means due
> participation of developing countries in global IG related policy making
> (see the Chairman's summary). What does the IGC plan to do on this
> issue? Ask us to watch and cheer on CoE and OECD policy making processes?
>
> I can still understand the stand of someone like Milton (though I do not
> agree with it) who is a bit afraid of supporting new institutional
> development for democratic global policy making as coming out of the
> current 'core' UN configurations (which is why he is afraid of the
> enhanced cooperation or EC process), even as an positively evolutionary
> process (which is my considered expectation of the EC process). Because
> he does, correspondingly, support a more open, diverse, multistakeholder
> process like the IGF making some clear positive contributions towards
> development of global Internet policies through making policy
> recommendations.
>
> What I cant understand is the position of those who both oppose the EC
> process (in whichever evolutionary form) as well as oppose possibilities
> of the IGF making recommendations (I see Wolfgang, Katitza, Bill,
> Jeanette among others state that position). Moreover, they all seem to
> closely associate with OECD/ CoE policy making processes, which are in
> fact much less open, transparent, multistakeholder etc than even the
> 'enhanced cooperation' model which, for instance, I proposed and they
> strongly resisted.
>
> I am unable to understand why a comity of powerful nations needs
> specific well-structured systems of making inter-country policies (which
> then become default global ones) and all countires as a global group,
> which (unfortunately?)  include developing countries, should not aspire
> to any such structures. So, it appears, that while (global?) CS should
> enthusiastically support the former (CoE / OECD kind of process) it is
> presented as its bounden duty to strongly oppose any such - or in fact
> structurally even much better - institutional developments  at the
> global level.
>
> And I also do hope that the IGC members form developing countries both
> increase their participation in IGC kind of groups, and become more
> vocal in articulating their interests.
>
> parminder
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>> 2. 6a: I thin SOC has an IGF Fellowship Programm.
>>
>> 3. Under nine we could say that we ould like to see that the IGF enhances
>> its function and could become, inter alia, an observatory, a
>> clearinghouse, an early warning system and a watchdog.
>>
>> Sorry for the late reply. If it is too late then ignore it.
>>
>> Best wishes
>>
>> wolfgang
>> ________________________________
>>
>> Von: izumiaizu at gmail.com im Auftrag von Izumi AIZU
>> Gesendet: Do 18.11.2010 03:13
>> An: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> Betreff: [governance] Consensus Call for CSTD IGF Questionnaire - Clean
>> version
>>
>>
>>
>> Here follows are the Clean version of the Final Draft for the CSTD IGF
>> questionnaire answer
>> in full text. Sorry for the confusion.
>>
>> Please respond if you agree or disagree as soon as possible.  Friday, Nov
>> 19
>> is the deadline for submission. More comments are also very much
>> appreciated
>> as we can further feed them into the Consultation meetings next week in
>> Geneva.
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> izumi
>>
>> ------------
>>
>> FINAL Draft for Questionnaire on improvements to the IGF
>>
>> 1. What do you consider the most important achievements of the first
>> five IGF meetings?
>>
>> IGF created the space for dialogue by all stakeholders in an open,
>> inclusive manner. These emergence and development of the
>> multistakeholder principle and practice are perhaps the biggest
>> contribution IGF has achieved so far. It helped many participants to
>> understand the issues of their interest, as well as to understand how
>> other actors understand, act and accept their issues. Emergence of
>> Regional and National IGF with multistakeholder approach is another
>> achievement.
>>
>> 2. How satisfied are you with the delivery of the results of
>> discussions at the IGF and the impact they have had on developments in
>> national, regional or international Internet governance?
>>
>> IGF has made a reasonable advancement of the understanding of the
>> issues. Yet, at national, regional and international levels, we have
>> mixed assessment for the impact it brought.
>>
>> 3. Which, if any, new mechanisms would you propose to improve the
>> impact of the IGF discussions, in particular as regards the
>> interaction between the IGF and other stakeholders? Please specify the
>> kind of mechanism (e.g. reporting, exchanges, recommendations,
>> concrete advice, etc.) and the stakeholders (e.g. intergovernmental
>> bodies, other fora dealing with Internet Governance, etc.).
>>
>> a) One mechanism we can suggest is to come up with some form of
>> recommendations where all stakeholders have [rough] consensus. They
>> will not be binding, but could still function as model, reference or
>> common framework. Working process towards achieving these rough
>> consensus will create better and deeper understandings amongst
>> different stakeholders.
>>
>> b) The Secretariat and MAG should be strongly encouraged to directly
>> foster discussion and debate of difficult issues in main sessions,
>> instead of avoiding them.
>>
>> 4. In your view, what important new issues or themes concerning
>> Internet governance have emerged or become important since the Tunis
>> phase of the Summit, which deserve more attention in the next five
>> years?
>>
>> IGC feels that attention to the development agenda, issues concerning
>> the marginalized groups or actors, have yet gained sufficient level of
>> work at IGF and its outcome. These may not be the "new" issues, but we
>> strongly feel they are very important.
>>
>> Besides them, emergence of new technologies, tools and services, such
>> as cloud computing; user-generated, SNS and online sharing services
>> such as wiki, YouTube, Ustream, twitter and Facebook; DPI and
>> behavioral targeting advertisements; wide deployment of mobile
>> services including smart phones and tablet computers pose all kind of
>> new challenges for governance.
>>
>>
>> 5. What do you think should be the priority themes and areas of work
>> of the IGF during the next five years?
>>
>> Followings will be the areas of themes and works that have priorities we
>> think.
>> a) Enhancing multi-stakeholder framework within IGF.
>> b) Promote capacity building for developmental agenda of governance
>> c) Balancing the interests - to empower those of marginalized and
>> under-developed in all organizations and fora dealing with Internet
>> governance - such as ICANN, W3C, IETF, RIRs, ITU, WIPO, CoE, OECD,
>> UNCTAD/CSTD and United Nations itself.
>>
>> 6. How can the capacity of those groups that are not yet well
>> represented at the IGF be improved? In particular, what could be done
>> to improve the capacity of representatives from developing countries?
>>
>> a) Establish special funding mechanism by IGF itself to help actors
>> from developing countries to continuously engage in IGF and related
>> organizations and meetings. Fellowship works carried out by
>> DiploFoundation, dotAsia organization [other reference, please] and
>> other institutions offer good reference for this, but they should be
>> expanded in larger scale. Targeting youth groups or younger generation
>> in profession, will have, in the long run, effective impact.
>>
>> b) Providing technical training to policy makers and policy training
>> to engineers will also help close the gap(s) within the
>> under-represented and also even well-represented.
>>
>> 7. How do you think more awareness of Internet governance issues and
>> the IGF process can be raised amongst groups whose lives are affected
>> by Internet governance but who are not yet part of the IGF process?
>>
>> a) Giving more weight to regional and national IGF meetings, making
>> more direct "links" to the main IGF meeting will help outreach to
>> those who have not yet involved in IGF process. Securing the same
>> level of working framework of IGF, such as multi-stakeholder
>> composition and inclusion of civil society groups (where such practice
>> is relatively new or scarce) should be maintained.
>>
>> b) Ensuring a plurality of civil society voices be heard in Internet
>> governance processes will also be effective in reaching out to those
>> yet to participate.
>>
>> c) Online meetings are most effective when provision is made for
>> participation both synchronously (ie. in real time) and
>> asynchronously. The remote hubs and moderators at the Vilnius IGF made
>> good progress towards this direction. Using such tools as blogs,
>> Twitter, mailing lists, Facebook and so on over an extended period may
>> also increase the awareness.
>>
>> d) Organizing some sessions completely online will create "level
>> playing field" among all participants, and may also demonstrate the
>> effectiveness of these tools/technologies, and may also improve the
>> quality of services in turn.
>>
>> e) Increase linguistic diversity. Using UN major languages other than
>> English at certain meetings and occasions as main working language
>> (translated into other UN languages) will increase the outreach to
>> non-English speaking population of the globe and will give more sense
>> of ownership. Currently, English is the only default working language,
>> but we think it does not have to be so.
>>
>> 8. How, if at all, do you think that the IGF process needs to change
>> to meet changing circumstances and priorities?
>>
>> As we replied to the MAG questionnaire, the organizing work of IGF
>> primarily by MAG should be improved. More outcome oriented direction
>> might improve the quality and value of IGF, but this should be
>> carefully exercised so as not to lose the open and free spirit of IGF
>> which contributed a great deal.
>>
>> 9. Do you have any other comments?
>>
>> No.
>>
>> END
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>       governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>       governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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
>>
>>
>

--
Sent from my mobile device

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 parminder at itforchange.net  Fri Nov 19 07:37:21 2010
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 18:07:21 +0530
Subject: AW: [governance] Consensus Call for CSTD IGF Questionnaire -
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=sDZiaxeD6R0=vrZVpaHmHMJn_s_y=D=EbWBqg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTinyo=oKJoJiz2wVHikpv7-nYBwgq+cf7p6qrj16@mail.gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07448@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4CE66370.40506@itforchange.net> <AANLkTi=sDZiaxeD6R0=vrZVpaHmHMJn_s_y=D=EbWBqg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4CE66F81.8040404@itforchange.net>



On Friday 19 November 2010 06:00 PM, Baudouin SCHOMBE wrote:
> I totally notice with your argument, Parminder, when you explain the 
> need for participation of developing countries in discussions to 
> defend their interests.
> It is for this reason that I insisted on national and regional IGF 
> before world  IGF.
Yes, certainly. I agree.

I only want it to be ensured that these national and regional IGFs are 
legitimate, representative, with funds for diverse participation, 
especially of those who are from or represent marginalized groups.... 
Some private dominant groups - or processes basically led and driven by 
such dominant groups, with some smattering of co-optive 'inclusion' - 
may not simply self declare themselves as national or regional IGFs.. 
Parminder



> In this way, civil society can come to mobilize actors at both 
> national and regional levels through training workshops and 
> multi-stakeholder forum on issues of Internet governance.
> This work must be done in synergy with the IGC, to convey the same 
> information while allowing the flexibility to respond to national and 
> express their views.
>
>
> BAUDOUIN
>
>
> 2010/11/19 parminder <parminder at itforchange.net 
> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>>
>
>
>
>     On Thursday 18 November 2010 01:52 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"
>     wrote:
>>     Hi everybody
>>
>>     thanks for the work. I am sorry that I jump in in a very late stage. I have three comments:
>>
>>     1. 3a: The old debate on receommendations is not really helpful. In the past CS tried also to use the terminology "messages".
>     Wolfgang
>
>      Global CS did never abandon the concept of recommendations in the
>     IGF context, though at places 'messages' may also have been used.
>     Recommendations (or 'recommend') is mentioned in the Tunis
>     Agenda's mandate for the IGF and we seem to have largely supported
>     it, in some form or the other.
>>       The problem is as soon as you introduce a process to negotiate a text which then has been the subject of voting you change the nature of the the whole event. Even if you stress that these receommendations will be not binding, this does not matter. In the Un context (like in other intergovernmental mechanisms) the category "receommednation" is well defined and you can not avoid that an IGF recommendation is seen as something similar to what other Un bodies are doing with receommendations. Again I prefer the "message". BTW, I will circulate later this week the Interim Report of the Council of Europe Cross Border Expert Group where we propose also the elaboration of some instruments. The Council of Europe - or other organisations with an established procedure to negotiat texts - are a better place for such
>>     an excercise.
>>        
>     Sure, it may be a better place. But I or my country in not in the
>     CoE (though CoE instruments finally do impact me). So which
>     'better place' do you think I can look upto? Can you please
>     provide me an answer to this.
>
>     I continue to be (unpleasantly) surprised at the manner in which
>     the concerns of developing countries in terms of their
>     non-participation in global policy making and the global shaping
>     of the ICT pehnomenon is ignored so blatantly, in a group which
>     wants to describe itself as a global civil society group.
>
>     We may all glibly talk about development issues or IG for
>     development. Pl take note that in the IGF plenary on IG for
>     development the prime issue which came up was that IG for
>     development first of all means due participation of developing
>     countries in global IG related policy making (see the Chairman's
>     summary). What does the IGC plan to do on this issue? Ask us to
>     watch and cheer on CoE and OECD policy making processes?
>
>     I can still understand the stand of someone like Milton (though I
>     do not agree with it) who is a bit afraid of supporting new
>     institutional development for democratic global policy making as
>     coming out of the current 'core' UN configurations (which is why
>     he is afraid of the enhanced cooperation or EC process), even as
>     an positively evolutionary process (which is my considered
>     expectation of the EC process). Because he does, correspondingly,
>     support a more open, diverse, multistakeholder process like the
>     IGF making some clear positive contributions towards development
>     of global Internet policies through making policy recommendations.
>
>     What I cant understand is the position of those who both oppose
>     the EC process (in whichever evolutionary form) as well as oppose
>     possibilities of the IGF making recommendations (I see Wolfgang,
>     Katitza, Bill, Jeanette among others state that position).
>     Moreover, they all seem to closely associate with OECD/ CoE policy
>     making processes, which are in fact much less open, transparent,
>     multistakeholder etc than even the 'enhanced cooperation' model
>     which, for instance, I proposed and they strongly resisted.
>
>     I am unable to understand why a comity of powerful nations needs
>     specific well-structured systems of making inter-country policies
>     (which then become default global ones) and all countires as a
>     global group, which (unfortunately?)  include developing
>     countries, should not aspire to any such structures. So, it
>     appears, that while (global?) CS should enthusiastically support
>     the former (CoE / OECD kind of process) it is presented as its
>     bounden duty to strongly oppose any such - or in fact structurally
>     even much better - institutional developments  at the global level.
>
>     And I also do hope that the IGC members form developing countries
>     both increase their participation in IGC kind of groups, and
>     become more vocal in articulating their interests.
>
>     parminder
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>>     2. 6a: I thin SOC has an IGF Fellowship Programm.
>>
>>     3. Under nine we could say that we ould like to see that the IGF enhances its function and could become, inter alia, an observatory, a clearinghouse, an early warning system and a watchdog.
>>
>>     Sorry for the late reply. If it is too late then ignore it.
>>
>>     Best wishes
>>
>>     wolfgang
>>     ________________________________
>>
>>     Von:izumiaizu at gmail.com  <mailto:izumiaizu at gmail.com>  im Auftrag von Izumi AIZU
>>     Gesendet: Do 18.11.2010 03:13
>>     An:governance at lists.cpsr.org  <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>>     Betreff: [governance] Consensus Call for CSTD IGF Questionnaire - Clean version
>>
>>
>>
>>     Here follows are the Clean version of the Final Draft for the CSTD IGF
>>     questionnaire answer
>>     in full text. Sorry for the confusion.
>>
>>     Please respond if you agree or disagree as soon as possible.  Friday, Nov 19
>>     is the deadline for submission. More comments are also very much appreciated
>>     as we can further feed them into the Consultation meetings next week in Geneva.
>>
>>     Thanks!
>>
>>     izumi
>>
>>     ------------
>>
>>     FINAL Draft for Questionnaire on improvements to the IGF
>>
>>     1. What do you consider the most important achievements of the first
>>     five IGF meetings?
>>
>>     IGF created the space for dialogue by all stakeholders in an open,
>>     inclusive manner. These emergence and development of the
>>     multistakeholder principle and practice are perhaps the biggest
>>     contribution IGF has achieved so far. It helped many participants to
>>     understand the issues of their interest, as well as to understand how
>>     other actors understand, act and accept their issues. Emergence of
>>     Regional and National IGF with multistakeholder approach is another
>>     achievement.
>>
>>     2. How satisfied are you with the delivery of the results of
>>     discussions at the IGF and the impact they have had on developments in
>>     national, regional or international Internet governance?
>>
>>     IGF has made a reasonable advancement of the understanding of the
>>     issues. Yet, at national, regional and international levels, we have
>>     mixed assessment for the impact it brought.
>>
>>     3. Which, if any, new mechanisms would you propose to improve the
>>     impact of the IGF discussions, in particular as regards the
>>     interaction between the IGF and other stakeholders? Please specify the
>>     kind of mechanism (e.g. reporting, exchanges, recommendations,
>>     concrete advice, etc.) and the stakeholders (e.g. intergovernmental
>>     bodies, other fora dealing with Internet Governance, etc.).
>>
>>     a) One mechanism we can suggest is to come up with some form of
>>     recommendations where all stakeholders have [rough] consensus. They
>>     will not be binding, but could still function as model, reference or
>>     common framework. Working process towards achieving these rough
>>     consensus will create better and deeper understandings amongst
>>     different stakeholders.
>>
>>     b) The Secretariat and MAG should be strongly encouraged to directly
>>     foster discussion and debate of difficult issues in main sessions,
>>     instead of avoiding them.
>>
>>     4. In your view, what important new issues or themes concerning
>>     Internet governance have emerged or become important since the Tunis
>>     phase of the Summit, which deserve more attention in the next five
>>     years?
>>
>>     IGC feels that attention to the development agenda, issues concerning
>>     the marginalized groups or actors, have yet gained sufficient level of
>>     work at IGF and its outcome. These may not be the "new" issues, but we
>>     strongly feel they are very important.
>>
>>     Besides them, emergence of new technologies, tools and services, such
>>     as cloud computing; user-generated, SNS and online sharing services
>>     such as wiki, YouTube, Ustream, twitter and Facebook; DPI and
>>     behavioral targeting advertisements; wide deployment of mobile
>>     services including smart phones and tablet computers pose all kind of
>>     new challenges for governance.
>>
>>
>>     5. What do you think should be the priority themes and areas of work
>>     of the IGF during the next five years?
>>
>>     Followings will be the areas of themes and works that have priorities we think.
>>     a) Enhancing multi-stakeholder framework within IGF.
>>     b) Promote capacity building for developmental agenda of governance
>>     c) Balancing the interests - to empower those of marginalized and
>>     under-developed in all organizations and fora dealing with Internet
>>     governance - such as ICANN, W3C, IETF, RIRs, ITU, WIPO, CoE, OECD,
>>     UNCTAD/CSTD and United Nations itself.
>>
>>     6. How can the capacity of those groups that are not yet well
>>     represented at the IGF be improved? In particular, what could be done
>>     to improve the capacity of representatives from developing countries?
>>
>>     a) Establish special funding mechanism by IGF itself to help actors
>>     from developing countries to continuously engage in IGF and related
>>     organizations and meetings. Fellowship works carried out by
>>     DiploFoundation, dotAsia organization [other reference, please] and
>>     other institutions offer good reference for this, but they should be
>>     expanded in larger scale. Targeting youth groups or younger generation
>>     in profession, will have, in the long run, effective impact.
>>
>>     b) Providing technical training to policy makers and policy training
>>     to engineers will also help close the gap(s) within the
>>     under-represented and also even well-represented.
>>
>>     7. How do you think more awareness of Internet governance issues and
>>     the IGF process can be raised amongst groups whose lives are affected
>>     by Internet governance but who are not yet part of the IGF process?
>>
>>     a) Giving more weight to regional and national IGF meetings, making
>>     more direct "links" to the main IGF meeting will help outreach to
>>     those who have not yet involved in IGF process. Securing the same
>>     level of working framework of IGF, such as multi-stakeholder
>>     composition and inclusion of civil society groups (where such practice
>>     is relatively new or scarce) should be maintained.
>>
>>     b) Ensuring a plurality of civil society voices be heard in Internet
>>     governance processes will also be effective in reaching out to those
>>     yet to participate.
>>
>>     c) Online meetings are most effective when provision is made for
>>     participation both synchronously (ie. in real time) and
>>     asynchronously. The remote hubs and moderators at the Vilnius IGF made
>>     good progress towards this direction. Using such tools as blogs,
>>     Twitter, mailing lists, Facebook and so on over an extended period may
>>     also increase the awareness.
>>
>>     d) Organizing some sessions completely online will create "level
>>     playing field" among all participants, and may also demonstrate the
>>     effectiveness of these tools/technologies, and may also improve the
>>     quality of services in turn.
>>
>>     e) Increase linguistic diversity. Using UN major languages other than
>>     English at certain meetings and occasions as main working language
>>     (translated into other UN languages) will increase the outreach to
>>     non-English speaking population of the globe and will give more sense
>>     of ownership. Currently, English is the only default working language,
>>     but we think it does not have to be so.
>>
>>     8. How, if at all, do you think that the IGF process needs to change
>>     to meet changing circumstances and priorities?
>>
>>     As we replied to the MAG questionnaire, the organizing work of IGF
>>     primarily by MAG should be improved. More outcome oriented direction
>>     might improve the quality and value of IGF, but this should be
>>     carefully exercised so as not to lose the open and free spirit of IGF
>>     which contributed a great deal.
>>
>>     9. Do you have any other comments?
>>
>>     No.
>>
>>     END
>>     ____________________________________________________________
>>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>           governance at lists.cpsr.org  <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>>     To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>           governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org  <mailto:governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org>
>>
>>     For all list information and functions, see:
>>           http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>
>>     Translate this email:http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>>     ____________________________________________________________
>>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>           governance at lists.cpsr.org  <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>>     To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>           governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org  <mailto:governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org>
>>
>>     For all list information and functions, see:
>>           http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>
>>     Translate this email:http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>        
>
>     ____________________________________________________________
>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>     To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>     <mailto:governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org>
>
>     For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>     Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101119/25f36793/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch  Fri Nov 19 07:43:00 2010
From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake)
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 13:43:00 +0100
Subject: AW: [governance] Consensus Call for CSTD IGF Questionnaire -
In-Reply-To: <4CE66370.40506@itforchange.net>
References: <AANLkTinyo=oKJoJiz2wVHikpv7-nYBwgq+cf7p6qrj16@mail.gmail.com>  <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07448@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4CE66370.40506@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <6162C97B-18FA-4CE6-909E-9857762F7A4F@graduateinstitute.ch>


On Nov 19, 2010, at 12:45 PM, parminder wrote:

> What I cant understand is the position of those who both oppose the EC process (in whichever evolutionary form) as well as oppose possibilities of the IGF making recommendations (I see Wolfgang, Katitza, Bill, Jeanette among others state that position). Moreover, they all seem to closely associate with OECD/ CoE policy making processes, which are in fact much less open, transparent, multistakeholder etc than even the 'enhanced cooperation' model which, for instance, I proposed and they strongly resisted. 


Interesting.  But I have never said I oppose enhanced cooperation.  I have said I prefer recommendations from the IGF to recs of the IGF, which will not work.  I am not closely associated with the OECD.  I don't think it makes sense to advocate a Global Internet Council until someone can convincingly explain why it is needed, how it would operate, and why it would not end up being like what the caucus rejected during the WGIG period.


On Nov 19, 2010, at 12:49 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote:

> Yes from me too...let's see if we can reach a 'rough consensus' amongst ourselves at least.

I don't know who the selves in question are, but this needs to follow the procedures for consensus calls we agreed in the charter.

Cheers,

Bill
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101119/a3cf4701/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch  Fri Nov 19 07:51:13 2010
From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake)
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 13:51:13 +0100
Subject: [governance] Re: Geneva Sunday
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimZhcB4yEcyAiYF3BvQ+PD4ddE54hrTkXnKnCMT@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1E8653E0-927A-4C7C-B373-9E8D4D18BE58@graduateinstitute.ch> <AANLkTimZhcB4yEcyAiYF3BvQ+PD4ddE54hrTkXnKnCMT@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <0613CF7C-3865-4386-AC72-C664524C4BC2@graduateinstitute.ch>

Hi

On Nov 19, 2010, at 1:17 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote:

> Dear Bill and all,
> 
> Yes, I do plan to organize a meeting on Sunday, Nov 21 in Geneva
> At DiploFoundation office.
> 
> Let's meet at 3 pm till say 6 pm max, with optional dinner.
> 
> There are at least four or five of us to arrive on or before
> Sunday.
> 
> As for Agenda, what is in my mind are:
> a) How to intervene at IGF Consultaiton mtg on Monday and also
> MAG mtg on Tuesdy when we cannot get in.

Since we cannot get in, I wasn't planning to attend…You want to stand around outside their meeting room?

One alternative: Is anyone planning on going to the ITU's WSIS Forum open consultation, which is 14:30-18:00?  Given the Plenipot outcomes it might be interesting to see if engagement is possible…

And there's the EuroDIG meeting also at the same time..

> b) how to intervene at CSTD mtg on Wednesday
> c) how to deal with Dec meetings: Dec 14, NYC by UNSESA on EC, and Dec
> 17, by CSTD on IGF in Geneva
> d) planning for IGC activities - Strategy, Work Plan and Outreach in
> mid- and long run
> e) AOB
> 
> We will set up, at least Skype chat channel for remote participation.
> 
> Please send us if you plan to participate - physically or remotely by return.

Sure
> 
> best
> 
> Izumi
> 
> 
> 
> 2010/11/19, William Drake <william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch>:
>> Hi Izumi
>> 
>> Lost track of something in the mail mountains.  Do I recall correctly that
>> you wanted to organize a caucus meeting at Diplo on Sunday?  If so,
>> 
>> *when?
>> *did you have an agenda in mind?
>> *do we know that there will be members in town by then who are planning to
>> attend?
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> 
>> Bill
>> 
>> 

***********************************************************
William J. Drake
Senior Associate
Centre for International Governance
Graduate Institute of International and
 Development Studies
Geneva, Switzerland
william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch
www.williamdrake.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 dogwallah at gmail.com  Fri Nov 19 07:57:19 2010
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 15:57:19 +0300
Subject: AW: [governance] Consensus Call for CSTD IGF Questionnaire -
In-Reply-To: <6162C97B-18FA-4CE6-909E-9857762F7A4F@graduateinstitute.ch>
References: <AANLkTinyo=oKJoJiz2wVHikpv7-nYBwgq+cf7p6qrj16@mail.gmail.com>
	<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07448@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
	<4CE66370.40506@itforchange.net>
	<6162C97B-18FA-4CE6-909E-9857762F7A4F@graduateinstitute.ch>
Message-ID: <AANLkTinGKqJY=LVfumFexkFnDD0wYOYBws=QoLDDOPX4@mail.gmail.com>

i agree with bill on all points. Rgds, mctim

On 11/19/10, William Drake <william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch> wrote:
>
> On Nov 19, 2010, at 12:45 PM, parminder wrote:
>
>> What I cant understand is the position of those who both oppose the EC
>> process (in whichever evolutionary form) as well as oppose possibilities
>> of the IGF making recommendations (I see Wolfgang, Katitza, Bill, Jeanette
>> among others state that position). Moreover, they all seem to closely
>> associate with OECD/ CoE policy making processes, which are in fact much
>> less open, transparent, multistakeholder etc than even the 'enhanced
>> cooperation' model which, for instance, I proposed and they strongly
>> resisted.
>
>
> Interesting.  But I have never said I oppose enhanced cooperation.  I have
> said I prefer recommendations from the IGF to recs of the IGF, which will
> not work.  I am not closely associated with the OECD.  I don't think it
> makes sense to advocate a Global Internet Council until someone can
> convincingly explain why it is needed, how it would operate, and why it
> would not end up being like what the caucus rejected during the WGIG period.
>
>
> On Nov 19, 2010, at 12:49 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote:
>
>> Yes from me too...let's see if we can reach a 'rough consensus' amongst
>> ourselves at least.
>
> I don't know who the selves in question are, but this needs to follow the
> procedures for consensus calls we agreed in the charter.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Bill

-- 
Sent from my mobile device

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  Fri Nov 19 08:01:54 2010
From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa)
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 14:01:54 +0100
Subject: AW: [governance] Consensus Call for CSTD IGF Questionnaire -
In-Reply-To: <4CE669C9.2090003@itforchange.net>
References: <AANLkTinyo=oKJoJiz2wVHikpv7-nYBwgq+cf7p6qrj16@mail.gmail.com>
	<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07448@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
	<4CE66370.40506@itforchange.net>
	<AANLkTim9sinx_z5nMe55hKoGPxp5OOvtz+mAkNQCf_ZR@mail.gmail.com>
	<4CE669C9.2090003@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <AANLkTimmzZOxNpF9VnAQ+ORegC8a+zQExQRDX4LJv92K@mail.gmail.com>

I see the CoE to be a weaker form. I am yet to see how CoE's efforts
in the context of Internet Governance result in any concrete
result....


Best

-- Fouad

On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 1:12 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>
>
> On Friday 19 November 2010 05:32 PM, McTim wrote:
>
> Hi Parminder. Some of us dont think in terms of nation states as the
> unit of Internet policy making, we think of networks and individuals
> taking this role instead. At least, thats my position. Rgds, mctim
>
>
> Sure, McTim, for my present argument, i raise issues not with you but with
> those who do in fact consider OECD/ CoE countries pretty good 'unit of
> Internet policy making' and enthusiastically engage with these units, but
> pull away from more globally democratic structural possibilities. parminder
>
> On 11/19/10, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>
>
> On Thursday 18 November 2010 01:52 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
>
>
> Hi everybody
>
> thanks for the work. I am sorry that I jump in in a very late stage. I
> have three comments:
>
> 1. 3a: The old debate on receommendations is not really helpful. In the
> past CS tried also to use the terminology "messages".
>
>
> Wolfgang
>
>   Global CS did never abandon the concept of recommendations in the IGF
> context, though at places 'messages' may also have been used.
> Recommendations (or 'recommend') is mentioned in the Tunis Agenda's
> mandate for the IGF and we seem to have largely supported it, in some
> form or the other.
>
>
>   The problem is as soon as you introduce a process to negotiate a text
> which then has been the subject of voting you change the nature of the the
> whole event. Even if you stress that these receommendations will be not
> binding, this does not matter. In the Un context (like in other
> intergovernmental mechanisms) the category "receommednation" is well
> defined and you can not avoid that an IGF recommendation is seen as
> something similar to what other Un bodies are doing with receommendations.
> Again I prefer the "message". BTW, I will circulate later this week the
> Interim Report of the Council of Europe Cross Border Expert Group where we
> propose also the elaboration of some instruments. The Council of Europe -
> or other organisations with an established procedure to negotiat texts -
> are a better place for such
> an excercise.
>
>
>
> Sure, it may be a better place. But I or my country in not in the CoE
> (though CoE instruments finally do impact me). So which 'better place'
> do you think I can look upto? Can you please provide me an answer to this.
>
> I continue to be (unpleasantly) surprised at the manner in which the
> concerns of developing countries in terms of their non-participation in
> global policy making and the global shaping of the ICT pehnomenon is
> ignored so blatantly, in a group which wants to describe itself as a
> global civil society group.
>
> We may all glibly talk about development issues or IG for development.
> Pl take note that in the IGF plenary on IG for development the prime
> issue which came up was that IG for development first of all means due
> participation of developing countries in global IG related policy making
> (see the Chairman's summary). What does the IGC plan to do on this
> issue? Ask us to watch and cheer on CoE and OECD policy making processes?
>
> I can still understand the stand of someone like Milton (though I do not
> agree with it) who is a bit afraid of supporting new institutional
> development for democratic global policy making as coming out of the
> current 'core' UN configurations (which is why he is afraid of the
> enhanced cooperation or EC process), even as an positively evolutionary
> process (which is my considered expectation of the EC process). Because
> he does, correspondingly, support a more open, diverse, multistakeholder
> process like the IGF making some clear positive contributions towards
> development of global Internet policies through making policy
> recommendations.
>
> What I cant understand is the position of those who both oppose the EC
> process (in whichever evolutionary form) as well as oppose possibilities
> of the IGF making recommendations (I see Wolfgang, Katitza, Bill,
> Jeanette among others state that position). Moreover, they all seem to
> closely associate with OECD/ CoE policy making processes, which are in
> fact much less open, transparent, multistakeholder etc than even the
> 'enhanced cooperation' model which, for instance, I proposed and they
> strongly resisted.
>
> I am unable to understand why a comity of powerful nations needs
> specific well-structured systems of making inter-country policies (which
> then become default global ones) and all countires as a global group,
> which (unfortunately?)  include developing countries, should not aspire
> to any such structures. So, it appears, that while (global?) CS should
> enthusiastically support the former (CoE / OECD kind of process) it is
> presented as its bounden duty to strongly oppose any such - or in fact
> structurally even much better - institutional developments  at the
> global level.
>
> And I also do hope that the IGC members form developing countries both
> increase their participation in IGC kind of groups, and become more
> vocal in articulating their interests.
>
> parminder
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 2. 6a: I thin SOC has an IGF Fellowship Programm.
>
> 3. Under nine we could say that we ould like to see that the IGF enhances
> its function and could become, inter alia, an observatory, a
> clearinghouse, an early warning system and a watchdog.
>
> Sorry for the late reply. If it is too late then ignore it.
>
> Best wishes
>
> wolfgang
> ________________________________
>
> Von: izumiaizu at gmail.com im Auftrag von Izumi AIZU
> Gesendet: Do 18.11.2010 03:13
> An: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Betreff: [governance] Consensus Call for CSTD IGF Questionnaire - Clean
> version
>
>
>
> Here follows are the Clean version of the Final Draft for the CSTD IGF
> questionnaire answer
> in full text. Sorry for the confusion.
>
> Please respond if you agree or disagree as soon as possible.  Friday, Nov
> 19
> is the deadline for submission. More comments are also very much
> appreciated
> as we can further feed them into the Consultation meetings next week in
> Geneva.
>
> Thanks!
>
> izumi
>
> ------------
>
> FINAL Draft for Questionnaire on improvements to the IGF
>
> 1. What do you consider the most important achievements of the first
> five IGF meetings?
>
> IGF created the space for dialogue by all stakeholders in an open,
> inclusive manner. These emergence and development of the
> multistakeholder principle and practice are perhaps the biggest
> contribution IGF has achieved so far. It helped many participants to
> understand the issues of their interest, as well as to understand how
> other actors understand, act and accept their issues. Emergence of
> Regional and National IGF with multistakeholder approach is another
> achievement.
>
> 2. How satisfied are you with the delivery of the results of
> discussions at the IGF and the impact they have had on developments in
> national, regional or international Internet governance?
>
> IGF has made a reasonable advancement of the understanding of the
> issues. Yet, at national, regional and international levels, we have
> mixed assessment for the impact it brought.
>
> 3. Which, if any, new mechanisms would you propose to improve the
> impact of the IGF discussions, in particular as regards the
> interaction between the IGF and other stakeholders? Please specify the
> kind of mechanism (e.g. reporting, exchanges, recommendations,
> concrete advice, etc.) and the stakeholders (e.g. intergovernmental
> bodies, other fora dealing with Internet Governance, etc.).
>
> a) One mechanism we can suggest is to come up with some form of
> recommendations where all stakeholders have [rough] consensus. They
> will not be binding, but could still function as model, reference or
> common framework. Working process towards achieving these rough
> consensus will create better and deeper understandings amongst
> different stakeholders.
>
> b) The Secretariat and MAG should be strongly encouraged to directly
> foster discussion and debate of difficult issues in main sessions,
> instead of avoiding them.
>
> 4. In your view, what important new issues or themes concerning
> Internet governance have emerged or become important since the Tunis
> phase of the Summit, which deserve more attention in the next five
> years?
>
> IGC feels that attention to the development agenda, issues concerning
> the marginalized groups or actors, have yet gained sufficient level of
> work at IGF and its outcome. These may not be the "new" issues, but we
> strongly feel they are very important.
>
> Besides them, emergence of new technologies, tools and services, such
> as cloud computing; user-generated, SNS and online sharing services
> such as wiki, YouTube, Ustream, twitter and Facebook; DPI and
> behavioral targeting advertisements; wide deployment of mobile
> services including smart phones and tablet computers pose all kind of
> new challenges for governance.
>
>
> 5. What do you think should be the priority themes and areas of work
> of the IGF during the next five years?
>
> Followings will be the areas of themes and works that have priorities we
> think.
> a) Enhancing multi-stakeholder framework within IGF.
> b) Promote capacity building for developmental agenda of governance
> c) Balancing the interests - to empower those of marginalized and
> under-developed in all organizations and fora dealing with Internet
> governance - such as ICANN, W3C, IETF, RIRs, ITU, WIPO, CoE, OECD,
> UNCTAD/CSTD and United Nations itself.
>
> 6. How can the capacity of those groups that are not yet well
> represented at the IGF be improved? In particular, what could be done
> to improve the capacity of representatives from developing countries?
>
> a) Establish special funding mechanism by IGF itself to help actors
> from developing countries to continuously engage in IGF and related
> organizations and meetings. Fellowship works carried out by
> DiploFoundation, dotAsia organization [other reference, please] and
> other institutions offer good reference for this, but they should be
> expanded in larger scale. Targeting youth groups or younger generation
> in profession, will have, in the long run, effective impact.
>
> b) Providing technical training to policy makers and policy training
> to engineers will also help close the gap(s) within the
> under-represented and also even well-represented.
>
> 7. How do you think more awareness of Internet governance issues and
> the IGF process can be raised amongst groups whose lives are affected
> by Internet governance but who are not yet part of the IGF process?
>
> a) Giving more weight to regional and national IGF meetings, making
> more direct "links" to the main IGF meeting will help outreach to
> those who have not yet involved in IGF process. Securing the same
> level of working framework of IGF, such as multi-stakeholder
> composition and inclusion of civil society groups (where such practice
> is relatively new or scarce) should be maintained.
>
> b) Ensuring a plurality of civil society voices be heard in Internet
> governance processes will also be effective in reaching out to those
> yet to participate.
>
> c) Online meetings are most effective when provision is made for
> participation both synchronously (ie. in real time) and
> asynchronously. The remote hubs and moderators at the Vilnius IGF made
> good progress towards this direction. Using such tools as blogs,
> Twitter, mailing lists, Facebook and so on over an extended period may
> also increase the awareness.
>
> d) Organizing some sessions completely online will create "level
> playing field" among all participants, and may also demonstrate the
> effectiveness of these tools/technologies, and may also improve the
> quality of services in turn.
>
> e) Increase linguistic diversity. Using UN major languages other than
> English at certain meetings and occasions as main working language
> (translated into other UN languages) will increase the outreach to
> non-English speaking population of the globe and will give more sense
> of ownership. Currently, English is the only default working language,
> but we think it does not have to be so.
>
> 8. How, if at all, do you think that the IGF process needs to change
> to meet changing circumstances and priorities?
>
> As we replied to the MAG questionnaire, the organizing work of IGF
> primarily by MAG should be improved. More outcome oriented direction
> might improve the quality and value of IGF, but this should be
> carefully exercised so as not to lose the open and free spirit of IGF
> which contributed a great deal.
>
> 9. Do you have any other comments?
>
> No.
>
> END
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>       governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>       governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 graciela at nupef.org.br  Fri Nov 19 08:11:35 2010
From: graciela at nupef.org.br (Graciela)
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 11:11:35 -0200
Subject: [governance] Re: Geneva Sunday
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimZhcB4yEcyAiYF3BvQ+PD4ddE54hrTkXnKnCMT@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1E8653E0-927A-4C7C-B373-9E8D4D18BE58@graduateinstitute.ch> <AANLkTimZhcB4yEcyAiYF3BvQ+PD4ddE54hrTkXnKnCMT@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4CE67787.8040709@nupef.org.br>

Dear Izumi and all,

I plan to be there, although I may arrive a bit late - my flight arrives 
at 2 pm.

best,
Graciela

Em 11/19/10 10:17 AM, Izumi AIZU escreveu:
> Dear Bill and all,
>
> Yes, I do plan to organize a meeting on Sunday, Nov 21 in Geneva
> At DiploFoundation office.
>
> Let's meet at 3 pm till say 6 pm max, with optional dinner.
>
> There are at least four or five of us to arrive on or before
> Sunday.
>
> As for Agenda, what is in my mind are:
> a) How to intervene at IGF Consultaiton mtg on Monday and also
> MAG mtg on Tuesdy when we cannot get in.
> b) how to intervene at CSTD mtg on Wednesday
> c) how to deal with Dec meetings: Dec 14, NYC by UNSESA on EC, and Dec
> 17, by CSTD on IGF in Geneva
> d) planning for IGC activities - Strategy, Work Plan and Outreach in
> mid- and long run
> e) AOB
>
> We will set up, at least Skype chat channel for remote participation.
>
> Please send us if you plan to participate - physically or remotely by return.
>
> best
>
> Izumi
>
>
>
> 2010/11/19, William Drake<william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch>:
>> Hi Izumi
>>
>> Lost track of something in the mail mountains.  Do I recall correctly that
>> you wanted to organize a caucus meeting at Diplo on Sunday?  If so,
>>
>> *when?
>> *did you have an agenda in mind?
>> *do we know that there will be members in town by then who are planning to
>> attend?
>>
>> 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
>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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 Nov 19 08:11:23 2010
From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa)
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 14:11:23 +0100
Subject: AW: [governance] Consensus Call for CSTD IGF Questionnaire -
In-Reply-To: <6162C97B-18FA-4CE6-909E-9857762F7A4F@graduateinstitute.ch>
References: <AANLkTinyo=oKJoJiz2wVHikpv7-nYBwgq+cf7p6qrj16@mail.gmail.com>
	<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07448@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
	<4CE66370.40506@itforchange.net>
	<6162C97B-18FA-4CE6-909E-9857762F7A4F@graduateinstitute.ch>
Message-ID: <AANLkTinqB8sUCC3BTFDuTSKRwktgb2mB3792CcjQTxtm@mail.gmail.com>

I think the idea of a Global Internet Council would be a possible way
to counter the groups that are trying to weaken the IGF and stand
against the idea of some form of outcome from IGF such as simple
messages and/or recommendations. Yes it is true that we need to learn
more about how this can be constituted and moved forward and why is
there really a need to formulate another institution.

OECD and CoE may not be good examples in the IG and IGF context unless
we are lacking some think tank kind of approach in the overall
processes. I am unable to see how OECD and CoE may actually have any
direct influence on policy development amongst the member countries.
In fact, I see the Davos WEF to be gaining more interest by the OECD
elite to spend more money and pay membership fees and get global media
coverage and presence and infact it seems as fame, thinktankism and
policy influence getting a new form that may at some point in time
cross ahead than the OECD and CoE.

I haven't been comfortable with the continuous cross referencing and
examples of OECD and CoE. Like the networks and the neo-communities
that form the ecosystem of the Internet are totally a different form
of association and exchange than traditional forms of grouping,
interaction and action, I would say that a future Global Internet
Council should be formulated independent of these traditional ideas
and forms of thinktankism and policy influence. The world and medium
for governance is the Internet and thus the Internet and human
association on the Internet actually accumulate together to form the
possible means for its governance and this brings us to the very
initial paradox that how will and should the Internet be governed
without discussing what else goes on in the world.

I support enhanced cooperation but with a bit more sense and not
loosing what the caucus has originally believed in. The IGF is
weakening in its current form and certain groups are doing so on
purpose to have it in that state. The route of EC can be that one life
saving drug for the IGF.......or?


Fouad Bajwa

On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 1:43 PM, William Drake
<william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch> wrote:
>
> On Nov 19, 2010, at 12:45 PM, parminder wrote:
>
> What I cant understand is the position of those who both oppose the EC
> process (in whichever evolutionary form) as well as oppose possibilities of
> the IGF making recommendations (I see Wolfgang, Katitza, Bill, Jeanette
> among others state that position). Moreover, they all seem to closely
> associate with OECD/ CoE policy making processes, which are in fact much
> less open, transparent, multistakeholder etc than even the 'enhanced
> cooperation' model which, for instance, I proposed and they strongly
> resisted.
>
> Interesting.  But I have never said I oppose enhanced cooperation.  I have
> said I prefer recommendations from the IGF to recs of the IGF, which will
> not work.  I am not closely associated with the OECD.  I don't think it
> makes sense to advocate a Global Internet Council until someone can
> convincingly explain why it is needed, how it would operate, and why it
> would not end up being like what the caucus rejected during the WGIG period.
>
> On Nov 19, 2010, at 12:49 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote:
>
> Yes from me too...let's see if we can reach a 'rough consensus' amongst
> ourselves at least.
>
> I don't know who the selves in question are, but this needs to follow the
> procedures for consensus calls we agreed in the charter.
> Cheers,
> 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
>



-- 
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  Fri Nov 19 08:18:34 2010
From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah)
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 05:18:34 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [governance] Consensus Call for CSTD IGF Questionnaire - Clean
Message-ID: <177685.28570.qm@web33002.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

That mean you really feel the need of consensus (either to reach on the final statement of CS-IGC for CSTD IGF,
or to develop a common statement with higher weight.) 

IGF meetings foster the agenda for a common dialogue, but what are the final results? Do they have impact on all the communities to follow?
It brings many voices to be heard s at a single platform, but what we are missing, that is result oriented agenda, statement or decision. 
And outcomes should not be intangible. Focused, targeted, productive and broader impact, globally.

Regards

Imran

On Fri, 19 Nov 2010 16:49 PKT Lee W McKnight wrote:

>Yes from me too...let's see if we can reach a 'rough consensus' amongst ourselves at least.
>________________________________________
>From: Anriette Esterhuysen [anriette at apc.org]
>Sent: Friday, November 19, 2010 5:07 AM
>To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; parminder
>Subject: Re: [governance] Consensus Call for CSTD IGF Questionnaire - Clean
>
>Also yes from me.
>
>Anriette
>
>
>On 19/11/10 11:27, parminder wrote:
>I say 'yes'
>
>We can also specifically mention that we will closely follow the CSTD WG process and will keep coming up with other comments and suggestions. thanks. parminder
>
>On Friday 19 November 2010 07:41 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote:
>
>Dear list,
>
>Many thanks for the comments made despite the last-minute rush.
>
>I would like to urge all who have not replied to the call yet, to indicate
>if you support the FINAL DRAFT, yes or no, and in case, add
>your comments.
>
>As the deadline is approaching I will consult with Jeremy and
>make the final judgment based on the inputs from all.
>
>Thanks again,
>
>izumi
>
>
>2010/11/19 Katitza Rodriguez <katitza at eff.org><mailto:katitza at eff.org>:
>
>
>Dear all,
>
>My comments are in line with Wolfgang, Bill, and Miguel's comments.
>
>I have a few additional points to make:
>
>I disagree with the use of the word "rough consensus". It is a dangerous
>one. It can force bad policy outcomes, and creates a "trade off" situation.
>Something that some of us, from civil society would not agree  when it deals
>with fundamental human rights. For instance, you can get a good outcome
>incorporating on the text a provision on internet intermediaries limitation
>of liability but a bad outcome (eg. a data retention provision that compels
>ISPs and telcos to retain innocent citizens' Internet traffic data). There
>are many outcomes were "rough consensus" might bring an outcome that some of
>us will not compromise.
>
>"Messages from IGF" is a model that has been tested and work well in
>Eurodig. If the session is well structure, you can actually have a frank
>discussion, and understand not only those who points that you might agree
>but also where the boundaries are.
>
>At the last IGF, EFF and ISOC organized the workshop on the Future of
>Privacy. Based on that idea, we have recently released a report that try to
>identify the key messages that each speaker said. I found it quite useful as
>many of those statements are part of discussions that are being held in
>different spaces: national, regional, and international level.  Pls. see:
>https://www.eff.org/files/future-privacy.pdf
>
>EFF Discusses the Future of Internet Privacy at UN Internet Governance Forum
>https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/11/future-privacy-internet-governance-forum
>
>Many thanks,
>
>Katitza
>
>
>On 11/18/10 7:04 AM, Miguel Alcaine wrote:
>
>Dear all,
>
>I would suggest that:
>
>- for 3a, I will suggest "messages from the IGF" for the IGF meeting. I
>think, an IGF host with the assistance of the MAG and Secretariat could
>identify people from the organizers of a main session to draft the status of
>the discussion of the topic, either rough agreements or the different points
>of view of an important subject. After, the IGF host could prepare the whole
>message with the assistance of the Secretariat.
>
>Afterwards, the messages from the IGF could be used as a basis for
>mailing-list discussions as to identify the appropriate fora to present the
>message or to refine part of the message, but I will suggest such
>refinements to be Ad-hoc groups (open and voluntary) to take up messages,
>refine them and present them in other fora, but not in the IGF behalf. Such
>ad-hoc groups could only claim that they started their work based on X
>message from the IGF.
>
>I agree with Wolfang in avoiding recommendation and I will also suggest to
>get rid of "rough consensus" and rather apply the method described above.
>
>
>- for 6a. IGF Secretariat will not be able to dedicate funds from its
>current level of funding in its voluntary fund for the engagement of
>Developing country actors. Either we can insist in inviting or strenghtening
>the voluntary fund and dedicate the additional funds to the engagement of
>developing countries or we can invite governments or the UN SG to consider a
>small transfer from the UN regular budget to the aforementioned IGF
>voluntary fund and dedicate such funds for the engagement of developing
>countries. I am suggesting a transfer around US$200,000 annually.
>Independently of the source of the funds, they should serve to make
>sinergies with the actors already improving the engagement of developing
>countries.
>
>Best,
>
>Miguel
>
>2010/11/18 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"
><wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de><mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
>
>
>Hi everybody
>
>thanks for the work. I am sorry that I jump in in a very late stage. I
>have three comments:
>
>1. 3a: The old debate on receommendations is not really helpful. In the
>past CS tried also to use the terminology "messages". The problem is as soon
>as you introduce a process to negotiate a text which then has been the
>subject of voting you change the nature of the the whole event. Even if you
>stress that these receommendations will be not binding, this does not
>matter. In the Un context (like in other intergovernmental mechanisms) the
>category "receommednation" is well defined and you can not avoid that an IGF
>recommendation is seen as something similar to what other Un bodies are
>doing with receommendations. Again I prefer the "message". BTW, I will
>circulate later this week the Interim Report of the Council of Europe Cross
>Border Expert Group where we propose also the elaboration of some
>instruments. The Council of Europe - or other organisations with an
>established procedure to negotiat texts - are a better place for such
>an excercise.
>
>2. 6a: I thin SOC has an IGF Fellowship Programm.
>
>3. Under nine we could say that we ould like to see that the IGF enhances
>its function and could become, inter alia, an observatory, a clearinghouse,
>an early warning system and a watchdog.
>
>Sorry for the late reply. If it is too late then ignore it.
>
>Best wishes
>
>wolfgang
>________________________________
>
>Von: izumiaizu at gmail.com<mailto:izumiaizu at gmail.com> im Auftrag von Izumi AIZU
>Gesendet: Do 18.11.2010 03:13
>An: governance at lists.cpsr.org<mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>Betreff: [governance] Consensus Call for CSTD IGF Questionnaire - Clean
>version
>
>
>
>Here follows are the Clean version of the Final Draft for the CSTD IGF
>questionnaire answer
>in full text. Sorry for the confusion.
>
>Please respond if you agree or disagree as soon as possible.  Friday, Nov
>19
>is the deadline for submission. More comments are also very much
>appreciated
>as we can further feed them into the Consultation meetings next week in
>Geneva.
>
>Thanks!
>
>izumi
>
>------------
>
>FINAL Draft for Questionnaire on improvements to the IGF
>
>1. What do you consider the most important achievements of the first
>five IGF meetings?
>
>IGF created the space for dialogue by all stakeholders in an open,
>inclusive manner. These emergence and development of the
>multistakeholder principle and practice are perhaps the biggest
>contribution IGF has achieved so far. It helped many participants to
>understand the issues of their interest, as well as to understand how
>other actors understand, act and accept their issues. Emergence of
>Regional and National IGF with multistakeholder approach is another
>achievement.
>
>2. How satisfied are you with the delivery of the results of
>discussions at the IGF and the impact they have had on developments in
>national, regional or international Internet governance?
>
>IGF has made a reasonable advancement of the understanding of the
>issues. Yet, at national, regional and international levels, we have
>mixed assessment for the impact it brought.
>
>3. Which, if any, new mechanisms would you propose to improve the
>impact of the IGF discussions, in particular as regards the
>interaction between the IGF and other stakeholders? Please specify the
>kind of mechanism (e.g. reporting, exchanges, recommendations,
>concrete advice, etc.) and the stakeholders (e.g. intergovernmental
>bodies, other fora dealing with Internet Governance, etc.).
>
>a) One mechanism we can suggest is to come up with some form of
>recommendations where all stakeholders have [rough] consensus. They
>will not be binding, but could still function as model, reference or
>common framework. Working process towards achieving these rough
>consensus will create better and deeper understandings amongst
>different stakeholders.
>
>b) The Secretariat and MAG should be strongly encouraged to directly
>foster discussion and debate of difficult issues in main sessions,
>instead of avoiding them.
>
>4. In your view, what important new issues or themes concerning
>Internet governance have emerged or become important since the Tunis
>phase of the Summit, which deserve more attention in the next five
>years?
>
>IGC feels that attention to the development agenda, issues concerning
>the marginalized groups or actors, have yet gained sufficient level of
>work at IGF and its outcome. These may not be the "new" issues, but we
>strongly feel they are very important.
>
>Besides them, emergence of new technologies, tools and services, such
>as cloud computing; user-generated, SNS and online sharing services
>such as wiki, YouTube, Ustream, twitter and Facebook; DPI and
>behavioral targeting advertisements; wide deployment of mobile
>services including smart phones and tablet computers pose all kind of
>new challenges for governance.
>
>
>5. What do you think should be the priority themes and areas of work
>of the IGF during the next five years?
>
>Followings will be the areas of themes and works that have priorities we
>think.
>a) Enhancing multi-stakeholder framework within IGF.
>b) Promote capacity building for developmental agenda of governance
>c) Balancing the interests - to empower those of marginalized and
>under-developed in all organizations and fora dealing with Internet
>governance - such as ICANN, W3C, IETF, RIRs, ITU, WIPO, CoE, OECD,
>UNCTAD/CSTD and United Nations itself.
>
>6. How can the capacity of those groups that are not yet well
>represented at the IGF be improved? In particular, what could be done
>to improve the capacity of representatives from developing countries?
>
>a) Establish special funding mechanism by IGF itself to help actors
>from developing countries to continuously engage in IGF and related
>organizations and meetings. Fellowship works carried out by
>DiploFoundation, dotAsia organization [other reference, please] and
>other institutions offer good reference for this, but they should be
>expanded in larger scale. Targeting youth groups or younger generation
>in profession, will have, in the long run, effective impact.
>
>b) Providing technical training to policy makers and policy training
>to engineers will also help close the gap(s) within the
>under-represented and also even well-represented.
>
>7. How do you think more awareness of Internet governance issues and
>the IGF process can be raised amongst groups whose lives are affected
>by Internet governance but who are not yet part of the IGF process?
>
>a) Giving more weight to regional and national IGF meetings, making
>more direct "links" to the main IGF meeting will help outreach to
>those who have not yet involved in IGF process. Securing the same
>level of working framework of IGF, such as multi-stakeholder
>composition and inclusion of civil society groups (where such practice
>is relatively new or scarce) should be maintained.
>
>b) Ensuring a plurality of civil society voices be heard in Internet
>governance processes will also be effective in reaching out to those
>yet to participate.
>
>c) Online meetings are most effective when provision is made for
>participation both synchronously (ie. in real time) and
>asynchronously. The remote hubs and moderators at the Vilnius IGF made
>good progress towards this direction. Using such tools as blogs,
>Twitter, mailing lists, Facebook and so on over an extended period may
>also increase the awareness.
>
>d) Organizing some sessions completely online will create "level
>playing field" among all participants, and may also demonstrate the
>effectiveness of these tools/technologies, and may also improve the
>quality of services in turn.
>
>e) Increase linguistic diversity. Using UN major languages other than
>English at certain meetings and occasions as main working language
>(translated into other UN languages) will increase the outreach to
>non-English speaking population of the globe and will give more sense
>of ownership. Currently, English is the only default working language,
>but we think it does not have to be so.
>
>8. How, if at all, do you think that the IGF process needs to change
>to meet changing circumstances and priorities?
>
>As we replied to the MAG questionnaire, the organizing work of IGF
>primarily by MAG should be improved. More outcome oriented direction
>might improve the quality and value of IGF, but this should be
>carefully exercised so as not to lose the open and free spirit of IGF
>which contributed a great deal.
>
>9. Do you have any other comments?
>
>No.
>
>END
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>    governance at lists.cpsr.org<mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org<mailto:governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org>
>
>For all list information and functions, see:
>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>    governance at lists.cpsr.org<mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org<mailto:governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org>
>
>For all list information and functions, see:
>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>
>
>--
>Katitza Rodriguez
>International Rights Director
>Electronic Frontier Foundation
>katitza at eff.org<mailto:katitza at eff.org>
>katitza at datos-personales.org<mailto:katitza at datos-personales.org> (personal email)
>
>Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of
>speech since 1990
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>--
>------------------------------------------------------
>anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org<mailto:anriette at apc.org>
>executive director
>association for progressive communications
>www.apc.org<http://www.apc.org>
>
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
>For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From parminder at itforchange.net  Fri Nov 19 08:25:24 2010
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 18:55:24 +0530
Subject: SV: AW: [governance] Consensus Call for CSTD IGF Questionnaire
In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0746A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <AANLkTinyo=oKJoJiz2wVHikpv7-nYBwgq+cf7p6qrj16@mail.gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07448@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4CE66370.40506@itforchange.net> <AANLkTim9sinx_z5nMe55hKoGPxp5OOvtz+mAkNQCf_ZR@mail.gmail.com>  <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0746A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <4CE67AC4.3080003@itforchange.net>



On Friday 19 November 2010 06:04 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
> Hi Parminder
>
> I understand your concerns and we have discussed this at length during the previous years.
>    
Wolfgang, thanks for your responses.
>
> I fully support 100 percent involvement of developing countries into policy development and decision making with regard to the Internet. I am not in favour for exclusive rights of OECD or COE.
>    
Unfortunately, as I read your email below, it seems that we seem to 
means very different things when we speak of ' involvement of developing 
countries into policy development and decision making with regard to the 
Internet'. As I discuss below the modalities that you suggest are not at 
all democratic to me, and I wont want to be  a part of them. Neither, I 
assure you, will most civil society and other actors in developing 
countries will want to be part of them.
>
> When I mentioned the COE as a "better place" my argument was that institutions which have a procedure in place for the negotiation of texts are better prepared to work on consensus language than an institution like the IGF which is a platform for innovative and creative discussion, or, as said in my article for the IGF book, it is primarily an observatory, a laboratory, a clearing house, a watchdog, a scout, a school and an early warning system and not a negotiation body.
>    
In that case, you should support a UN anchored 'enhanced cooperation' 
process, right! But I did not see you support it.
>
> With regard to the Council of Europe (COE), where I chair the Cross Border Internet expert group (established in March this year) we have succesfully argued so far - also with the help of experts from non COE countries during the recent workshop at the IGF in Vilnjus - that a possible COE Declaration makes only sense as a global instrument which has to involve also countries like India, Brazil, China and many others.
Involve? The question is involve how? We dont accept any involvement 
other than which is equal. Think we all learnt our
lessons of democracy long ago.
> BTW, a lot of COE members are developing countries from Asia. Also Russia is a member of the COE. It has 47 member states much more than the 27 member states of the EU.
>    
I simply dont understand what are you trying to say here. How Russia 
being a member of CoE makes any difference to the argument of democratic 
aspirations of those outside the CoE.
>
> When the COE offered the Cybercrime Convention in 2001 for global signature, a lot of states which are no members of the COE, joined.

>   However some countries, like Brazil, rejected the concept because they were not involved in the making of the instrument.

it doest come from the merit of the content of the convention. A 
stronger and politically assertive country can refuse (but may be not 
for too long) and weaker or otherwise more suppliant ones may not be 
able to.
> The COE has learned. What our small group will propose to the COE is that they should convene a "global" multistakeholder conference with high level governmental participation in April 2011 in Strasvbourg to identify ways how to move towards such an "Instrument".
Things are becoming even more difficult for me to understand. Why should 
CoE convene such a conference abd not the UN .. which would directly be 
a possible suggestion for a possible modality to move forward on 
'enhanced cooperation' process. I am really perplexed. Would greatly 
appreciate a response to this. Why do you not support UN to convene a 
similar process?????
>   BTW we propose to be innovative also with the tilte. We will probably not propose to call it a "Declaration of Principles" but a "Framework of Commitments". Embedded into such a multistakeholder framework governments among themselves should work towards a more specific non-binding "Recommendation on Rights, Duties and Responsibilities of Government in the Cross Border Internet" which would specify the "respective roles" of governments, as called for in the Internet Governance definition, adopted by more than 150 heads of States and govenrments of the UN member states.
We seem to refer to 150 states and their declarations entirely when it 
is convenient . Why not let those guys do the rest of the work as well 
which you propose CoE govs do.

>   And further embedded into this two layers governments can move forward to identify very concrete issues were a legally binding regulation is needed in form of a series of individual "Intergovernmental Internet Protocols".
>    
No, i dont want this driven by CoE. How can we accept that CoE govs are 
good and the fully global group of govs not good. Why not take the 
oppurtunity of the WSIS (same 150 heads of states you spoke of so 
approvingly) mandated EC process to hold the meeting you propose and 
develop inter-gov Internet instruments you refer to.
>
> But all this is work in progress. We have just started. And we will start asking for public comment before the end of the year on the COE website. And the April 2011 conference will give us an opportunity to discuss very concretly what should be done in this field. Nothing is decided, nobody is excluded.
We dont understand the same thing by the term 'exclusion'. In fact very 
different things. No one I work with in India or other developing 
countries will consider this as 'non-exclusion'.
> We are just in the beginning of a process which has been triggered by the IGF and EC discussions of the last five years.
>
> Indeed one can argue that the IGF has inspired the CEO to put this on its agenda and to start doing something which is needed. The COE sees this as a "service for the global community" by putting human rights into the center.
Thanks very much . But I would rather have myself done service by 
institutions where i am democratically represented,
> As you know the COE is based upon the European Human Rights convention and sees itself as a key player in the field of human rights. And it provides an environment where you can take a next step and make a substantial cotribution to enhance further communication, coordination and collaboration (EC3) in an "Enhanced cooperation mechanism for Internet Governance".
>    
Dont understand it at all. But  overall am greatly disappointed by such 
an open advocacy of undemocratic global governance structures.
>
> Hope this brings us a little bit foreward.
>    
I very much want to take the dialogue forward. Would be happy to hear 
your views on my comments, even if you think them a bit provocative. I 
just only said what i really felt, in congruence with the general 
sentiment of the views and perspectives of the groups I work with. 
Thanks and regards.

parminder
>
> best wishes
>
> Wolfgang
>
> ________________________________
>
> Fra: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com]
> Sendt: fr 19-11-2010 13:02
> Til: governance at lists.cpsr.org; parminder
> Emne: Re: AW: [governance] Consensus Call for CSTD IGF Questionnaire -
>
>
>
> Hi Parminder. Some of us dont think in terms of nation states as the
> unit of Internet policy making, we think of networks and individuals
> taking this role instead. At least, thats my position. Rgds, mctim
>
> On 11/19/10, parminder<parminder at itforchange.net>  wrote:
>    
>>
>> On Thursday 18 November 2010 01:52 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
>>      
>>> Hi everybody
>>>
>>> thanks for the work. I am sorry that I jump in in a very late stage. I
>>> have three comments:
>>>
>>> 1. 3a: The old debate on receommendations is not really helpful. In the
>>> past CS tried also to use the terminology "messages".
>>>        
>> Wolfgang
>>
>>    Global CS did never abandon the concept of recommendations in the IGF
>> context, though at places 'messages' may also have been used.
>> Recommendations (or 'recommend') is mentioned in the Tunis Agenda's
>> mandate for the IGF and we seem to have largely supported it, in some
>> form or the other.
>>      
>>>    The problem is as soon as you introduce a process to negotiate a text
>>> which then has been the subject of voting you change the nature of the the
>>> whole event. Even if you stress that these receommendations will be not
>>> binding, this does not matter. In the Un context (like in other
>>> intergovernmental mechanisms) the category "receommednation" is well
>>> defined and you can not avoid that an IGF recommendation is seen as
>>> something similar to what other Un bodies are doing with receommendations.
>>> Again I prefer the "message". BTW, I will circulate later this week the
>>> Interim Report of the Council of Europe Cross Border Expert Group where we
>>> propose also the elaboration of some instruments. The Council of Europe -
>>> or other organisations with an established procedure to negotiat texts -
>>> are a better place for such
>>> an excercise.
>>>
>>>        
>> Sure, it may be a better place. But I or my country in not in the CoE
>> (though CoE instruments finally do impact me). So which 'better place'
>> do you think I can look upto? Can you please provide me an answer to this.
>>
>> I continue to be (unpleasantly) surprised at the manner in which the
>> concerns of developing countries in terms of their non-participation in
>> global policy making and the global shaping of the ICT pehnomenon is
>> ignored so blatantly, in a group which wants to describe itself as a
>> global civil society group.
>>
>> We may all glibly talk about development issues or IG for development.
>> Pl take note that in the IGF plenary on IG for development the prime
>> issue which came up was that IG for development first of all means due
>> participation of developing countries in global IG related policy making
>> (see the Chairman's summary). What does the IGC plan to do on this
>> issue? Ask us to watch and cheer on CoE and OECD policy making processes?
>>
>> I can still understand the stand of someone like Milton (though I do not
>> agree with it) who is a bit afraid of supporting new institutional
>> development for democratic global policy making as coming out of the
>> current 'core' UN configurations (which is why he is afraid of the
>> enhanced cooperation or EC process), even as an positively evolutionary
>> process (which is my considered expectation of the EC process). Because
>> he does, correspondingly, support a more open, diverse, multistakeholder
>> process like the IGF making some clear positive contributions towards
>> development of global Internet policies through making policy
>> recommendations.
>>
>> What I cant understand is the position of those who both oppose the EC
>> process (in whichever evolutionary form) as well as oppose possibilities
>> of the IGF making recommendations (I see Wolfgang, Katitza, Bill,
>> Jeanette among others state that position). Moreover, they all seem to
>> closely associate with OECD/ CoE policy making processes, which are in
>> fact much less open, transparent, multistakeholder etc than even the
>> 'enhanced cooperation' model which, for instance, I proposed and they
>> strongly resisted.
>>
>> I am unable to understand why a comity of powerful nations needs
>> specific well-structured systems of making inter-country policies (which
>> then become default global ones) and all countires as a global group,
>> which (unfortunately?)  include developing countries, should not aspire
>> to any such structures. So, it appears, that while (global?) CS should
>> enthusiastically support the former (CoE / OECD kind of process) it is
>> presented as its bounden duty to strongly oppose any such - or in fact
>> structurally even much better - institutional developments  at the
>> global level.
>>
>> And I also do hope that the IGC members form developing countries both
>> increase their participation in IGC kind of groups, and become more
>> vocal in articulating their interests.
>>
>> parminder
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>      
>>> 2. 6a: I thin SOC has an IGF Fellowship Programm.
>>>
>>> 3. Under nine we could say that we ould like to see that the IGF enhances
>>> its function and could become, inter alia, an observatory, a
>>> clearinghouse, an early warning system and a watchdog.
>>>
>>> Sorry for the late reply. If it is too late then ignore it.
>>>
>>> Best wishes
>>>
>>> wolfgang
>>> ________________________________
>>>
>>> Von: izumiaizu at gmail.com im Auftrag von Izumi AIZU
>>> Gesendet: Do 18.11.2010 03:13
>>> An: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>> Betreff: [governance] Consensus Call for CSTD IGF Questionnaire - Clean
>>> version
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Here follows are the Clean version of the Final Draft for the CSTD IGF
>>> questionnaire answer
>>> in full text. Sorry for the confusion.
>>>
>>> Please respond if you agree or disagree as soon as possible.  Friday, Nov
>>> 19
>>> is the deadline for submission. More comments are also very much
>>> appreciated
>>> as we can further feed them into the Consultation meetings next week in
>>> Geneva.
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>> izumi
>>>
>>> ------------
>>>
>>> FINAL Draft for Questionnaire on improvements to the IGF
>>>
>>> 1. What do you consider the most important achievements of the first
>>> five IGF meetings?
>>>
>>> IGF created the space for dialogue by all stakeholders in an open,
>>> inclusive manner. These emergence and development of the
>>> multistakeholder principle and practice are perhaps the biggest
>>> contribution IGF has achieved so far. It helped many participants to
>>> understand the issues of their interest, as well as to understand how
>>> other actors understand, act and accept their issues. Emergence of
>>> Regional and National IGF with multistakeholder approach is another
>>> achievement.
>>>
>>> 2. How satisfied are you with the delivery of the results of
>>> discussions at the IGF and the impact they have had on developments in
>>> national, regional or international Internet governance?
>>>
>>> IGF has made a reasonable advancement of the understanding of the
>>> issues. Yet, at national, regional and international levels, we have
>>> mixed assessment for the impact it brought.
>>>
>>> 3. Which, if any, new mechanisms would you propose to improve the
>>> impact of the IGF discussions, in particular as regards the
>>> interaction between the IGF and other stakeholders? Please specify the
>>> kind of mechanism (e.g. reporting, exchanges, recommendations,
>>> concrete advice, etc.) and the stakeholders (e.g. intergovernmental
>>> bodies, other fora dealing with Internet Governance, etc.).
>>>
>>> a) One mechanism we can suggest is to come up with some form of
>>> recommendations where all stakeholders have [rough] consensus. They
>>> will not be binding, but could still function as model, reference or
>>> common framework. Working process towards achieving these rough
>>> consensus will create better and deeper understandings amongst
>>> different stakeholders.
>>>
>>> b) The Secretariat and MAG should be strongly encouraged to directly
>>> foster discussion and debate of difficult issues in main sessions,
>>> instead of avoiding them.
>>>
>>> 4. In your view, what important new issues or themes concerning
>>> Internet governance have emerged or become important since the Tunis
>>> phase of the Summit, which deserve more attention in the next five
>>> years?
>>>
>>> IGC feels that attention to the development agenda, issues concerning
>>> the marginalized groups or actors, have yet gained sufficient level of
>>> work at IGF and its outcome. These may not be the "new" issues, but we
>>> strongly feel they are very important.
>>>
>>> Besides them, emergence of new technologies, tools and services, such
>>> as cloud computing; user-generated, SNS and online sharing services
>>> such as wiki, YouTube, Ustream, twitter and Facebook; DPI and
>>> behavioral targeting advertisements; wide deployment of mobile
>>> services including smart phones and tablet computers pose all kind of
>>> new challenges for governance.
>>>
>>>
>>> 5. What do you think should be the priority themes and areas of work
>>> of the IGF during the next five years?
>>>
>>> Followings will be the areas of themes and works that have priorities we
>>> think.
>>> a) Enhancing multi-stakeholder framework within IGF.
>>> b) Promote capacity building for developmental agenda of governance
>>> c) Balancing the interests - to empower those of marginalized and
>>> under-developed in all organizations and fora dealing with Internet
>>> governance - such as ICANN, W3C, IETF, RIRs, ITU, WIPO, CoE, OECD,
>>> UNCTAD/CSTD and United Nations itself.
>>>
>>> 6. How can the capacity of those groups that are not yet well
>>> represented at the IGF be improved? In particular, what could be done
>>> to improve the capacity of representatives from developing countries?
>>>
>>> a) Establish special funding mechanism by IGF itself to help actors
>>> from developing countries to continuously engage in IGF and related
>>> organizations and meetings. Fellowship works carried out by
>>> DiploFoundation, dotAsia organization [other reference, please] and
>>> other institutions offer good reference for this, but they should be
>>> expanded in larger scale. Targeting youth groups or younger generation
>>> in profession, will have, in the long run, effective impact.
>>>
>>> b) Providing technical training to policy makers and policy training
>>> to engineers will also help close the gap(s) within the
>>> under-represented and also even well-represented.
>>>
>>> 7. How do you think more awareness of Internet governance issues and
>>> the IGF process can be raised amongst groups whose lives are affected
>>> by Internet governance but who are not yet part of the IGF process?
>>>
>>> a) Giving more weight to regional and national IGF meetings, making
>>> more direct "links" to the main IGF meeting will help outreach to
>>> those who have not yet involved in IGF process. Securing the same
>>> level of working framework of IGF, such as multi-stakeholder
>>> composition and inclusion of civil society groups (where such practice
>>> is relatively new or scarce) should be maintained.
>>>
>>> b) Ensuring a plurality of civil society voices be heard in Internet
>>> governance processes will also be effective in reaching out to those
>>> yet to participate.
>>>
>>> c) Online meetings are most effective when provision is made for
>>> participation both synchronously (ie. in real time) and
>>> asynchronously. The remote hubs and moderators at the Vilnius IGF made
>>> good progress towards this direction. Using such tools as blogs,
>>> Twitter, mailing lists, Facebook and so on over an extended period may
>>> also increase the awareness.
>>>
>>> d) Organizing some sessions completely online will create "level
>>> playing field" among all participants, and may also demonstrate the
>>> effectiveness of these tools/technologies, and may also improve the
>>> quality of services in turn.
>>>
>>> e) Increase linguistic diversity. Using UN major languages other than
>>> English at certain meetings and occasions as main working language
>>> (translated into other UN languages) will increase the outreach to
>>> non-English speaking population of the globe and will give more sense
>>> of ownership. Currently, English is the only default working language,
>>> but we think it does not have to be so.
>>>
>>> 8. How, if at all, do you think that the IGF process needs to change
>>> to meet changing circumstances and priorities?
>>>
>>> As we replied to the MAG questionnaire, the organizing work of IGF
>>> primarily by MAG should be improved. More outcome oriented direction
>>> might improve the quality and value of IGF, but this should be
>>> carefully exercised so as not to lose the open and free spirit of IGF
>>> which contributed a great deal.
>>>
>>> 9. Do you have any other comments?
>>>
>>> No.
>>>
>>> END
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>        governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>>        governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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
>>>
>>>
>>>        
>>      
> --
> Sent from my mobile device
>
> 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
>    
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101119/75204242/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From fouadbajwa at gmail.com  Fri Nov 19 08:25:14 2010
From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa)
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 14:25:14 +0100
Subject: [governance] Consensus Call for CSTD IGF Questionnaire - Clean
In-Reply-To: <4CE6431A.8030303@itforchange.net>
References: <AANLkTinyo=oKJoJiz2wVHikpv7-nYBwgq+cf7p6qrj16@mail.gmail.com>
	<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07448@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
	<AANLkTi=DFTPVO36vapwBWxiYq7kDnFg=f9RexLpE7rZc@mail.gmail.com>
	<4CE5DAEE.8050103@eff.org>
	<AANLkTimUhwWk+owU1CLY4hvFYjnq_qz8OqgMVsfHXcdL@mail.gmail.com>
	<4CE6431A.8030303@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <AANLkTinvLexdTc4XDCuA_DmqJbDcjdrdFAdvAN-KEM6_@mail.gmail.com>

I would also like to add my yes and at the same time mention that we
have to a witness a great deal in the coming week here in Geneva at
the consultations, mag and cstd meetings......

best

Fouad Bajwa

On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 10:27 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
> I say 'yes'
>
> We can also specifically mention that we will closely follow the CSTD WG
> process and will keep coming up with other comments and suggestions. thanks.
> parminder
>
> On Friday 19 November 2010 07:41 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote:
>
> Dear list,
>
> Many thanks for the comments made despite the last-minute rush.
>
> I would like to urge all who have not replied to the call yet, to indicate
> if you support the FINAL DRAFT, yes or no, and in case, add
> your comments.
>
> As the deadline is approaching I will consult with Jeremy and
> make the final judgment based on the inputs from all.
>
> Thanks again,
>
> izumi
>
>
> 2010/11/19 Katitza Rodriguez <katitza at eff.org>:
>
>
> Dear all,
>
> My comments are in line with Wolfgang, Bill, and Miguel's comments.
>
> I have a few additional points to make:
>
> I disagree with the use of the word "rough consensus". It is a dangerous
> one. It can force bad policy outcomes, and creates a "trade off" situation.
> Something that some of us, from civil society would not agree  when it deals
> with fundamental human rights. For instance, you can get a good outcome
> incorporating on the text a provision on internet intermediaries limitation
> of liability but a bad outcome (eg. a data retention provision that compels
> ISPs and telcos to retain innocent citizens' Internet traffic data). There
> are many outcomes were "rough consensus" might bring an outcome that some of
> us will not compromise.
>
> "Messages from IGF" is a model that has been tested and work well in
> Eurodig. If the session is well structure, you can actually have a frank
> discussion, and understand not only those who points that you might agree
> but also where the boundaries are.
>
> At the last IGF, EFF and ISOC organized the workshop on the Future of
> Privacy. Based on that idea, we have recently released a report that try to
> identify the key messages that each speaker said. I found it quite useful as
> many of those statements are part of discussions that are being held in
> different spaces: national, regional, and international level.  Pls. see:
> https://www.eff.org/files/future-privacy.pdf
>
> EFF Discusses the Future of Internet Privacy at UN Internet Governance Forum
> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/11/future-privacy-internet-governance-forum
>
> Many thanks,
>
> Katitza
>
>
> On 11/18/10 7:04 AM, Miguel Alcaine wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
> I would suggest that:
>
> - for 3a, I will suggest "messages from the IGF" for the IGF meeting. I
> think, an IGF host with the assistance of the MAG and Secretariat could
> identify people from the organizers of a main session to draft the status of
> the discussion of the topic, either rough agreements or the different points
> of view of an important subject. After, the IGF host could prepare the whole
> message with the assistance of the Secretariat.
>
> Afterwards, the messages from the IGF could be used as a basis for
> mailing-list discussions as to identify the appropriate fora to present the
> message or to refine part of the message, but I will suggest such
> refinements to be Ad-hoc groups (open and voluntary) to take up messages,
> refine them and present them in other fora, but not in the IGF behalf. Such
> ad-hoc groups could only claim that they started their work based on X
> message from the IGF.
>
> I agree with Wolfang in avoiding recommendation and I will also suggest to
> get rid of "rough consensus" and rather apply the method described above.
>
>
> - for 6a. IGF Secretariat will not be able to dedicate funds from its
> current level of funding in its voluntary fund for the engagement of
> Developing country actors. Either we can insist in inviting or strenghtening
> the voluntary fund and dedicate the additional funds to the engagement of
> developing countries or we can invite governments or the UN SG to consider a
> small transfer from the UN regular budget to the aforementioned IGF
> voluntary fund and dedicate such funds for the engagement of developing
> countries. I am suggesting a transfer around US$200,000 annually.
> Independently of the source of the funds, they should serve to make
> sinergies with the actors already improving the engagement of developing
> countries.
>
> Best,
>
> Miguel
>
> 2010/11/18 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"
> <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
>
>
> Hi everybody
>
> thanks for the work. I am sorry that I jump in in a very late stage. I
> have three comments:
>
> 1. 3a: The old debate on receommendations is not really helpful. In the
> past CS tried also to use the terminology "messages". The problem is as soon
> as you introduce a process to negotiate a text which then has been the
> subject of voting you change the nature of the the whole event. Even if you
> stress that these receommendations will be not binding, this does not
> matter. In the Un context (like in other intergovernmental mechanisms) the
> category "receommednation" is well defined and you can not avoid that an IGF
> recommendation is seen as something similar to what other Un bodies are
> doing with receommendations. Again I prefer the "message". BTW, I will
> circulate later this week the Interim Report of the Council of Europe Cross
> Border Expert Group where we propose also the elaboration of some
> instruments. The Council of Europe - or other organisations with an
> established procedure to negotiat texts - are a better place for such
> an excercise.
>
> 2. 6a: I thin SOC has an IGF Fellowship Programm.
>
> 3. Under nine we could say that we ould like to see that the IGF enhances
> its function and could become, inter alia, an observatory, a clearinghouse,
> an early warning system and a watchdog.
>
> Sorry for the late reply. If it is too late then ignore it.
>
> Best wishes
>
> wolfgang
> ________________________________
>
> Von: izumiaizu at gmail.com im Auftrag von Izumi AIZU
> Gesendet: Do 18.11.2010 03:13
> An: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Betreff: [governance] Consensus Call for CSTD IGF Questionnaire - Clean
> version
>
>
>
> Here follows are the Clean version of the Final Draft for the CSTD IGF
> questionnaire answer
> in full text. Sorry for the confusion.
>
> Please respond if you agree or disagree as soon as possible.  Friday, Nov
> 19
> is the deadline for submission. More comments are also very much
> appreciated
> as we can further feed them into the Consultation meetings next week in
> Geneva.
>
> Thanks!
>
> izumi
>
> ------------
>
> FINAL Draft for Questionnaire on improvements to the IGF
>
> 1. What do you consider the most important achievements of the first
> five IGF meetings?
>
> IGF created the space for dialogue by all stakeholders in an open,
> inclusive manner. These emergence and development of the
> multistakeholder principle and practice are perhaps the biggest
> contribution IGF has achieved so far. It helped many participants to
> understand the issues of their interest, as well as to understand how
> other actors understand, act and accept their issues. Emergence of
> Regional and National IGF with multistakeholder approach is another
> achievement.
>
> 2. How satisfied are you with the delivery of the results of
> discussions at the IGF and the impact they have had on developments in
> national, regional or international Internet governance?
>
> IGF has made a reasonable advancement of the understanding of the
> issues. Yet, at national, regional and international levels, we have
> mixed assessment for the impact it brought.
>
> 3. Which, if any, new mechanisms would you propose to improve the
> impact of the IGF discussions, in particular as regards the
> interaction between the IGF and other stakeholders? Please specify the
> kind of mechanism (e.g. reporting, exchanges, recommendations,
> concrete advice, etc.) and the stakeholders (e.g. intergovernmental
> bodies, other fora dealing with Internet Governance, etc.).
>
> a) One mechanism we can suggest is to come up with some form of
> recommendations where all stakeholders have [rough] consensus. They
> will not be binding, but could still function as model, reference or
> common framework. Working process towards achieving these rough
> consensus will create better and deeper understandings amongst
> different stakeholders.
>
> b) The Secretariat and MAG should be strongly encouraged to directly
> foster discussion and debate of difficult issues in main sessions,
> instead of avoiding them.
>
> 4. In your view, what important new issues or themes concerning
> Internet governance have emerged or become important since the Tunis
> phase of the Summit, which deserve more attention in the next five
> years?
>
> IGC feels that attention to the development agenda, issues concerning
> the marginalized groups or actors, have yet gained sufficient level of
> work at IGF and its outcome. These may not be the "new" issues, but we
> strongly feel they are very important.
>
> Besides them, emergence of new technologies, tools and services, such
> as cloud computing; user-generated, SNS and online sharing services
> such as wiki, YouTube, Ustream, twitter and Facebook; DPI and
> behavioral targeting advertisements; wide deployment of mobile
> services including smart phones and tablet computers pose all kind of
> new challenges for governance.
>
>
> 5. What do you think should be the priority themes and areas of work
> of the IGF during the next five years?
>
> Followings will be the areas of themes and works that have priorities we
> think.
> a) Enhancing multi-stakeholder framework within IGF.
> b) Promote capacity building for developmental agenda of governance
> c) Balancing the interests - to empower those of marginalized and
> under-developed in all organizations and fora dealing with Internet
> governance - such as ICANN, W3C, IETF, RIRs, ITU, WIPO, CoE, OECD,
> UNCTAD/CSTD and United Nations itself.
>
> 6. How can the capacity of those groups that are not yet well
> represented at the IGF be improved? In particular, what could be done
> to improve the capacity of representatives from developing countries?
>
> a) Establish special funding mechanism by IGF itself to help actors
> from developing countries to continuously engage in IGF and related
> organizations and meetings. Fellowship works carried out by
> DiploFoundation, dotAsia organization [other reference, please] and
> other institutions offer good reference for this, but they should be
> expanded in larger scale. Targeting youth groups or younger generation
> in profession, will have, in the long run, effective impact.
>
> b) Providing technical training to policy makers and policy training
> to engineers will also help close the gap(s) within the
> under-represented and also even well-represented.
>
> 7. How do you think more awareness of Internet governance issues and
> the IGF process can be raised amongst groups whose lives are affected
> by Internet governance but who are not yet part of the IGF process?
>
> a) Giving more weight to regional and national IGF meetings, making
> more direct "links" to the main IGF meeting will help outreach to
> those who have not yet involved in IGF process. Securing the same
> level of working framework of IGF, such as multi-stakeholder
> composition and inclusion of civil society groups (where such practice
> is relatively new or scarce) should be maintained.
>
> b) Ensuring a plurality of civil society voices be heard in Internet
> governance processes will also be effective in reaching out to those
> yet to participate.
>
> c) Online meetings are most effective when provision is made for
> participation both synchronously (ie. in real time) and
> asynchronously. The remote hubs and moderators at the Vilnius IGF made
> good progress towards this direction. Using such tools as blogs,
> Twitter, mailing lists, Facebook and so on over an extended period may
> also increase the awareness.
>
> d) Organizing some sessions completely online will create "level
> playing field" among all participants, and may also demonstrate the
> effectiveness of these tools/technologies, and may also improve the
> quality of services in turn.
>
> e) Increase linguistic diversity. Using UN major languages other than
> English at certain meetings and occasions as main working language
> (translated into other UN languages) will increase the outreach to
> non-English speaking population of the globe and will give more sense
> of ownership. Currently, English is the only default working language,
> but we think it does not have to be so.
>
> 8. How, if at all, do you think that the IGF process needs to change
> to meet changing circumstances and priorities?
>
> As we replied to the MAG questionnaire, the organizing work of IGF
> primarily by MAG should be improved. More outcome oriented direction
> might improve the quality and value of IGF, but this should be
> carefully exercised so as not to lose the open and free spirit of IGF
> which contributed a great deal.
>
> 9. Do you have any other comments?
>
> No.
>
> END
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
> --
> Katitza Rodriguez
> International Rights Director
> Electronic Frontier Foundation
> katitza at eff.org
> katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email)
>
> Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of
> speech since 1990
>
>
>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From avri at psg.com  Fri Nov 19 08:26:37 2010
From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 14:26:37 +0100
Subject: AW: [governance] Consensus Call for CSTD IGF Questionnaire -
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=sDZiaxeD6R0=vrZVpaHmHMJn_s_y=D=EbWBqg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTinyo=oKJoJiz2wVHikpv7-nYBwgq+cf7p6qrj16@mail.gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07448@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4CE66370.40506@itforchange.net> <AANLkTi=sDZiaxeD6R0=vrZVpaHmHMJn_s_y=D=EbWBqg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7A412AD0-B27E-4CAA-B3A8-AA21B8AB8BF0@psg.com>

Hi,

This seems to make a lot of sense to me.

I also wonder, what did people think of the suggestion I made that developing nations also work through the regional intergovernmental organizations that their nations belong to, of which i believe there are scores e.g.:

African Union
ASEAN
D-8
SIDS
USAN
...

or  smaller groups like

CARICOM (The Caribbean Community)
Indian Ocean Commission
SAARC (South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation)
SADC (Southern African Development Community)
ECOWAS (Economic Community of Central African States)
ECLAC (Economic Commission of Latin America and Caribbean)


Wouldn't this complement the work being done in COE and OECD etc  and make sure that everyone was invovled and that the development perspective was heard and reinforced?  What am I missing?

a.



On 19 Nov 2010, at 13:30, Baudouin SCHOMBE wrote:

> I totally notice with your argument, Parminder, when you explain the need for participation of developing countries in discussions to defend their interests.
> It is for this reason that I insisted on national and regional IGF before world  IGF.
> In this way, civil society can come to mobilize actors at both national and regional levels through training workshops and multi-stakeholder forum on issues of Internet governance.
> This work must be done in synergy with the IGC, to convey the same information while allowing the flexibility to respond to national and express their views.
> 
> 
> BAUDOUIN
>  
> 
> 2010/11/19 parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
> 
> 
> On Thursday 18 November 2010 01:52 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
>> Hi everybody
>>  
>> thanks for the work. I am sorry that I jump in in a very late stage. I have three comments:
>>  
>> 1. 3a: The old debate on receommendations is not really helpful. In the past CS tried also to use the terminology "messages".
>> 
> Wolfgang
> 
>  Global CS did never abandon the concept of recommendations in the IGF context, though at places 'messages' may also have been used. Recommendations (or 'recommend') is mentioned in the Tunis Agenda's mandate for the IGF and we seem to have largely supported it, in some form or the other. 
>>  The problem is as soon as you introduce a process to negotiate a text which then has been the subject of voting you change the nature of the the whole event. Even if you stress that these receommendations will be not binding, this does not matter. In the Un context (like in other intergovernmental mechanisms) the category "receommednation" is well defined and you can not avoid that an IGF recommendation is seen as something similar to what other Un bodies are doing with receommendations. Again I prefer the "message". BTW, I will circulate later this week the Interim Report of the Council of Europe Cross Border Expert Group where we propose also the elaboration of some instruments. The Council of Europe - or other organisations with an established procedure to negotiat texts - are a better place for such 
>> an excercise. 
>>   
>> 
> Sure, it may be a better place. But I or my country in not in the CoE (though CoE instruments finally do impact me). So which 'better place' do you think I can look upto? Can you please provide me an answer to this. 
> 
> I continue to be (unpleasantly) surprised at the manner in which the concerns of developing countries in terms of their non-participation in global policy making and the global shaping of the ICT pehnomenon is ignored so blatantly, in a group which wants to describe itself as a global civil society group. 
> 
> We may all glibly talk about development issues or IG for development. Pl take note that in the IGF plenary on IG for development the prime issue which came up was that IG for development first of all means due participation of developing countries in global IG related policy making (see the Chairman's summary). What does the IGC plan to do on this issue? Ask us to watch and cheer on CoE and OECD policy making processes?
> 
> I can still understand the stand of someone like Milton (though I do not agree with it) who is a bit afraid of supporting new institutional development for democratic global policy making as coming out of the current 'core' UN configurations (which is why he is afraid of the enhanced cooperation or EC process), even as an positively evolutionary process (which is my considered expectation of the EC process). Because he does, correspondingly, support a more open, diverse, multistakeholder process like the IGF making some clear positive contributions towards development of global Internet policies through making policy recommendations. 
> 
> What I cant understand is the position of those who both oppose the EC process (in whichever evolutionary form) as well as oppose possibilities of the IGF making recommendations (I see Wolfgang, Katitza, Bill, Jeanette among others state that position). Moreover, they all seem to closely associate with OECD/ CoE policy making processes, which are in fact much less open, transparent, multistakeholder etc than even the 'enhanced cooperation' model which, for instance, I proposed and they strongly resisted. 
> 
> I am unable to understand why a comity of powerful nations needs specific well-structured systems of making inter-country policies (which then become default global ones) and all countires as a global group, which (unfortunately?)  include developing countries, should not aspire to any such structures. So, it appears, that while (global?) CS should enthusiastically support the former (CoE / OECD kind of process) it is presented as its bounden duty to strongly oppose any such - or in fact structurally even much better - institutional developments  at the global level.
> 
> And I also do hope that the IGC members form developing countries both increase their participation in IGC kind of groups, and become more vocal in articulating their interests. 
> 
> parminder 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>>  
>> 2. 6a: I thin SOC has an IGF Fellowship Programm.
>>  
>> 3. Under nine we could say that we ould like to see that the IGF enhances its function and could become, inter alia, an observatory, a clearinghouse, an early warning system and a watchdog.
>>  
>> Sorry for the late reply. If it is too late then ignore it.
>>  
>> Best wishes
>>  
>> wolfgang  
>> ________________________________
>> 
>> Von: 
>> izumiaizu at gmail.com
>>  im Auftrag von Izumi AIZU
>> Gesendet: Do 18.11.2010 03:13
>> An: 
>> governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> 
>> Betreff: [governance] Consensus Call for CSTD IGF Questionnaire - Clean version
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Here follows are the Clean version of the Final Draft for the CSTD IGF
>> questionnaire answer
>> in full text. Sorry for the confusion.
>> 
>> Please respond if you agree or disagree as soon as possible.  Friday, Nov 19
>> is the deadline for submission. More comments are also very much appreciated
>> as we can further feed them into the Consultation meetings next week in Geneva.
>> 
>> Thanks!
>> 
>> izumi
>> 
>> ------------
>> 
>> FINAL Draft for Questionnaire on improvements to the IGF
>> 
>> 1. What do you consider the most important achievements of the first
>> five IGF meetings?
>> 
>> IGF created the space for dialogue by all stakeholders in an open,
>> inclusive manner. These emergence and development of the
>> multistakeholder principle and practice are perhaps the biggest
>> contribution IGF has achieved so far. It helped many participants to
>> understand the issues of their interest, as well as to understand how
>> other actors understand, act and accept their issues. Emergence of
>> Regional and National IGF with multistakeholder approach is another
>> achievement.
>> 
>> 2. How satisfied are you with the delivery of the results of
>> discussions at the IGF and the impact they have had on developments in
>> national, regional or international Internet governance?
>> 
>> IGF has made a reasonable advancement of the understanding of the
>> issues. Yet, at national, regional and international levels, we have
>> mixed assessment for the impact it brought.
>> 
>> 3. Which, if any, new mechanisms would you propose to improve the
>> impact of the IGF discussions, in particular as regards the
>> interaction between the IGF and other stakeholders? Please specify the
>> kind of mechanism (e.g. reporting, exchanges, recommendations,
>> concrete advice, etc.) and the stakeholders (e.g. intergovernmental
>> bodies, other fora dealing with Internet Governance, etc.).
>> 
>> a) One mechanism we can suggest is to come up with some form of
>> recommendations where all stakeholders have [rough] consensus. They
>> will not be binding, but could still function as model, reference or
>> common framework. Working process towards achieving these rough
>> consensus will create better and deeper understandings amongst
>> different stakeholders.
>> 
>> b) The Secretariat and MAG should be strongly encouraged to directly
>> foster discussion and debate of difficult issues in main sessions,
>> instead of avoiding them.
>> 
>> 4. In your view, what important new issues or themes concerning
>> Internet governance have emerged or become important since the Tunis
>> phase of the Summit, which deserve more attention in the next five
>> years?
>> 
>> IGC feels that attention to the development agenda, issues concerning
>> the marginalized groups or actors, have yet gained sufficient level of
>> work at IGF and its outcome. These may not be the "new" issues, but we
>> strongly feel they are very important.
>> 
>> Besides them, emergence of new technologies, tools and services, such
>> as cloud computing; user-generated, SNS and online sharing services
>> such as wiki, YouTube, Ustream, twitter and Facebook; DPI and
>> behavioral targeting advertisements; wide deployment of mobile
>> services including smart phones and tablet computers pose all kind of
>> new challenges for governance.
>> 
>> 
>> 5. What do you think should be the priority themes and areas of work
>> of the IGF during the next five years?
>> 
>> Followings will be the areas of themes and works that have priorities we think.
>> a) Enhancing multi-stakeholder framework within IGF.
>> b) Promote capacity building for developmental agenda of governance
>> c) Balancing the interests - to empower those of marginalized and
>> under-developed in all organizations and fora dealing with Internet
>> governance - such as ICANN, W3C, IETF, RIRs, ITU, WIPO, CoE, OECD,
>> UNCTAD/CSTD and United Nations itself.
>> 
>> 6. How can the capacity of those groups that are not yet well
>> represented at the IGF be improved? In particular, what could be done
>> to improve the capacity of representatives from developing countries?
>> 
>> a) Establish special funding mechanism by IGF itself to help actors
>> from developing countries to continuously engage in IGF and related
>> organizations and meetings. Fellowship works carried out by
>> DiploFoundation, dotAsia organization [other reference, please] and
>> other institutions offer good reference for this, but they should be
>> expanded in larger scale. Targeting youth groups or younger generation
>> in profession, will have, in the long run, effective impact.
>> 
>> b) Providing technical training to policy makers and policy training
>> to engineers will also help close the gap(s) within the
>> under-represented and also even well-represented.
>> 
>> 7. How do you think more awareness of Internet governance issues and
>> the IGF process can be raised amongst groups whose lives are affected
>> by Internet governance but who are not yet part of the IGF process?
>> 
>> a) Giving more weight to regional and national IGF meetings, making
>> more direct "links" to the main IGF meeting will help outreach to
>> those who have not yet involved in IGF process. Securing the same
>> level of working framework of IGF, such as multi-stakeholder
>> composition and inclusion of civil society groups (where such practice
>> is relatively new or scarce) should be maintained.
>> 
>> b) Ensuring a plurality of civil society voices be heard in Internet
>> governance processes will also be effective in reaching out to those
>> yet to participate.
>> 
>> c) Online meetings are most effective when provision is made for
>> participation both synchronously (ie. in real time) and
>> asynchronously. The remote hubs and moderators at the Vilnius IGF made
>> good progress towards this direction. Using such tools as blogs,
>> Twitter, mailing lists, Facebook and so on over an extended period may
>> also increase the awareness.
>> 
>> d) Organizing some sessions completely online will create "level
>> playing field" among all participants, and may also demonstrate the
>> effectiveness of these tools/technologies, and may also improve the
>> quality of services in turn.
>> 
>> e) Increase linguistic diversity. Using UN major languages other than
>> English at certain meetings and occasions as main working language
>> (translated into other UN languages) will increase the outreach to
>> non-English speaking population of the globe and will give more sense
>> of ownership. Currently, English is the only default working language,
>> but we think it does not have to be so.
>> 
>> 8. How, if at all, do you think that the IGF process needs to change
>> to meet changing circumstances and priorities?
>> 
>> As we replied to the MAG questionnaire, the organizing work of IGF
>> primarily by MAG should be improved. More outcome oriented direction
>> might improve the quality and value of IGF, but this should be
>> carefully exercised so as not to lose the open and free spirit of IGF
>> which contributed a great deal.
>> 
>> 9. Do you have any other comments?
>> 
>> No.
>> 
>> END
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      
>> governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> 
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>      
>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>> 
>> 
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>      
>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> 
>> 
>> Translate this email: 
>> http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      
>> governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> 
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>      
>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>> 
>> 
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>      
>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> 
>> 
>> Translate this email: 
>> http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>> 
>> 
>>   
>> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

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

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

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

From b.schombe at gmail.com  Fri Nov 19 08:37:16 2010
From: b.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin SCHOMBE)
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 14:37:16 +0100
Subject: AW: [governance] Consensus Call for CSTD IGF Questionnaire -
In-Reply-To: <4CE66F81.8040404@itforchange.net>
References: <AANLkTinyo=oKJoJiz2wVHikpv7-nYBwgq+cf7p6qrj16@mail.gmail.com>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07448@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <4CE66370.40506@itforchange.net> <AANLkTi=sDZiaxeD6R0=vrZVpaHmHMJn_s_y=D=EbWBqg@mail.gmail.com>
 <4CE66F81.8040404@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <AANLkTimGFznj-YCZ923NrnWkxDyd4UYvD8T4S_JRVkCH@mail.gmail.com>

 Again I totally agree with you. It is in this context that national IGFs
must be carefully prepared to open the debate locally with strong
participation of multi stakeholders including agencies knew the United
Nations system in the country.
Écouter
Lire phonétiquement
It is an inescapable reality, and this is only my opinion, in most
developing countries, particularly in Africa, we are obliged to work with
the UN system that accompany the African governments in 90% of their
developement program.
Moreover, the implementation of its WSIS Action Lines proves sufficient.
The biggest difficulty we encounter is the non-appropriation of the Geneva
Action plan both the Tunis Agenda. What makes some countries there is still
no national ICT strategy or national ICT policy or even a blueprint.
At the stage where we are, it will require African countries to work closely
with regional organizations like the African Union, ADB etc. .., subregional
organizations such as ECOWAS, SADC, ECCAS ... just to name a few .
That is to say that African civil society still has much work to do both at
the national, subregional and regional levels.
Work in synergy  is strongly capital  with the Caucus Global Civil Society.

Baudouin




2010/11/19 parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>

>
>
> On Friday 19 November 2010 06:00 PM, Baudouin SCHOMBE wrote:
>
> I totally notice with your argument, Parminder, when you explain the need
> for participation of developing countries in discussions to defend their
> interests.
> It is for this reason that I insisted on national and regional IGF before
> world  IGF.
>
> Yes, certainly. I agree.
>
> I only want it to be ensured that these national and regional IGFs are
> legitimate, representative, with funds for diverse participation, especially
> of those who are from or represent marginalized groups.... Some private
> dominant groups - or processes basically led and driven by such dominant
> groups, with some smattering of co-optive 'inclusion' - may not simply self
> declare themselves as national or regional IGFs.. Parminder
>
>
>
> In this way, civil society can come to mobilize actors at both national and
> regional levels through training workshops and multi-stakeholder forum on
> issues of Internet governance.
> This work must be done in synergy with the IGC, to convey the same
> information while allowing the flexibility to respond to national and
> express their views.
>
>
> BAUDOUIN
>
>
> 2010/11/19 parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
>
>>
>>
>> On Thursday 18 November 2010 01:52 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
>>
>> Hi everybody
>>
>> thanks for the work. I am sorry that I jump in in a very late stage. I have three comments:
>>
>> 1. 3a: The old debate on receommendations is not really helpful. In the past CS tried also to use the terminology "messages".
>>
>>  Wolfgang
>>
>>  Global CS did never abandon the concept of recommendations in the IGF
>> context, though at places 'messages' may also have been used.
>> Recommendations (or 'recommend') is mentioned in the Tunis Agenda's mandate
>> for the IGF and we seem to have largely supported it, in some form or the
>> other.
>>
>>  The problem is as soon as you introduce a process to negotiate a text which then has been the subject of voting you change the nature of the the whole event. Even if you stress that these receommendations will be not binding, this does not matter. In the Un context (like in other intergovernmental mechanisms) the category "receommednation" is well defined and you can not avoid that an IGF recommendation is seen as something similar to what other Un bodies are doing with receommendations. Again I prefer the "message". BTW, I will circulate later this week the Interim Report of the Council of Europe Cross Border Expert Group where we propose also the elaboration of some instruments. The Council of Europe - or other organisations with an established procedure to negotiat texts - are a better place for such
>> an excercise.
>>
>>
>>  Sure, it may be a better place. But I or my country in not in the CoE
>> (though CoE instruments finally do impact me). So which 'better place' do
>> you think I can look upto? Can you please provide me an answer to this.
>>
>> I continue to be (unpleasantly) surprised at the manner in which the
>> concerns of developing countries in terms of their non-participation in
>> global policy making and the global shaping of the ICT pehnomenon is ignored
>> so blatantly, in a group which wants to describe itself as a global civil
>> society group.
>>
>> We may all glibly talk about development issues or IG for development. Pl
>> take note that in the IGF plenary on IG for development the prime issue
>> which came up was that IG for development first of all means due
>> participation of developing countries in global IG related policy making
>> (see the Chairman's summary). What does the IGC plan to do on this issue?
>> Ask us to watch and cheer on CoE and OECD policy making processes?
>>
>> I can still understand the stand of someone like Milton (though I do not
>> agree with it) who is a bit afraid of supporting new institutional
>> development for democratic global policy making as coming out of the current
>> 'core' UN configurations (which is why he is afraid of the enhanced
>> cooperation or EC process), even as an positively evolutionary process
>> (which is my considered expectation of the EC process). Because he does,
>> correspondingly, support a more open, diverse, multistakeholder process like
>> the IGF making some clear positive contributions towards development of
>> global Internet policies through making policy recommendations.
>>
>> What I cant understand is the position of those who both oppose the EC
>> process (in whichever evolutionary form) as well as oppose possibilities of
>> the IGF making recommendations (I see Wolfgang, Katitza, Bill, Jeanette
>> among others state that position). Moreover, they all seem to closely
>> associate with OECD/ CoE policy making processes, which are in fact much
>> less open, transparent, multistakeholder etc than even the 'enhanced
>> cooperation' model which, for instance, I proposed and they strongly
>> resisted.
>>
>> I am unable to understand why a comity of powerful nations needs specific
>> well-structured systems of making inter-country policies (which then become
>> default global ones) and all countires as a global group, which
>> (unfortunately?)  include developing countries, should not aspire to any
>> such structures. So, it appears, that while (global?) CS should
>> enthusiastically support the former (CoE / OECD kind of process) it is
>> presented as its bounden duty to strongly oppose any such - or in fact
>> structurally even much better - institutional developments  at the global
>> level.
>>
>> And I also do hope that the IGC members form developing countries both
>> increase their participation in IGC kind of groups, and become more vocal in
>> articulating their interests.
>>
>> parminder
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 2. 6a: I thin SOC has an IGF Fellowship Programm.
>>
>> 3. Under nine we could say that we ould like to see that the IGF enhances its function and could become, inter alia, an observatory, a clearinghouse, an early warning system and a watchdog.
>>
>> Sorry for the late reply. If it is too late then ignore it.
>>
>> Best wishes
>>
>> wolfgang
>> ________________________________
>>
>> Von: izumiaizu at gmail.com im Auftrag von Izumi AIZU
>> Gesendet: Do 18.11.2010 03:13
>> An: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> Betreff: [governance] Consensus Call for CSTD IGF Questionnaire - Clean version
>>
>>
>>
>> Here follows are the Clean version of the Final Draft for the CSTD IGF
>> questionnaire answer
>> in full text. Sorry for the confusion.
>>
>> Please respond if you agree or disagree as soon as possible.  Friday, Nov 19
>> is the deadline for submission. More comments are also very much appreciated
>> as we can further feed them into the Consultation meetings next week in Geneva.
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> izumi
>>
>> ------------
>>
>> FINAL Draft for Questionnaire on improvements to the IGF
>>
>> 1. What do you consider the most important achievements of the first
>> five IGF meetings?
>>
>> IGF created the space for dialogue by all stakeholders in an open,
>> inclusive manner. These emergence and development of the
>> multistakeholder principle and practice are perhaps the biggest
>> contribution IGF has achieved so far. It helped many participants to
>> understand the issues of their interest, as well as to understand how
>> other actors understand, act and accept their issues. Emergence of
>> Regional and National IGF with multistakeholder approach is another
>> achievement.
>>
>> 2. How satisfied are you with the delivery of the results of
>> discussions at the IGF and the impact they have had on developments in
>> national, regional or international Internet governance?
>>
>> IGF has made a reasonable advancement of the understanding of the
>> issues. Yet, at national, regional and international levels, we have
>> mixed assessment for the impact it brought.
>>
>> 3. Which, if any, new mechanisms would you propose to improve the
>> impact of the IGF discussions, in particular as regards the
>> interaction between the IGF and other stakeholders? Please specify the
>> kind of mechanism (e.g. reporting, exchanges, recommendations,
>> concrete advice, etc.) and the stakeholders (e.g. intergovernmental
>> bodies, other fora dealing with Internet Governance, etc.).
>>
>> a) One mechanism we can suggest is to come up with some form of
>> recommendations where all stakeholders have [rough] consensus. They
>> will not be binding, but could still function as model, reference or
>> common framework. Working process towards achieving these rough
>> consensus will create better and deeper understandings amongst
>> different stakeholders.
>>
>> b) The Secretariat and MAG should be strongly encouraged to directly
>> foster discussion and debate of difficult issues in main sessions,
>> instead of avoiding them.
>>
>> 4. In your view, what important new issues or themes concerning
>> Internet governance have emerged or become important since the Tunis
>> phase of the Summit, which deserve more attention in the next five
>> years?
>>
>> IGC feels that attention to the development agenda, issues concerning
>> the marginalized groups or actors, have yet gained sufficient level of
>> work at IGF and its outcome. These may not be the "new" issues, but we
>> strongly feel they are very important.
>>
>> Besides them, emergence of new technologies, tools and services, such
>> as cloud computing; user-generated, SNS and online sharing services
>> such as wiki, YouTube, Ustream, twitter and Facebook; DPI and
>> behavioral targeting advertisements; wide deployment of mobile
>> services including smart phones and tablet computers pose all kind of
>> new challenges for governance.
>>
>>
>> 5. What do you think should be the priority themes and areas of work
>> of the IGF during the next five years?
>>
>> Followings will be the areas of themes and works that have priorities we think.
>> a) Enhancing multi-stakeholder framework within IGF.
>> b) Promote capacity building for developmental agenda of governance
>> c) Balancing the interests - to empower those of marginalized and
>> under-developed in all organizations and fora dealing with Internet
>> governance - such as ICANN, W3C, IETF, RIRs, ITU, WIPO, CoE, OECD,
>> UNCTAD/CSTD and United Nations itself.
>>
>> 6. How can the capacity of those groups that are not yet well
>> represented at the IGF be improved? In particular, what could be done
>> to improve the capacity of representatives from developing countries?
>>
>> a) Establish special funding mechanism by IGF itself to help actors
>> from developing countries to continuously engage in IGF and related
>> organizations and meetings. Fellowship works carried out by
>> DiploFoundation, dotAsia organization [other reference, please] and
>> other institutions offer good reference for this, but they should be
>> expanded in larger scale. Targeting youth groups or younger generation
>> in profession, will have, in the long run, effective impact.
>>
>> b) Providing technical training to policy makers and policy training
>> to engineers will also help close the gap(s) within the
>> under-represented and also even well-represented.
>>
>> 7. How do you think more awareness of Internet governance issues and
>> the IGF process can be raised amongst groups whose lives are affected
>> by Internet governance but who are not yet part of the IGF process?
>>
>> a) Giving more weight to regional and national IGF meetings, making
>> more direct "links" to the main IGF meeting will help outreach to
>> those who have not yet involved in IGF process. Securing the same
>> level of working framework of IGF, such as multi-stakeholder
>> composition and inclusion of civil society groups (where such practice
>> is relatively new or scarce) should be maintained.
>>
>> b) Ensuring a plurality of civil society voices be heard in Internet
>> governance processes will also be effective in reaching out to those
>> yet to participate.
>>
>> c) Online meetings are most effective when provision is made for
>> participation both synchronously (ie. in real time) and
>> asynchronously. The remote hubs and moderators at the Vilnius IGF made
>> good progress towards this direction. Using such tools as blogs,
>> Twitter, mailing lists, Facebook and so on over an extended period may
>> also increase the awareness.
>>
>> d) Organizing some sessions completely online will create "level
>> playing field" among all participants, and may also demonstrate the
>> effectiveness of these tools/technologies, and may also improve the
>> quality of services in turn.
>>
>> e) Increase linguistic diversity. Using UN major languages other than
>> English at certain meetings and occasions as main working language
>> (translated into other UN languages) will increase the outreach to
>> non-English speaking population of the globe and will give more sense
>> of ownership. Currently, English is the only default working language,
>> but we think it does not have to be so.
>>
>> 8. How, if at all, do you think that the IGF process needs to change
>> to meet changing circumstances and priorities?
>>
>> As we replied to the MAG questionnaire, the organizing work of IGF
>> primarily by MAG should be improved. More outcome oriented direction
>> might improve the quality and value of IGF, but this should be
>> carefully exercised so as not to lose the open and free spirit of IGF
>> which contributed a great deal.
>>
>> 9. Do you have any other comments?
>>
>> No.
>>
>> END
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101119/b03661d7/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From iza at anr.org  Fri Nov 19 08:46:56 2010
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 22:46:56 +0900
Subject: [governance] Re: Geneva Sunday
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimZhcB4yEcyAiYF3BvQ+PD4ddE54hrTkXnKnCMT@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1E8653E0-927A-4C7C-B373-9E8D4D18BE58@graduateinstitute.ch> <AANLkTimZhcB4yEcyAiYF3BvQ+PD4ddE54hrTkXnKnCMT@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTinLbPSOhUYQzfzQ_ak6J7sO8=WeCRQWVe5cJfYX@mail.gmail.com>

Here is the address for DiploFoundation Geneva office

56, Rue de Lausanne
CH-1202 Geneva,
Phone: +41 22 741 0420

Looking forward to seeing all who could join the meeting,
both face to face and remote.

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

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

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


From iza at anr.org  Fri Nov 19 08:49:55 2010
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 22:49:55 +0900
Subject: [governance] Re: Geneva Sunday
In-Reply-To: <0613CF7C-3865-4386-AC72-C664524C4BC2@graduateinstitute.ch>
References: <1E8653E0-927A-4C7C-B373-9E8D4D18BE58@graduateinstitute.ch>
 <AANLkTimZhcB4yEcyAiYF3BvQ+PD4ddE54hrTkXnKnCMT@mail.gmail.com> <0613CF7C-3865-4386-AC72-C664524C4BC2@graduateinstitute.ch>
Message-ID: <AANLkTinRgA7vZqbHssP3K8kJ2TACBxJ9O+rdFusreX_8@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks Bill for the info.

Not knowing about the ITU meeting and EuroDIG meeting (what does it
stand for and is it open to participate). I was hoping that some of MAG
members could make online contact using, say Skype, to keep track of
the MAG meeting while we can hang around at Diplo office.

We can discuss these matters on Sunday and make the best use
of our time for Tuesday.

izumi

2010/11/19 William Drake <william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch>:
> Hi
>
> On Nov 19, 2010, at 1:17 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote:
>
>> Dear Bill and all,
>>
>> Yes, I do plan to organize a meeting on Sunday, Nov 21 in Geneva
>> At DiploFoundation office.
>>
>> Let's meet at 3 pm till say 6 pm max, with optional dinner.
>>
>> There are at least four or five of us to arrive on or before
>> Sunday.
>>
>> As for Agenda, what is in my mind are:
>> a) How to intervene at IGF Consultaiton mtg on Monday and also
>> MAG mtg on Tuesdy when we cannot get in.
>
> Since we cannot get in, I wasn't planning to attend…You want to stand around outside their meeting room?
>
> One alternative: Is anyone planning on going to the ITU's WSIS Forum open consultation, which is 14:30-18:00?  Given the Plenipot outcomes it might be interesting to see if engagement is possible…
>
> And there's the EuroDIG meeting also at the same time..
>
>> b) how to intervene at CSTD mtg on Wednesday
>> c) how to deal with Dec meetings: Dec 14, NYC by UNSESA on EC, and Dec
>> 17, by CSTD on IGF in Geneva
>> d) planning for IGC activities - Strategy, Work Plan and Outreach in
>> mid- and long run
>> e) AOB
>>
>> We will set up, at least Skype chat channel for remote participation.
>>
>> Please send us if you plan to participate - physically or remotely by return.
>
> Sure
>>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From roland at internetpolicyagency.com  Fri Nov 19 08:57:55 2010
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 13:57:55 +0000
Subject: [governance] Re: Geneva Sunday
In-Reply-To: <0613CF7C-3865-4386-AC72-C664524C4BC2@graduateinstitute.ch>
References: <1E8653E0-927A-4C7C-B373-9E8D4D18BE58@graduateinstitute.ch>
 <AANLkTimZhcB4yEcyAiYF3BvQ+PD4ddE54hrTkXnKnCMT@mail.gmail.com>
 <0613CF7C-3865-4386-AC72-C664524C4BC2@graduateinstitute.ch>
Message-ID: <$M7EnzHjJo5MFAUw@internetpolicyagency.com>

In message <0613CF7C-3865-4386-AC72-C664524C4BC2 at graduateinstitute.ch>, 
at 13:51:13 on Fri, 19 Nov 2010, William Drake 
<william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch> writes
>> a) How to intervene at IGF Consultaiton mtg on Monday and also
>> MAG mtg on Tuesdy when we cannot get in.
>
>Since we cannot get in, I wasn't planning to attend…You want to stand
>around outside their meeting room?

Depending on where it is, you might catch them in a coffee break, or 
over lunch.

>One alternative: Is anyone planning on going to the ITU's WSIS Forum
>open consultation, which is 14:30-18:00?

(14.30-17.30 it says here)

>Given the Plenipot outcomes
>it might be interesting to see if engagement is possible…

As "something has come up" I'm going to Geneva at short notice for 
Tuesday + Wednesday. Therefore I have applied, and been accepted, to the 
WSIS Forum meeting in my private capacity, so far so good.

>And there's the EuroDIG meeting also at the same time..

I know, and I only heard about that one yesterday - the day registration 
closed; but I put in my form immediately.

I'm not sure which one to go to, though :(
-- 
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 dogwallah at gmail.com  Fri Nov 19 09:12:21 2010
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 17:12:21 +0300
Subject: AW: [governance] Consensus Call for CSTD IGF Questionnaire -
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinqB8sUCC3BTFDuTSKRwktgb2mB3792CcjQTxtm@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTinyo=oKJoJiz2wVHikpv7-nYBwgq+cf7p6qrj16@mail.gmail.com>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07448@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <4CE66370.40506@itforchange.net> <6162C97B-18FA-4CE6-909E-9857762F7A4F@graduateinstitute.ch>
 <AANLkTinqB8sUCC3BTFDuTSKRwktgb2mB3792CcjQTxtm@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTimgiYSg+QWBX04ZZxBJR+7kUqpdcK-pSUuz5sns@mail.gmail.com>

All,

On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 4:11 PM, Fouad Bajwa <fouadbajwa at gmail.com> wrote:
> I think the idea of a Global Internet Council would be a possible way

to kill the goose that lays the Golden Eggs? that's the outcome I fear.


> to counter the groups that are trying to weaken the IGF

Can we name some names please? I know of no groups trying to weaken
the IGF, granted, I'm not that close to it, but if you name some
names, then we have a list to crosscheck against those who have
contributed financially to see if this allegation holds water.

> association on the Internet actually accumulate together to form the
> possible means for its governance and this brings us to the very
> initial paradox that how will and should the Internet be governed

It is my contention that the Internet SHOULD NOT be governed.  Instead
we have shared norms of how to behave online...like no top-posting (4
top posts in a row on this thread) and trimming our mails.  Can we get
back to polite netiquette please?


-- 
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 william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch  Fri Nov 19 09:16:02 2010
From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake)
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 15:16:02 +0100
Subject: [governance] Re: Geneva Sunday
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinRgA7vZqbHssP3K8kJ2TACBxJ9O+rdFusreX_8@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1E8653E0-927A-4C7C-B373-9E8D4D18BE58@graduateinstitute.ch> <AANLkTimZhcB4yEcyAiYF3BvQ+PD4ddE54hrTkXnKnCMT@mail.gmail.com> <0613CF7C-3865-4386-AC72-C664524C4BC2@graduateinstitute.ch> <AANLkTinRgA7vZqbHssP3K8kJ2TACBxJ9O+rdFusreX_8@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <A84B51EC-17C9-42C4-A35D-F6DC4CD38770@graduateinstitute.ch>

Hi

On Nov 19, 2010, at 2:49 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote:


> Thanks Bill for the info.
> 
> Not knowing about the ITU meeting

http://www.itu.int/wsis/implementation/2011/forum/pages/OC_ThematicAspects-StepTwo.html

> and EuroDIG meeting (what does it

http://www.eurodig.org/important/eurodig-planning-meeting-23-nov-2010

> stand for and is it open to participate). I was hoping that some of MAG
> members could make online contact using, say Skype, to keep track of
> the MAG meeting while we can hang around at Diplo office.

That's what we CS types do within the dreaded ICANN, except that it is easier because, e.g. GNSO Council and other meetings of interest are webcast, so people outside can listen in and engage in rapid Skype coordination with their reps.  (BTW that happened in GNSO because of us..).  If we can't hear the conversation, waiting for CS MAG people to send smoke signals might be rather tiring for all concerned.
> 
> We can discuss these matters on Sunday and make the best use
> of our time for Tuesday.

Happy travels

BD

> 
> izumi
> 
> 2010/11/19 William Drake <william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch>:
>> Hi
>> 
>> On Nov 19, 2010, at 1:17 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote:
>> 
>>> Dear Bill and all,
>>> 
>>> Yes, I do plan to organize a meeting on Sunday, Nov 21 in Geneva
>>> At DiploFoundation office.
>>> 
>>> Let's meet at 3 pm till say 6 pm max, with optional dinner.
>>> 
>>> There are at least four or five of us to arrive on or before
>>> Sunday.
>>> 
>>> As for Agenda, what is in my mind are:
>>> a) How to intervene at IGF Consultaiton mtg on Monday and also
>>> MAG mtg on Tuesdy when we cannot get in.
>> 
>> Since we cannot get in, I wasn't planning to attend…You want to stand around outside their meeting room?
>> 
>> One alternative: Is anyone planning on going to the ITU's WSIS Forum open consultation, which is 14:30-18:00?  Given the Plenipot outcomes it might be interesting to see if engagement is possible…
>> 
>> And there's the EuroDIG meeting also at the same time..
>> 
>>> b) how to intervene at CSTD mtg on Wednesday
>>> c) how to deal with Dec meetings: Dec 14, NYC by UNSESA on EC, and Dec
>>> 17, by CSTD on IGF in Geneva
>>> d) planning for IGC activities - Strategy, Work Plan and Outreach in
>>> mid- and long run
>>> e) AOB
>>> 
>>> We will set up, at least Skype chat channel for remote participation.
>>> 
>>> Please send us if you plan to participate - physically or remotely by return.
>> 
>> Sure
>>> 

***********************************************************
William J. Drake
Senior Associate
Centre for International Governance
Graduate Institute of International and
 Development Studies
Geneva, Switzerland
william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch
www.williamdrake.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 lmcknigh at syr.edu  Fri Nov 19 09:23:40 2010
From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight)
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 09:23:40 -0500
Subject: AW: [governance] Consensus Call for CSTD IGF Questionnaire -
In-Reply-To: <7A412AD0-B27E-4CAA-B3A8-AA21B8AB8BF0@psg.com>
References: <AANLkTinyo=oKJoJiz2wVHikpv7-nYBwgq+cf7p6qrj16@mail.gmail.com>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07448@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <4CE66370.40506@itforchange.net>
 <AANLkTi=sDZiaxeD6R0=vrZVpaHmHMJn_s_y=D=EbWBqg@mail.gmail.com>,<7A412AD0-B27E-4CAA-B3A8-AA21B8AB8BF0@psg.com>
Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006E70@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>

Avri,

Agreed re regional orgs.

In fact CARICOM has been involved in Caribbean igf-type meetings for years, pre-dating existence of 'the' IGF.

Along with CTU, ECTEL, and regional reps from ISOC and ICANN; and I expect similar is also already  taking place at other regional igf's. Maybe others can comment on that too.

Lee
________________________________________
From: Avri Doria [avri at psg.com]
Sent: Friday, November 19, 2010 8:26 AM
To: IGC
Subject: Re: AW: [governance] Consensus Call for CSTD IGF Questionnaire -

Hi,

This seems to make a lot of sense to me.

I also wonder, what did people think of the suggestion I made that developing nations also work through the regional intergovernmental organizations that their nations belong to, of which i believe there are scores e.g.:

African Union
ASEAN
D-8
SIDS
USAN
...

or  smaller groups like

CARICOM (The Caribbean Community)
Indian Ocean Commission
SAARC (South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation)
SADC (Southern African Development Community)
ECOWAS (Economic Community of Central African States)
ECLAC (Economic Commission of Latin America and Caribbean)


Wouldn't this complement the work being done in COE and OECD etc  and make sure that everyone was invovled and that the development perspective was heard and reinforced?  What am I missing?

a.



On 19 Nov 2010, at 13:30, Baudouin SCHOMBE wrote:

> I totally notice with your argument, Parminder, when you explain the need for participation of developing countries in discussions to defend their interests.
> It is for this reason that I insisted on national and regional IGF before world  IGF.
> In this way, civil society can come to mobilize actors at both national and regional levels through training workshops and multi-stakeholder forum on issues of Internet governance.
> This work must be done in synergy with the IGC, to convey the same information while allowing the flexibility to respond to national and express their views.
>
>
> BAUDOUIN
>
>
> 2010/11/19 parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
>
>
> On Thursday 18 November 2010 01:52 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
>> Hi everybody
>>
>> thanks for the work. I am sorry that I jump in in a very late stage. I have three comments:
>>
>> 1. 3a: The old debate on receommendations is not really helpful. In the past CS tried also to use the terminology "messages".
>>
> Wolfgang
>
>  Global CS did never abandon the concept of recommendations in the IGF context, though at places 'messages' may also have been used. Recommendations (or 'recommend') is mentioned in the Tunis Agenda's mandate for the IGF and we seem to have largely supported it, in some form or the other.
>>  The problem is as soon as you introduce a process to negotiate a text which then has been the subject of voting you change the nature of the the whole event. Even if you stress that these receommendations will be not binding, this does not matter. In the Un context (like in other intergovernmental mechanisms) the category "receommednation" is well defined and you can not avoid that an IGF recommendation is seen as something similar to what other Un bodies are doing with receommendations. Again I prefer the "message". BTW, I will circulate later this week the Interim Report of the Council of Europe Cross Border Expert Group where we propose also the elaboration of some instruments. The Council of Europe - or other organisations with an established procedure to negotiat texts - are a better place for such
>> an excercise.
>>
>>
> Sure, it may be a better place. But I or my country in not in the CoE (though CoE instruments finally do impact me). So which 'better place' do you think I can look upto? Can you please provide me an answer to this.
>
> I continue to be (unpleasantly) surprised at the manner in which the concerns of developing countries in terms of their non-participation in global policy making and the global shaping of the ICT pehnomenon is ignored so blatantly, in a group which wants to describe itself as a global civil society group.
>
> We may all glibly talk about development issues or IG for development. Pl take note that in the IGF plenary on IG for development the prime issue which came up was that IG for development first of all means due participation of developing countries in global IG related policy making (see the Chairman's summary). What does the IGC plan to do on this issue? Ask us to watch and cheer on CoE and OECD policy making processes?
>
> I can still understand the stand of someone like Milton (though I do not agree with it) who is a bit afraid of supporting new institutional development for democratic global policy making as coming out of the current 'core' UN configurations (which is why he is afraid of the enhanced cooperation or EC process), even as an positively evolutionary process (which is my considered expectation of the EC process). Because he does, correspondingly, support a more open, diverse, multistakeholder process like the IGF making some clear positive contributions towards development of global Internet policies through making policy recommendations.
>
> What I cant understand is the position of those who both oppose the EC process (in whichever evolutionary form) as well as oppose possibilities of the IGF making recommendations (I see Wolfgang, Katitza, Bill, Jeanette among others state that position). Moreover, they all seem to closely associate with OECD/ CoE policy making processes, which are in fact much less open, transparent, multistakeholder etc than even the 'enhanced cooperation' model which, for instance, I proposed and they strongly resisted.
>
> I am unable to understand why a comity of powerful nations needs specific well-structured systems of making inter-country policies (which then become default global ones) and all countires as a global group, which (unfortunately?)  include developing countries, should not aspire to any such structures. So, it appears, that while (global?) CS should enthusiastically support the former (CoE / OECD kind of process) it is presented as its bounden duty to strongly oppose any such - or in fact structurally even much better - institutional developments  at the global level.
>
> And I also do hope that the IGC members form developing countries both increase their participation in IGC kind of groups, and become more vocal in articulating their interests.
>
> parminder
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>> 2. 6a: I thin SOC has an IGF Fellowship Programm.
>>
>> 3. Under nine we could say that we ould like to see that the IGF enhances its function and could become, inter alia, an observatory, a clearinghouse, an early warning system and a watchdog.
>>
>> Sorry for the late reply. If it is too late then ignore it.
>>
>> Best wishes
>>
>> wolfgang
>> ________________________________
>>
>> Von:
>> izumiaizu at gmail.com
>>  im Auftrag von Izumi AIZU
>> Gesendet: Do 18.11.2010 03:13
>> An:
>> governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>> Betreff: [governance] Consensus Call for CSTD IGF Questionnaire - Clean version
>>
>>
>>
>> Here follows are the Clean version of the Final Draft for the CSTD IGF
>> questionnaire answer
>> in full text. Sorry for the confusion.
>>
>> Please respond if you agree or disagree as soon as possible.  Friday, Nov 19
>> is the deadline for submission. More comments are also very much appreciated
>> as we can further feed them into the Consultation meetings next week in Geneva.
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> izumi
>>
>> ------------
>>
>> FINAL Draft for Questionnaire on improvements to the IGF
>>
>> 1. What do you consider the most important achievements of the first
>> five IGF meetings?
>>
>> IGF created the space for dialogue by all stakeholders in an open,
>> inclusive manner. These emergence and development of the
>> multistakeholder principle and practice are perhaps the biggest
>> contribution IGF has achieved so far. It helped many participants to
>> understand the issues of their interest, as well as to understand how
>> other actors understand, act and accept their issues. Emergence of
>> Regional and National IGF with multistakeholder approach is another
>> achievement.
>>
>> 2. How satisfied are you with the delivery of the results of
>> discussions at the IGF and the impact they have had on developments in
>> national, regional or international Internet governance?
>>
>> IGF has made a reasonable advancement of the understanding of the
>> issues. Yet, at national, regional and international levels, we have
>> mixed assessment for the impact it brought.
>>
>> 3. Which, if any, new mechanisms would you propose to improve the
>> impact of the IGF discussions, in particular as regards the
>> interaction between the IGF and other stakeholders? Please specify the
>> kind of mechanism (e.g. reporting, exchanges, recommendations,
>> concrete advice, etc.) and the stakeholders (e.g. intergovernmental
>> bodies, other fora dealing with Internet Governance, etc.).
>>
>> a) One mechanism we can suggest is to come up with some form of
>> recommendations where all stakeholders have [rough] consensus. They
>> will not be binding, but could still function as model, reference or
>> common framework. Working process towards achieving these rough
>> consensus will create better and deeper understandings amongst
>> different stakeholders.
>>
>> b) The Secretariat and MAG should be strongly encouraged to directly
>> foster discussion and debate of difficult issues in main sessions,
>> instead of avoiding them.
>>
>> 4. In your view, what important new issues or themes concerning
>> Internet governance have emerged or become important since the Tunis
>> phase of the Summit, which deserve more attention in the next five
>> years?
>>
>> IGC feels that attention to the development agenda, issues concerning
>> the marginalized groups or actors, have yet gained sufficient level of
>> work at IGF and its outcome. These may not be the "new" issues, but we
>> strongly feel they are very important.
>>
>> Besides them, emergence of new technologies, tools and services, such
>> as cloud computing; user-generated, SNS and online sharing services
>> such as wiki, YouTube, Ustream, twitter and Facebook; DPI and
>> behavioral targeting advertisements; wide deployment of mobile
>> services including smart phones and tablet computers pose all kind of
>> new challenges for governance.
>>
>>
>> 5. What do you think should be the priority themes and areas of work
>> of the IGF during the next five years?
>>
>> Followings will be the areas of themes and works that have priorities we think.
>> a) Enhancing multi-stakeholder framework within IGF.
>> b) Promote capacity building for developmental agenda of governance
>> c) Balancing the interests - to empower those of marginalized and
>> under-developed in all organizations and fora dealing with Internet
>> governance - such as ICANN, W3C, IETF, RIRs, ITU, WIPO, CoE, OECD,
>> UNCTAD/CSTD and United Nations itself.
>>
>> 6. How can the capacity of those groups that are not yet well
>> represented at the IGF be improved? In particular, what could be done
>> to improve the capacity of representatives from developing countries?
>>
>> a) Establish special funding mechanism by IGF itself to help actors
>> from developing countries to continuously engage in IGF and related
>> organizations and meetings. Fellowship works carried out by
>> DiploFoundation, dotAsia organization [other reference, please] and
>> other institutions offer good reference for this, but they should be
>> expanded in larger scale. Targeting youth groups or younger generation
>> in profession, will have, in the long run, effective impact.
>>
>> b) Providing technical training to policy makers and policy training
>> to engineers will also help close the gap(s) within the
>> under-represented and also even well-represented.
>>
>> 7. How do you think more awareness of Internet governance issues and
>> the IGF process can be raised amongst groups whose lives are affected
>> by Internet governance but who are not yet part of the IGF process?
>>
>> a) Giving more weight to regional and national IGF meetings, making
>> more direct "links" to the main IGF meeting will help outreach to
>> those who have not yet involved in IGF process. Securing the same
>> level of working framework of IGF, such as multi-stakeholder
>> composition and inclusion of civil society groups (where such practice
>> is relatively new or scarce) should be maintained.
>>
>> b) Ensuring a plurality of civil society voices be heard in Internet
>> governance processes will also be effective in reaching out to those
>> yet to participate.
>>
>> c) Online meetings are most effective when provision is made for
>> participation both synchronously (ie. in real time) and
>> asynchronously. The remote hubs and moderators at the Vilnius IGF made
>> good progress towards this direction. Using such tools as blogs,
>> Twitter, mailing lists, Facebook and so on over an extended period may
>> also increase the awareness.
>>
>> d) Organizing some sessions completely online will create "level
>> playing field" among all participants, and may also demonstrate the
>> effectiveness of these tools/technologies, and may also improve the
>> quality of services in turn.
>>
>> e) Increase linguistic diversity. Using UN major languages other than
>> English at certain meetings and occasions as main working language
>> (translated into other UN languages) will increase the outreach to
>> non-English speaking population of the globe and will give more sense
>> of ownership. Currently, English is the only default working language,
>> but we think it does not have to be so.
>>
>> 8. How, if at all, do you think that the IGF process needs to change
>> to meet changing circumstances and priorities?
>>
>> As we replied to the MAG questionnaire, the organizing work of IGF
>> primarily by MAG should be improved. More outcome oriented direction
>> might improve the quality and value of IGF, but this should be
>> carefully exercised so as not to lose the open and free spirit of IGF
>> which contributed a great deal.
>>
>> 9. Do you have any other comments?
>>
>> No.
>>
>> END
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>
>> governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>
>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>>
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>
>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>
>>
>> Translate this email:
>> http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>
>> governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>
>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>>
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>
>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>
>>
>> Translate this email:
>> http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

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

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

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

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

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

From parminder at itforchange.net  Fri Nov 19 09:26:03 2010
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 19:56:03 +0530
Subject: AW: [governance] Consensus Call for CSTD IGF Questionnaire -
In-Reply-To: <6162C97B-18FA-4CE6-909E-9857762F7A4F@graduateinstitute.ch>
References: <AANLkTinyo=oKJoJiz2wVHikpv7-nYBwgq+cf7p6qrj16@mail.gmail.com>  <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07448@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4CE66370.40506@itforchange.net> <6162C97B-18FA-4CE6-909E-9857762F7A4F@graduateinstitute.ch>
Message-ID: <4CE688FB.3080707@itforchange.net>



On Friday 19 November 2010 06:13 PM, William Drake wrote:
>
> On Nov 19, 2010, at 12:45 PM, parminder wrote:
>
>> What I cant understand is the position of those who both oppose the 
>> EC process (in whichever evolutionary form) as well as oppose 
>> possibilities of the IGF making recommendations (I see Wolfgang, 
>> Katitza, Bill, Jeanette among others state that position). Moreover, 
>> they all seem to closely associate with OECD/ CoE policy making 
>> processes, which are in fact much less open, transparent, 
>> multistakeholder etc than even the 'enhanced cooperation' model 
>> which, for instance, I proposed and they strongly resisted. 
>
> Interesting.  But I have never said I oppose enhanced cooperation.


Enhanced cooperation as per the TA is a new process (to be commenced by 
the SG) and its express objective discussed in many parts of TA is to 
develop public policy and public policy principles.

Now I quote your email from when the IGC was discussing EC

"I'd argue for a MS observatory process convened under the auspices of 
the IGF, consistent with all the relevant mandate elements." (Bill)

Now apart from the fact that anyone can call anything as EC, and say, 
see, I dont oppose EC, can you explain how such a MS observatory be 
called EC in any sense in which TA used that term. And how can a MS 
observatory develop Internet related public policies (as TA wanted the 
EC process to do). This is especially so when  you oppose 
recommendations by the IGF.



>  I have said I prefer recommendations from the IGF to recs of the IGF, 
> which will not work.

I dont understand the difference. Can you pl explain. How are recs from 
the IGF any different from the numerous recs, or whatever, any number of 
workshops etc are already free to give and may be giving. Or how is 
these 'recs from the IGF' different from the present chair's summary... 
What is that you really propose as a possible improvement in the IGF.  
It is  a good time to explain it because we are discussing IGF 
improvements.
>  I am not closely associated with the OECD.
But you do associate.
>  I don't think it makes sense to advocate a Global Internet Council 
> until someone can convincingly explain why it is needed, how it would 
> operate,

Sure, ready for a discussion on it. And also ready to arrive at 
different names, forms for the possible global mechanism of Internet 
related public policy making. But it is difficult to do a debate with 
nothing really coming form the other side as an alternative which can 
address the pressing need to fill in the global vacuum in the area of 
Internet related gloal public policies. Whether there is at all any such 
vacuum, and if so where, there is a rather easy way to find that out. 
Just look at all the inter-country Internet policy related work being 
done by CoE/ OECD etc. And you may also want to see CoE's global 
aspirations stated in Wolfgang's email

Parminder
> and why it would not end up being like what the caucus rejected during 
> the WGIG period.
>
>
> On Nov 19, 2010, at 12:49 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote:
>
>> Yes from me too...let's see if we can reach a 'rough consensus' 
>> amongst ourselves at least.
>
> I don't know who the selves in question are, but this needs to follow 
> the procedures for consensus calls we agreed in the charter.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Bill
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101119/e798fa6e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From parminder at itforchange.net  Fri Nov 19 09:28:41 2010
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 19:58:41 +0530
Subject: AW: [governance] Consensus Call for CSTD IGF Questionnaire -
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinGKqJY=LVfumFexkFnDD0wYOYBws=QoLDDOPX4@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTinyo=oKJoJiz2wVHikpv7-nYBwgq+cf7p6qrj16@mail.gmail.com>	<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07448@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>	<4CE66370.40506@itforchange.net>	<6162C97B-18FA-4CE6-909E-9857762F7A4F@graduateinstitute.ch> <AANLkTinGKqJY=LVfumFexkFnDD0wYOYBws=QoLDDOPX4@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4CE68999.5010007@itforchange.net>

if this is about giving 48 hours for the consensus call, I dont see why 
we cant do it.... We can submit the statement after 48 hours. I am very 
hopeful that the CSTD secretariat will accommodate such a request form 
the IGC. parminder

On Friday 19 November 2010 06:27 PM, McTim wrote:
> i agree with bill on all points. Rgds, mctim
>
> On 11/19/10, William Drake<william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch>  wrote:
>    
>> On Nov 19, 2010, at 12:45 PM, parminder wrote:
>>
>>      
>>> What I cant understand is the position of those who both oppose the EC
>>> process (in whichever evolutionary form) as well as oppose possibilities
>>> of the IGF making recommendations (I see Wolfgang, Katitza, Bill, Jeanette
>>> among others state that position). Moreover, they all seem to closely
>>> associate with OECD/ CoE policy making processes, which are in fact much
>>> less open, transparent, multistakeholder etc than even the 'enhanced
>>> cooperation' model which, for instance, I proposed and they strongly
>>> resisted.
>>>        
>>
>> Interesting.  But I have never said I oppose enhanced cooperation.  I have
>> said I prefer recommendations from the IGF to recs of the IGF, which will
>> not work.  I am not closely associated with the OECD.  I don't think it
>> makes sense to advocate a Global Internet Council until someone can
>> convincingly explain why it is needed, how it would operate, and why it
>> would not end up being like what the caucus rejected during the WGIG period.
>>
>>
>> On Nov 19, 2010, at 12:49 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote:
>>
>>      
>>> Yes from me too...let's see if we can reach a 'rough consensus' amongst
>>> ourselves at least.
>>>        
>> I don't know who the selves in question are, but this needs to follow the
>> procedures for consensus calls we agreed in the charter.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Bill
>>      
>    
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101119/4ac8df1d/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From parminder at itforchange.net  Fri Nov 19 09:36:54 2010
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 20:06:54 +0530
Subject: AW: [governance] Consensus Call for CSTD IGF Questionnaire -
In-Reply-To: <7A412AD0-B27E-4CAA-B3A8-AA21B8AB8BF0@psg.com>
References: <AANLkTinyo=oKJoJiz2wVHikpv7-nYBwgq+cf7p6qrj16@mail.gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07448@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4CE66370.40506@itforchange.net> <AANLkTi=sDZiaxeD6R0=vrZVpaHmHMJn_s_y=D=EbWBqg@mail.gmail.com> <7A412AD0-B27E-4CAA-B3A8-AA21B8AB8BF0@psg.com>
Message-ID: <4CE68B86.5080302@itforchange.net>

Avri

Since you ask that question, what you may be missing is that OECD/ CoE 
countries so not just make policies for themselves. Internet is so 
inherently global (interestingly ISOC's EC statement uses this precise 
phrase) that policies made by any group of economically and politically 
strongest countries become the default global policies - see the cyber 
crime treaty, and the aspirations of ACTA, and well, also, see 
Wolfgang's recent email. (I kow i have said this many times before).

So, it is rather simplistic to tell developing countries to go and work 
in their regional blocks too of they so want, when that really is not 
the point. We are speaking of the globally-applicable Internet policies 
(whether made by globally democratic participation or not) like, to take 
just one example, ICANN's basic ways of working that were decided by the 
US gov is a set of globally applicable Internet policies.

Otherwise, of course we should work at local level, state level, 
national level, regional level as well as global level. But when we are 
discussing global issues we are discussing global issues. There is a 
certain specific meaning and context there.

Parminder

On Friday 19 November 2010 06:56 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This seems to make a lot of sense to me.
>
> I also wonder, what did people think of the suggestion I made that developing nations also work through the regional intergovernmental organizations that their nations belong to, of which i believe there are scores e.g.:
>
> African Union
> ASEAN
> D-8
> SIDS
> USAN
> ...
>
> or  smaller groups like
>
> CARICOM (The Caribbean Community)
> Indian Ocean Commission
> SAARC (South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation)
> SADC (Southern African Development Community)
> ECOWAS (Economic Community of Central African States)
> ECLAC (Economic Commission of Latin America and Caribbean)
>
>
> Wouldn't this complement the work being done in COE and OECD etc  and make sure that everyone was invovled and that the development perspective was heard and reinforced?  What am I missing?
>
> a.
>
>
>
> On 19 Nov 2010, at 13:30, Baudouin SCHOMBE wrote:
>
>    
>> I totally notice with your argument, Parminder, when you explain the need for participation of developing countries in discussions to defend their interests.
>> It is for this reason that I insisted on national and regional IGF before world  IGF.
>> In this way, civil society can come to mobilize actors at both national and regional levels through training workshops and multi-stakeholder forum on issues of Internet governance.
>> This work must be done in synergy with the IGC, to convey the same information while allowing the flexibility to respond to national and express their views.
>>
>>
>> BAUDOUIN
>>
>>
>> 2010/11/19 parminder<parminder at itforchange.net>
>>
>>
>> On Thursday 18 November 2010 01:52 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
>>      
>>> Hi everybody
>>>
>>> thanks for the work. I am sorry that I jump in in a very late stage. I have three comments:
>>>
>>> 1. 3a: The old debate on receommendations is not really helpful. In the past CS tried also to use the terminology "messages".
>>>
>>>        
>> Wolfgang
>>
>>   Global CS did never abandon the concept of recommendations in the IGF context, though at places 'messages' may also have been used. Recommendations (or 'recommend') is mentioned in the Tunis Agenda's mandate for the IGF and we seem to have largely supported it, in some form or the other.
>>      
>>>   The problem is as soon as you introduce a process to negotiate a text which then has been the subject of voting you change the nature of the the whole event. Even if you stress that these receommendations will be not binding, this does not matter. In the Un context (like in other intergovernmental mechanisms) the category "receommednation" is well defined and you can not avoid that an IGF recommendation is seen as something similar to what other Un bodies are doing with receommendations. Again I prefer the "message". BTW, I will circulate later this week the Interim Report of the Council of Europe Cross Border Expert Group where we propose also the elaboration of some instruments. The Council of Europe - or other organisations with an established procedure to negotiat texts - are a better place for such
>>> an excercise.
>>>
>>>
>>>        
>> Sure, it may be a better place. But I or my country in not in the CoE (though CoE instruments finally do impact me). So which 'better place' do you think I can look upto? Can you please provide me an answer to this.
>>
>> I continue to be (unpleasantly) surprised at the manner in which the concerns of developing countries in terms of their non-participation in global policy making and the global shaping of the ICT pehnomenon is ignored so blatantly, in a group which wants to describe itself as a global civil society group.
>>
>> We may all glibly talk about development issues or IG for development. Pl take note that in the IGF plenary on IG for development the prime issue which came up was that IG for development first of all means due participation of developing countries in global IG related policy making (see the Chairman's summary). What does the IGC plan to do on this issue? Ask us to watch and cheer on CoE and OECD policy making processes?
>>
>> I can still understand the stand of someone like Milton (though I do not agree with it) who is a bit afraid of supporting new institutional development for democratic global policy making as coming out of the current 'core' UN configurations (which is why he is afraid of the enhanced cooperation or EC process), even as an positively evolutionary process (which is my considered expectation of the EC process). Because he does, correspondingly, support a more open, diverse, multistakeholder process like the IGF making some clear positive contributions towards development of global Internet policies through making policy recommendations.
>>
>> What I cant understand is the position of those who both oppose the EC process (in whichever evolutionary form) as well as oppose possibilities of the IGF making recommendations (I see Wolfgang, Katitza, Bill, Jeanette among others state that position). Moreover, they all seem to closely associate with OECD/ CoE policy making processes, which are in fact much less open, transparent, multistakeholder etc than even the 'enhanced cooperation' model which, for instance, I proposed and they strongly resisted.
>>
>> I am unable to understand why a comity of powerful nations needs specific well-structured systems of making inter-country policies (which then become default global ones) and all countires as a global group, which (unfortunately?)  include developing countries, should not aspire to any such structures. So, it appears, that while (global?) CS should enthusiastically support the former (CoE / OECD kind of process) it is presented as its bounden duty to strongly oppose any such - or in fact structurally even much better - institutional developments  at the global level.
>>
>> And I also do hope that the IGC members form developing countries both increase their participation in IGC kind of groups, and become more vocal in articulating their interests.
>>
>> parminder
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>      
>>>
>>> 2. 6a: I thin SOC has an IGF Fellowship Programm.
>>>
>>> 3. Under nine we could say that we ould like to see that the IGF enhances its function and could become, inter alia, an observatory, a clearinghouse, an early warning system and a watchdog.
>>>
>>> Sorry for the late reply. If it is too late then ignore it.
>>>
>>> Best wishes
>>>
>>> wolfgang
>>> ________________________________
>>>
>>> Von:
>>> izumiaizu at gmail.com
>>>   im Auftrag von Izumi AIZU
>>> Gesendet: Do 18.11.2010 03:13
>>> An:
>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>
>>> Betreff: [governance] Consensus Call for CSTD IGF Questionnaire - Clean version
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Here follows are the Clean version of the Final Draft for the CSTD IGF
>>> questionnaire answer
>>> in full text. Sorry for the confusion.
>>>
>>> Please respond if you agree or disagree as soon as possible.  Friday, Nov 19
>>> is the deadline for submission. More comments are also very much appreciated
>>> as we can further feed them into the Consultation meetings next week in Geneva.
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>> izumi
>>>
>>> ------------
>>>
>>> FINAL Draft for Questionnaire on improvements to the IGF
>>>
>>> 1. What do you consider the most important achievements of the first
>>> five IGF meetings?
>>>
>>> IGF created the space for dialogue by all stakeholders in an open,
>>> inclusive manner. These emergence and development of the
>>> multistakeholder principle and practice are perhaps the biggest
>>> contribution IGF has achieved so far. It helped many participants to
>>> understand the issues of their interest, as well as to understand how
>>> other actors understand, act and accept their issues. Emergence of
>>> Regional and National IGF with multistakeholder approach is another
>>> achievement.
>>>
>>> 2. How satisfied are you with the delivery of the results of
>>> discussions at the IGF and the impact they have had on developments in
>>> national, regional or international Internet governance?
>>>
>>> IGF has made a reasonable advancement of the understanding of the
>>> issues. Yet, at national, regional and international levels, we have
>>> mixed assessment for the impact it brought.
>>>
>>> 3. Which, if any, new mechanisms would you propose to improve the
>>> impact of the IGF discussions, in particular as regards the
>>> interaction between the IGF and other stakeholders? Please specify the
>>> kind of mechanism (e.g. reporting, exchanges, recommendations,
>>> concrete advice, etc.) and the stakeholders (e.g. intergovernmental
>>> bodies, other fora dealing with Internet Governance, etc.).
>>>
>>> a) One mechanism we can suggest is to come up with some form of
>>> recommendations where all stakeholders have [rough] consensus. They
>>> will not be binding, but could still function as model, reference or
>>> common framework. Working process towards achieving these rough
>>> consensus will create better and deeper understandings amongst
>>> different stakeholders.
>>>
>>> b) The Secretariat and MAG should be strongly encouraged to directly
>>> foster discussion and debate of difficult issues in main sessions,
>>> instead of avoiding them.
>>>
>>> 4. In your view, what important new issues or themes concerning
>>> Internet governance have emerged or become important since the Tunis
>>> phase of the Summit, which deserve more attention in the next five
>>> years?
>>>
>>> IGC feels that attention to the development agenda, issues concerning
>>> the marginalized groups or actors, have yet gained sufficient level of
>>> work at IGF and its outcome. These may not be the "new" issues, but we
>>> strongly feel they are very important.
>>>
>>> Besides them, emergence of new technologies, tools and services, such
>>> as cloud computing; user-generated, SNS and online sharing services
>>> such as wiki, YouTube, Ustream, twitter and Facebook; DPI and
>>> behavioral targeting advertisements; wide deployment of mobile
>>> services including smart phones and tablet computers pose all kind of
>>> new challenges for governance.
>>>
>>>
>>> 5. What do you think should be the priority themes and areas of work
>>> of the IGF during the next five years?
>>>
>>> Followings will be the areas of themes and works that have priorities we think.
>>> a) Enhancing multi-stakeholder framework within IGF.
>>> b) Promote capacity building for developmental agenda of governance
>>> c) Balancing the interests - to empower those of marginalized and
>>> under-developed in all organizations and fora dealing with Internet
>>> governance - such as ICANN, W3C, IETF, RIRs, ITU, WIPO, CoE, OECD,
>>> UNCTAD/CSTD and United Nations itself.
>>>
>>> 6. How can the capacity of those groups that are not yet well
>>> represented at the IGF be improved? In particular, what could be done
>>> to improve the capacity of representatives from developing countries?
>>>
>>> a) Establish special funding mechanism by IGF itself to help actors
>>> from developing countries to continuously engage in IGF and related
>>> organizations and meetings. Fellowship works carried out by
>>> DiploFoundation, dotAsia organization [other reference, please] and
>>> other institutions offer good reference for this, but they should be
>>> expanded in larger scale. Targeting youth groups or younger generation
>>> in profession, will have, in the long run, effective impact.
>>>
>>> b) Providing technical training to policy makers and policy training
>>> to engineers will also help close the gap(s) within the
>>> under-represented and also even well-represented.
>>>
>>> 7. How do you think more awareness of Internet governance issues and
>>> the IGF process can be raised amongst groups whose lives are affected
>>> by Internet governance but who are not yet part of the IGF process?
>>>
>>> a) Giving more weight to regional and national IGF meetings, making
>>> more direct "links" to the main IGF meeting will help outreach to
>>> those who have not yet involved in IGF process. Securing the same
>>> level of working framework of IGF, such as multi-stakeholder
>>> composition and inclusion of civil society groups (where such practice
>>> is relatively new or scarce) should be maintained.
>>>
>>> b) Ensuring a plurality of civil society voices be heard in Internet
>>> governance processes will also be effective in reaching out to those
>>> yet to participate.
>>>
>>> c) Online meetings are most effective when provision is made for
>>> participation both synchronously (ie. in real time) and
>>> asynchronously. The remote hubs and moderators at the Vilnius IGF made
>>> good progress towards this direction. Using such tools as blogs,
>>> Twitter, mailing lists, Facebook and so on over an extended period may
>>> also increase the awareness.
>>>
>>> d) Organizing some sessions completely online will create "level
>>> playing field" among all participants, and may also demonstrate the
>>> effectiveness of these tools/technologies, and may also improve the
>>> quality of services in turn.
>>>
>>> e) Increase linguistic diversity. Using UN major languages other than
>>> English at certain meetings and occasions as main working language
>>> (translated into other UN languages) will increase the outreach to
>>> non-English speaking population of the globe and will give more sense
>>> of ownership. Currently, English is the only default working language,
>>> but we think it does not have to be so.
>>>
>>> 8. How, if at all, do you think that the IGF process needs to change
>>> to meet changing circumstances and priorities?
>>>
>>> As we replied to the MAG questionnaire, the organizing work of IGF
>>> primarily by MAG should be improved. More outcome oriented direction
>>> might improve the quality and value of IGF, but this should be
>>> carefully exercised so as not to lose the open and free spirit of IGF
>>> which contributed a great deal.
>>>
>>> 9. Do you have any other comments?
>>>
>>> No.
>>>
>>> END
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>
>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>
>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>>
>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>>
>>>
>>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>>
>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>>
>>>
>>> Translate this email:
>>> http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>
>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>
>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>>
>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>>
>>>
>>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>>
>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>>
>>>
>>> Translate this email:
>>> http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>        
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>      
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>       governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>       governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>       http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>    
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101119/05eb34c0/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From jlfullsack at orange.fr  Fri Nov 19 09:42:05 2010
From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK)
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 06:42:05 -0800 (PST)
Subject: AW: [governance] Consensus Call for CSTD IGF Questionnaire -
In-Reply-To: <4CE66370.40506@itforchange.net>
References: <AANLkTinyo=oKJoJiz2wVHikpv7-nYBwgq+cf7p6qrj16@mail.gmail.com>
  <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07448@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <4CE66370.40506@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <19469616.96010.1290177702643.JavaMail.www@wwinf1d14>

Dear Parminder and all

Once more you are writing (in plain English) what I'm thinking at and believing (in French) about what is really at stake IMHO.

Therefore, once more I'm thankful to you for defending DCs peoples. We -the CS- must go on fighting for these to participate really in the debates that concern a majority of Human beings. 

I particularly support your worries and share your views : 


Once again, thanks Parminder !

Jean-Louis Fullsack
CSDPTT





> Message du 19/11/10 12:46
> De : "parminder" 
> A : governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Copie à : 
> Objet : Re: AW: [governance] Consensus Call for CSTD IGF Questionnaire -
> 
> 
> 
> On Thursday 18 November 2010 01:52 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: Hi everybody thanks for the work. I am sorry that I jump in in a very late stage. I have three comments: 1. 3a: The old debate on receommendations is not really helpful. In the past CS tried also to use the terminology "messages". Wolfgang
> 
>  Global CS did never abandon the concept of recommendations in the IGF context, though at places 'messages' may also have been used. Recommendations (or 'recommend') is mentioned in the Tunis Agenda's mandate for the IGF and we seem to have largely supported it, in some form or the other. 
> The problem is as soon as you introduce a process to negotiate a text which then has been the subject of voting you change the nature of the the whole event. Even if you stress that these receommendations will be not binding, this does not matter. In the Un context (like in other intergovernmental mechanisms) the category "receommednation" is well defined and you can not avoid that an IGF recommendation is seen as something similar to what other Un bodies are doing with receommendations. Again I prefer the "message". BTW, I will circulate later this week the Interim Report of the Council of Europe Cross Border Expert Group where we propose also the elaboration of some instruments. The Council of Europe - or other organisations with an established procedure to negotiat texts - are a better place for such an excercise. Sure, it may be a better place. But I or my country in not in the CoE (though CoE instruments finally do impact me). So which 'better place' do you think I can look upto? Can you please provide me an answer to this. 
> 
> I continue to be (unpleasantly) surprised at the manner in which the concerns of developing countries in terms of their non-participation in global policy making and the global shaping of the ICT pehnomenon is ignored so blatantly, in a group which wants to describe itself as a global civil society group. 
> 
> We may all glibly talk about development issues or IG for development. Pl take note that in the IGF plenary on IG for development the prime issue which came up was that IG for development first of all means due participation of developing countries in global IG related policy making (see the Chairman's summary). What does the IGC plan to do on this issue? Ask us to watch and cheer on CoE and OECD policy making processes?
> 
> I can still understand the stand of someone like Milton (though I do not agree with it) who is a bit afraid of supporting new institutional development for democratic global policy making as coming out of the current 'core' UN configurations (which is why he is afraid of the enhanced cooperation or EC process), even as an positively evolutionary process (which is my considered expectation of the EC process). Because he does, correspondingly, support a more open, diverse, multistakeholder process like the IGF making some clear positive contributions towards development of global Internet policies through making policy recommendations. 
> 
> What I cant understand is the position of those who both oppose the EC process (in whichever evolutionary form) as well as oppose possibilities of the IGF making recommendations (I see Wolfgang, Katitza, Bill, Jeanette among others state that position). Moreover, they all seem to closely associate with OECD/ CoE policy making processes, which are in fact much less open, transparent, multistakeholder etc than even the 'enhanced cooperation' model which, for instance, I proposed and they strongly resisted. 
> 
> I am unable to understand why a comity of powerful nations needs specific well-structured systems of making inter-country policies (which then become default global ones) and all countires as a global group, which (unfortunately?)  include developing countries, should not aspire to any such structures. So, it appears, that while (global?) CS should enthusiastically support the former (CoE / OECD kind of process) it is presented as its bounden duty to strongly oppose any such - or in fact structurally even much better - institutional developments  at the global level.
> 
> And I also do hope that the IGC members form developing countries both increase their participation in IGC kind of groups, and become more vocal in articulating their interests. 
> 
> parminder 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. 6a: I thin SOC has an IGF Fellowship Programm. 3. Under nine we could say that we ould like to see that the IGF enhances its function and could become, inter alia, an observatory, a clearinghouse, an early warning system and a watchdog. Sorry for the late reply. If it is too late then ignore it. Best wishes wolfgang ________________________________ Von: izumiaizu at gmail.com im Auftrag von Izumi AIZU Gesendet: Do 18.11.2010 03:13 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org Betreff: [governance] Consensus Call for CSTD IGF Questionnaire - Clean version Here follows are the Clean version of the Final Draft for the CSTD IGF questionnaire answer in full text. Sorry for the confusion. Please respond if you agree or disagree as soon as possible. Friday, Nov 19 is the deadline for submission. More comments are also very much appreciated as we can further feed them into the Consultation meetings next week in Geneva. Thanks! izumi ------------ FINAL Draft for Questionnaire on improvements to the IGF 1. What do you consider the most important achievements of the first five IGF meetings? IGF created the space for dialogue by all stakeholders in an open, inclusive manner. These emergence and development of the multistakeholder principle and practice are perhaps the biggest contribution IGF has achieved so far. It helped many participants to understand the issues of their interest, as well as to understand how other actors understand, act and accept their issues. Emergence of Regional and National IGF with multistakeholder approach is another achievement. 2. How satisfied are you with the delivery of the results of discussions at the IGF and the impact they have had on developments in national, regional or international Internet governance? IGF has made a reasonable advancement of the understanding of the issues. Yet, at national, regional and international levels, we have mixed assessment for the impact it brought. 3. Which, if any, new mechanisms would you propose to improve the impact of the IGF discussions, in particular as regards the interaction between the IGF and other stakeholders? Please specify the kind of mechanism (e.g. reporting, exchanges, recommendations, concrete advice, etc.) and the stakeholders (e.g. intergovernmental bodies, other fora dealing with Internet Governance, etc.). a) One mechanism we can suggest is to come up with some form of recommendations where all stakeholders have [rough] consensus. They will not be binding, but could still function as model, reference or common framework. Working process towards achieving these rough consensus will create better and deeper understandings amongst different stakeholders. b) The Secretariat and MAG should be strongly encouraged to directly foster discussion and debate of difficult issues in main sessions, instead of avoiding them. 4. In your view, what important new issues or themes concerning Internet governance have emerged or become important since the Tunis phase of the Summit, which deserve more attention in the next five years? IGC feels that attention to the development agenda, issues concerning the marginalized groups or actors, have yet gained sufficient level of work at IGF and its outcome. These may not be the "new" issues, but we strongly feel they are very important. Besides them, emergence of new technologies, tools and services, such as cloud computing; user-generated, SNS and online sharing services such as wiki, YouTube, Ustream, twitter and Facebook; DPI and behavioral targeting advertisements; wide deployment of mobile services including smart phones and tablet computers pose all kind of new challenges for governance. 5. What do you think should be the priority themes and areas of work of the IGF during the next five years? Followings will be the areas of themes and works that have priorities we think. a) Enhancing multi-stakeholder framework within IGF. b) Promote capacity building for developmental agenda of governance c) Balancing the interests - to empower those of marginalized and under-developed in all organizations and fora dealing with Internet governance - such as ICANN, W3C, IETF, RIRs, ITU, WIPO, CoE, OECD, UNCTAD/CSTD and United Nations itself. 6. How can the capacity of those groups that are not yet well represented at the IGF be improved? In particular, what could be done to improve the capacity of representatives from developing countries? a) Establish special funding mechanism by IGF itself to help actors from developing countries to continuously engage in IGF and related organizations and meetings. Fellowship works carried out by DiploFoundation, dotAsia organization [other reference, please] and other institutions offer good reference for this, but they should be expanded in larger scale. Targeting youth groups or younger generation in profession, will have, in the long run, effective impact. b) Providing technical training to policy makers and policy training to engineers will also help close the gap(s) within the under-represented and also even well-represented. 7. How do you think more awareness of Internet governance issues and the IGF process can be raised amongst groups whose lives are affected by Internet governance but who are not yet part of the IGF process? a) Giving more weight to regional and national IGF meetings, making more direct "links" to the main IGF meeting will help outreach to those who have not yet involved in IGF process. Securing the same level of working framework of IGF, such as multi-stakeholder composition and inclusion of civil society groups (where such practice is relatively new or scarce) should be maintained. b) Ensuring a plurality of civil society voices be heard in Internet governance processes will also be effective in reaching out to those yet to participate. c) Online meetings are most effective when provision is made for participation both synchronously (ie. in real time) and asynchronously. The remote hubs and moderators at the Vilnius IGF made good progress towards this direction. Using such tools as blogs, Twitter, mailing lists, Facebook and so on over an extended period may also increase the awareness. d) Organizing some sessions completely online will create "level playing field" among all participants, and may also demonstrate the effectiveness of these tools/technologies, and may also improve the quality of services in turn. e) Increase linguistic diversity. Using UN major languages other than English at certain meetings and occasions as main working language (translated into other UN languages) will increase the outreach to non-English speaking population of the globe and will give more sense of ownership. Currently, English is the only default working language, but we think it does not have to be so. 8. How, if at all, do you think that the IGF process needs to change to meet changing circumstances and priorities? As we replied to the MAG questionnaire, the organizing work of IGF primarily by MAG should be improved. More outcome oriented direction might improve the quality and value of IGF, but this should be carefully exercised so as not to lose the open and free spirit of IGF which contributed a great deal. 9. Do you have any other comments? No. END ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 
>
> [ message-footer.txt (0.4 Ko) ]
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101119/119e6d7a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From iza at anr.org  Fri Nov 19 09:53:38 2010
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 23:53:38 +0900
Subject: [governance] Consensus Call for CSTD IGF Questionnaire - Clean
 version
In-Reply-To: <1290120961.4ce5af015f4cf@webmail.ovh.fr>
References: <1290120838.4ce5ae863a8c2@webmail.ovh.fr> <1290120961.4ce5af015f4cf@webmail.ovh.fr>
Message-ID: <AANLkTineLd8UE24jX-_D4W41Y3SQDxKUUFV=sNd7eLkc@mail.gmail.com>

As the deadline is approaching, and my working hours are also closing, 11:45 pm
Tokyo time now on Friday, I like to close the Final Call for the
consensus shortly.

So far, I have recognized the following people expressed some degree
of support for
the Final Draft.

Ian Peter
Marilia Maciel
Despite the fact that there are issues I would like us to be more
strong or more specific, I generally agree with this proposal.
Jeremy Malcolm
Baudoin SCHOMBE
Imran Ahmed Shah
Mostly agreed.
we can suggest that “Solutions & Recommendations
regarding governance common issues may please be vetted through
consensus. Other suggestions, too.
Yuliya Morenets
Parminder
(with minor changes as per Co-coordinators judgment, like the ISOC point)
Lee McKnight
Tracy Kackshaw
Wolfgang Kleinwächter
Anriette Esterhuysen
Avri Doria
i think it is a good and fair set of responses
Ginger Praque
Fouad Bajwa
Graciela

A total of 16.

The following people expressed disagreement:

William Drake
Jeanette Hofmann

A total of 2.

The following people expressed substantial additional suggestions
and/or comments,
who have largely supported the final draft.
Unfortunately we cannot put these into our text this time since we did
not have sufficient amount of time to reach agreement or [rough
consensus].


Wolfgang Kleinwächter
suggest "messages from the IGF", not “recommendations”
"IGF enhances its function and could become, inter alia, an
observatory, a clearinghouse, an early warning system of what happen
in other forums."

Migue Alcaine - suggest "messages from the IGF", not
“recommendations”, get rid of "rough consensus"
for 6a. IGF Secretariat will not be able to dedicate funds from its
current level of funding in its voluntary fund for the engagement of
Developing country actors. Either we can insist in inviting or
strenghtening the voluntary fund and dedicate the additional funds to
the engagement of developing countries or we can invite governments or
the UN SG to consider a small transfer from the UN regular budget to
the aforementioned IGF voluntary fund and dedicate such funds for the
engagement of developing countries. I am suggesting a transfer around
US$200,000 annually. Independently of the source of the funds, they
should serve to make sinergies with the actors already improving the
engagement of developing countries.

Katitza Rodriguez
I disagree with the use of the word "rough consensus".
Agree with "Messages from IGF"
Consensus with other stakeholders is a different approach and not an easy task.
I would like to explore more the proposal table by Wolfgang
support also Miguel's proposal

There have also been good amount of debate whether reference to OECD
and Council of Europe is acceptable or not, in relation to the issue
of how to promote the participation of developing countries into
global policy making and governance.

Will send another note.

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

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

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

From jlfullsack at orange.fr  Fri Nov 19 09:56:32 2010
From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK)
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 06:56:32 -0800 (PST)
Subject: SV: AW: [governance] Consensus Call for CSTD IGF Questionnaire
In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0746A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <AANLkTinyo=oKJoJiz2wVHikpv7-nYBwgq+cf7p6qrj16@mail.gmail.com>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07448@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <4CE66370.40506@itforchange.net>
 <AANLkTim9sinx_z5nMe55hKoGPxp5OOvtz+mAkNQCf_ZR@mail.gmail.com>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0746A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <19319636.96532.1290178557682.JavaMail.www@wwinf1d14>

This is a good way Wolfgang !



I'll set aside april 2011 in my desk diary  ...

Best regards
Jean-Louis Fullsack
CSDPTT




> Message du 19/11/10 13:35
> De : ""Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"" 
> A : governance at lists.cpsr.org, "McTim" , governance at lists.cpsr.org, "parminder" 
> Copie à : 
> Objet : SV: AW: [governance] Consensus Call for CSTD IGF Questionnaire -
> 
> 
> Hi Parminder
> 
> I understand your concerns and we have discussed this at length during the previous years. 
> 
> I fully support 100 percent involvement of developing countries into policy development and decision making with regard to the Internet. I am not in favour for exclusive rights of OECD or COE.
> 
> When I mentioned the COE as a "better place" my argument was that institutions which have a procedure in place for the negotiation of texts are better prepared to work on consensus language than an institution like the IGF which is a platform for innovative and creative discussion, or, as said in my article for the IGF book, it is primarily an observatory, a laboratory, a clearing house, a watchdog, a scout, a school and an early warning system and not a negotiation body. 
> 
> With regard to the Council of Europe (COE), where I chair the Cross Border Internet expert group (established in March this year) we have succesfully argued so far - also with the help of experts from non COE countries during the recent workshop at the IGF in Vilnjus - that a possible COE Declaration makes only sense as a global instrument which has to involve also countries like India, Brazil, China and many others. BTW, a lot of COE members are developing countries from Asia. Also Russia is a member of the COE. It has 47 member states much more than the 27 member states of the EU. 
> 
> When the COE offered the Cybercrime Convention in 2001 for global signature, a lot of states which are no members of the COE, joined. However some countries, like Brazil, rejected the concept because they were not involved in the making of the instrument. The COE has learned. What our small group will propose to the COE is that they should convene a "global" multistakeholder conference with high level governmental participation in April 2011 in Strasvbourg to identify ways how to move towards such an "Instrument". BTW we propose to be innovative also with the tilte. We will probably not propose to call it a "Declaration of Principles" but a "Framework of Commitments". Embedded into such a multistakeholder framework governments among themselves should work towards a more specific non-binding "Recommendation on Rights, Duties and Responsibilities of Government in the Cross Border Internet" which would specify the "respective roles" of governments, as called for in the Internet Governance definition, adopted by more than 150 heads of States and govenrments of the UN member states. And further embedded into this two layers governments can move forward to identify very concrete issues were a legally binding regulation is needed in form of a series of individual "Intergovernmental Internet Protocols". 
> 
> But all this is work in progress. We have just started. And we will start asking for public comment before the end of the year on the COE website. And the April 2011 conference will give us an opportunity to discuss very concretly what should be done in this field. Nothing is decided, nobody is excluded. We are just in the beginning of a process which has been triggered by the IGF and EC discussions of the last five years. 
> 
> Indeed one can argue that the IGF has inspired the CEO to put this on its agenda and to start doing something which is needed. The COE sees this as a "service for the global community" by putting human rights into the center. As you know the COE is based upon the European Human Rights convention and sees itself as a key player in the field of human rights. And it provides an environment where you can take a next step and make a substantial cotribution to enhance further communication, coordination and collaboration (EC3) in an "Enhanced cooperation mechanism for Internet Governance". 
> 
> Hope this brings us a little bit foreward.
> 
> best wishes
> 
> Wolfgang
> 
> ________________________________
> 
> Fra: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com]
> Sendt: fr 19-11-2010 13:02
> Til: governance at lists.cpsr.org; parminder
> Emne: Re: AW: [governance] Consensus Call for CSTD IGF Questionnaire -
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Parminder. Some of us dont think in terms of nation states as the
> unit of Internet policy making, we think of networks and individuals
> taking this role instead. At least, thats my position. Rgds, mctim
> 
> On 11/19/10, parminder wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Thursday 18 November 2010 01:52 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
> >> Hi everybody
> >>
> >> thanks for the work. I am sorry that I jump in in a very late stage. I
> >> have three comments:
> >>
> >> 1. 3a: The old debate on receommendations is not really helpful. In the
> >> past CS tried also to use the terminology "messages".
> > Wolfgang
> >
> > Global CS did never abandon the concept of recommendations in the IGF
> > context, though at places 'messages' may also have been used.
> > Recommendations (or 'recommend') is mentioned in the Tunis Agenda's
> > mandate for the IGF and we seem to have largely supported it, in some
> > form or the other.
> >> The problem is as soon as you introduce a process to negotiate a text
> >> which then has been the subject of voting you change the nature of the the
> >> whole event. Even if you stress that these receommendations will be not
> >> binding, this does not matter. In the Un context (like in other
> >> intergovernmental mechanisms) the category "receommednation" is well
> >> defined and you can not avoid that an IGF recommendation is seen as
> >> something similar to what other Un bodies are doing with receommendations.
> >> Again I prefer the "message". BTW, I will circulate later this week the
> >> Interim Report of the Council of Europe Cross Border Expert Group where we
> >> propose also the elaboration of some instruments. The Council of Europe -
> >> or other organisations with an established procedure to negotiat texts -
> >> are a better place for such
> >> an excercise.
> >>
> > Sure, it may be a better place. But I or my country in not in the CoE
> > (though CoE instruments finally do impact me). So which 'better place'
> > do you think I can look upto? Can you please provide me an answer to this.
> >
> > I continue to be (unpleasantly) surprised at the manner in which the
> > concerns of developing countries in terms of their non-participation in
> > global policy making and the global shaping of the ICT pehnomenon is
> > ignored so blatantly, in a group which wants to describe itself as a
> > global civil society group.
> >
> > We may all glibly talk about development issues or IG for development.
> > Pl take note that in the IGF plenary on IG for development the prime
> > issue which came up was that IG for development first of all means due
> > participation of developing countries in global IG related policy making
> > (see the Chairman's summary). What does the IGC plan to do on this
> > issue? Ask us to watch and cheer on CoE and OECD policy making processes?
> >
> > I can still understand the stand of someone like Milton (though I do not
> > agree with it) who is a bit afraid of supporting new institutional
> > development for democratic global policy making as coming out of the
> > current 'core' UN configurations (which is why he is afraid of the
> > enhanced cooperation or EC process), even as an positively evolutionary
> > process (which is my considered expectation of the EC process). Because
> > he does, correspondingly, support a more open, diverse, multistakeholder
> > process like the IGF making some clear positive contributions towards
> > development of global Internet policies through making policy
> > recommendations.
> >
> > What I cant understand is the position of those who both oppose the EC
> > process (in whichever evolutionary form) as well as oppose possibilities
> > of the IGF making recommendations (I see Wolfgang, Katitza, Bill,
> > Jeanette among others state that position). Moreover, they all seem to
> > closely associate with OECD/ CoE policy making processes, which are in
> > fact much less open, transparent, multistakeholder etc than even the
> > 'enhanced cooperation' model which, for instance, I proposed and they
> > strongly resisted.
> >
> > I am unable to understand why a comity of powerful nations needs
> > specific well-structured systems of making inter-country policies (which
> > then become default global ones) and all countires as a global group,
> > which (unfortunately?) include developing countries, should not aspire
> > to any such structures. So, it appears, that while (global?) CS should
> > enthusiastically support the former (CoE / OECD kind of process) it is
> > presented as its bounden duty to strongly oppose any such - or in fact
> > structurally even much better - institutional developments at the
> > global level.
> >
> > And I also do hope that the IGC members form developing countries both
> > increase their participation in IGC kind of groups, and become more
> > vocal in articulating their interests.
> >
> > parminder
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >> 2. 6a: I thin SOC has an IGF Fellowship Programm.
> >>
> >> 3. Under nine we could say that we ould like to see that the IGF enhances
> >> its function and could become, inter alia, an observatory, a
> >> clearinghouse, an early warning system and a watchdog.
> >>
> >> Sorry for the late reply. If it is too late then ignore it.
> >>
> >> Best wishes
> >>
> >> wolfgang
> >> ________________________________
> >>
> >> Von: izumiaizu at gmail.com im Auftrag von Izumi AIZU
> >> Gesendet: Do 18.11.2010 03:13
> >> An: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> >> Betreff: [governance] Consensus Call for CSTD IGF Questionnaire - Clean
> >> version
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Here follows are the Clean version of the Final Draft for the CSTD IGF
> >> questionnaire answer
> >> in full text. Sorry for the confusion.
> >>
> >> Please respond if you agree or disagree as soon as possible. Friday, Nov
> >> 19
> >> is the deadline for submission. More comments are also very much
> >> appreciated
> >> as we can further feed them into the Consultation meetings next week in
> >> Geneva.
> >>
> >> Thanks!
> >>
> >> izumi
> >>
> >> ------------
> >>
> >> FINAL Draft for Questionnaire on improvements to the IGF
> >>
> >> 1. What do you consider the most important achievements of the first
> >> five IGF meetings?
> >>
> >> IGF created the space for dialogue by all stakeholders in an open,
> >> inclusive manner. These emergence and development of the
> >> multistakeholder principle and practice are perhaps the biggest
> >> contribution IGF has achieved so far. It helped many participants to
> >> understand the issues of their interest, as well as to understand how
> >> other actors understand, act and accept their issues. Emergence of
> >> Regional and National IGF with multistakeholder approach is another
> >> achievement.
> >>
> >> 2. How satisfied are you with the delivery of the results of
> >> discussions at the IGF and the impact they have had on developments in
> >> national, regional or international Internet governance?
> >>
> >> IGF has made a reasonable advancement of the understanding of the
> >> issues. Yet, at national, regional and international levels, we have
> >> mixed assessment for the impact it brought.
> >>
> >> 3. Which, if any, new mechanisms would you propose to improve the
> >> impact of the IGF discussions, in particular as regards the
> >> interaction between the IGF and other stakeholders? Please specify the
> >> kind of mechanism (e.g. reporting, exchanges, recommendations,
> >> concrete advice, etc.) and the stakeholders (e.g. intergovernmental
> >> bodies, other fora dealing with Internet Governance, etc.).
> >>
> >> a) One mechanism we can suggest is to come up with some form of
> >> recommendations where all stakeholders have [rough] consensus. They
> >> will not be binding, but could still function as model, reference or
> >> common framework. Working process towards achieving these rough
> >> consensus will create better and deeper understandings amongst
> >> different stakeholders.
> >>
> >> b) The Secretariat and MAG should be strongly encouraged to directly
> >> foster discussion and debate of difficult issues in main sessions,
> >> instead of avoiding them.
> >>
> >> 4. In your view, what important new issues or themes concerning
> >> Internet governance have emerged or become important since the Tunis
> >> phase of the Summit, which deserve more attention in the next five
> >> years?
> >>
> >> IGC feels that attention to the development agenda, issues concerning
> >> the marginalized groups or actors, have yet gained sufficient level of
> >> work at IGF and its outcome. These may not be the "new" issues, but we
> >> strongly feel they are very important.
> >>
> >> Besides them, emergence of new technologies, tools and services, such
> >> as cloud computing; user-generated, SNS and online sharing services
> >> such as wiki, YouTube, Ustream, twitter and Facebook; DPI and
> >> behavioral targeting advertisements; wide deployment of mobile
> >> services including smart phones and tablet computers pose all kind of
> >> new challenges for governance.
> >>
> >>
> >> 5. What do you think should be the priority themes and areas of work
> >> of the IGF during the next five years?
> >>
> >> Followings will be the areas of themes and works that have priorities we
> >> think.
> >> a) Enhancing multi-stakeholder framework within IGF.
> >> b) Promote capacity building for developmental agenda of governance
> >> c) Balancing the interests - to empower those of marginalized and
> >> under-developed in all organizations and fora dealing with Internet
> >> governance - such as ICANN, W3C, IETF, RIRs, ITU, WIPO, CoE, OECD,
> >> UNCTAD/CSTD and United Nations itself.
> >>
> >> 6. How can the capacity of those groups that are not yet well
> >> represented at the IGF be improved? In particular, what could be done
> >> to improve the capacity of representatives from developing countries?
> >>
> >> a) Establish special funding mechanism by IGF itself to help actors
> >> from developing countries to continuously engage in IGF and related
> >> organizations and meetings. Fellowship works carried out by
> >> DiploFoundation, dotAsia organization [other reference, please] and
> >> other institutions offer good reference for this, but they should be
> >> expanded in larger scale. Targeting youth groups or younger generation
> >> in profession, will have, in the long run, effective impact.
> >>
> >> b) Providing technical training to policy makers and policy training
> >> to engineers will also help close the gap(s) within the
> >> under-represented and also even well-represented.
> >>
> >> 7. How do you think more awareness of Internet governance issues and
> >> the IGF process can be raised amongst groups whose lives are affected
> >> by Internet governance but who are not yet part of the IGF process?
> >>
> >> a) Giving more weight to regional and national IGF meetings, making
> >> more direct "links" to the main IGF meeting will help outreach to
> >> those who have not yet involved in IGF process. Securing the same
> >> level of working framework of IGF, such as multi-stakeholder
> >> composition and inclusion of civil society groups (where such practice
> >> is relatively new or scarce) should be maintained.
> >>
> >> b) Ensuring a plurality of civil society voices be heard in Internet
> >> governance processes will also be effective in reaching out to those
> >> yet to participate.
> >>
> >> c) Online meetings are most effective when provision is made for
> >> participation both synchronously (ie. in real time) and
> >> asynchronously. The remote hubs and moderators at the Vilnius IGF made
> >> good progress towards this direction. Using such tools as blogs,
> >> Twitter, mailing lists, Facebook and so on over an extended period may
> >> also increase the awareness.
> >>
> >> d) Organizing some sessions completely online will create "level
> >> playing field" among all participants, and may also demonstrate the
> >> effectiveness of these tools/technologies, and may also improve the
> >> quality of services in turn.
> >>
> >> e) Increase linguistic diversity. Using UN major languages other than
> >> English at certain meetings and occasions as main working language
> >> (translated into other UN languages) will increase the outreach to
> >> non-English speaking population of the globe and will give more sense
> >> of ownership. Currently, English is the only default working language,
> >> but we think it does not have to be so.
> >>
> >> 8. How, if at all, do you think that the IGF process needs to change
> >> to meet changing circumstances and priorities?
> >>
> >> As we replied to the MAG questionnaire, the organizing work of IGF
> >> primarily by MAG should be improved. More outcome oriented direction
> >> might improve the quality and value of IGF, but this should be
> >> carefully exercised so as not to lose the open and free spirit of IGF
> >> which contributed a great deal.
> >>
> >> 9. Do you have any other comments?
> >>
> >> No.
> >>
> >> END
> >> ____________________________________________________________
> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> >> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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
> >>
> >>
> >
> 
> --
> Sent from my mobile device
> 
> 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
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101119/a25ddcd2/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From glaser at nic.br  Fri Nov 19 09:59:24 2010
From: glaser at nic.br (Hartmut Glaser)
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 12:59:24 -0200
Subject: [governance] Consensus Call for CSTD IGF Questionnaire - Clean
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTineLd8UE24jX-_D4W41Y3SQDxKUUFV=sNd7eLkc@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1290120838.4ce5ae863a8c2@webmail.ovh.fr> <1290120961.4ce5af015f4cf@webmail.ovh.fr> <AANLkTineLd8UE24jX-_D4W41Y3SQDxKUUFV=sNd7eLkc@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4CE690CC.5030801@nic.br>

  +1 - I agree ...

On 19/11/10 12:53, Izumi AIZU wrote:
> As the deadline is approaching, and my working hours are also closing, 11:45 pm
> Tokyo time now on Friday, I like to close the Final Call for the
> consensus shortly.
>
> So far, I have recognized the following people expressed some degree
> of support for
> the Final Draft.
>
> Ian Peter
> Marilia Maciel
> Despite the fact that there are issues I would like us to be more
> strong or more specific, I generally agree with this proposal.
> Jeremy Malcolm
> Baudoin SCHOMBE
> Imran Ahmed Shah
> Mostly agreed.
> we can suggest that “Solutions&  Recommendations
> regarding governance common issues may please be vetted through
> consensus. Other suggestions, too.
> Yuliya Morenets
> Parminder
> (with minor changes as per Co-coordinators judgment, like the ISOC point)
> Lee McKnight
> Tracy Kackshaw
> Wolfgang Kleinwächter
> Anriette Esterhuysen
> Avri Doria
> i think it is a good and fair set of responses
> Ginger Praque
> Fouad Bajwa
> Graciela
>
> A total of 16.
>
> The following people expressed disagreement:
>
> William Drake
> Jeanette Hofmann
>
> A total of 2.
>
> The following people expressed substantial additional suggestions
> and/or comments,
> who have largely supported the final draft.
> Unfortunately we cannot put these into our text this time since we did
> not have sufficient amount of time to reach agreement or [rough
> consensus].
>
>
> Wolfgang Kleinwächter
> suggest "messages from the IGF", not “recommendations”
> "IGF enhances its function and could become, inter alia, an
> observatory, a clearinghouse, an early warning system of what happen
> in other forums."
>
> Migue Alcaine - suggest "messages from the IGF", not
> “recommendations”, get rid of "rough consensus"
> for 6a. IGF Secretariat will not be able to dedicate funds from its
> current level of funding in its voluntary fund for the engagement of
> Developing country actors. Either we can insist in inviting or
> strenghtening the voluntary fund and dedicate the additional funds to
> the engagement of developing countries or we can invite governments or
> the UN SG to consider a small transfer from the UN regular budget to
> the aforementioned IGF voluntary fund and dedicate such funds for the
> engagement of developing countries. I am suggesting a transfer around
> US$200,000 annually. Independently of the source of the funds, they
> should serve to make sinergies with the actors already improving the
> engagement of developing countries.
>
> Katitza Rodriguez
> I disagree with the use of the word "rough consensus".
> Agree with "Messages from IGF"
> Consensus with other stakeholders is a different approach and not an easy task.
> I would like to explore more the proposal table by Wolfgang
> support also Miguel's proposal
>
> There have also been good amount of debate whether reference to OECD
> and Council of Europe is acceptable or not, in relation to the issue
> of how to promote the participation of developing countries into
> global policy making and governance.
>
> Will send another note.
>
> izumi
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>       governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>       governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>       http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101119/24b980ef/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From jeanette at wzb.eu  Fri Nov 19 10:08:34 2010
From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 16:08:34 +0100
Subject: [governance] Consensus Call for CSTD IGF Questionnaire - Clean
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTineLd8UE24jX-_D4W41Y3SQDxKUUFV=sNd7eLkc@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1290120838.4ce5ae863a8c2@webmail.ovh.fr> <1290120961.4ce5af015f4cf@webmail.ovh.fr> <AANLkTineLd8UE24jX-_D4W41Y3SQDxKUUFV=sNd7eLkc@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4CE692F2.3060907@wzb.eu>

Hi, I am not vetoing the text. I am just not happy with it (but, alas, 
without the time to suggest language).

jeanette

Am 19.11.2010 15:53, schrieb Izumi AIZU:
> As the deadline is approaching, and my working hours are also closing, 11:45 pm
> Tokyo time now on Friday, I like to close the Final Call for the
> consensus shortly.
>
> So far, I have recognized the following people expressed some degree
> of support for
> the Final Draft.
>
> Ian Peter
> Marilia Maciel
> Despite the fact that there are issues I would like us to be more
> strong or more specific, I generally agree with this proposal.
> Jeremy Malcolm
> Baudoin SCHOMBE
> Imran Ahmed Shah
> Mostly agreed.
> we can suggest that “Solutions&  Recommendations
> regarding governance common issues may please be vetted through
> consensus. Other suggestions, too.
> Yuliya Morenets
> Parminder
> (with minor changes as per Co-coordinators judgment, like the ISOC point)
> Lee McKnight
> Tracy Kackshaw
> Wolfgang Kleinwächter
> Anriette Esterhuysen
> Avri Doria
> i think it is a good and fair set of responses
> Ginger Praque
> Fouad Bajwa
> Graciela
>
> A total of 16.
>
> The following people expressed disagreement:
>
> William Drake
> Jeanette Hofmann
>
> A total of 2.
>
> The following people expressed substantial additional suggestions
> and/or comments,
> who have largely supported the final draft.
> Unfortunately we cannot put these into our text this time since we did
> not have sufficient amount of time to reach agreement or [rough
> consensus].
>
>
> Wolfgang Kleinwächter
> suggest "messages from the IGF", not “recommendations”
> "IGF enhances its function and could become, inter alia, an
> observatory, a clearinghouse, an early warning system of what happen
> in other forums."
>
> Migue Alcaine - suggest "messages from the IGF", not
> “recommendations”, get rid of "rough consensus"
> for 6a. IGF Secretariat will not be able to dedicate funds from its
> current level of funding in its voluntary fund for the engagement of
> Developing country actors. Either we can insist in inviting or
> strenghtening the voluntary fund and dedicate the additional funds to
> the engagement of developing countries or we can invite governments or
> the UN SG to consider a small transfer from the UN regular budget to
> the aforementioned IGF voluntary fund and dedicate such funds for the
> engagement of developing countries. I am suggesting a transfer around
> US$200,000 annually. Independently of the source of the funds, they
> should serve to make sinergies with the actors already improving the
> engagement of developing countries.
>
> Katitza Rodriguez
> I disagree with the use of the word "rough consensus".
> Agree with "Messages from IGF"
> Consensus with other stakeholders is a different approach and not an easy task.
> I would like to explore more the proposal table by Wolfgang
> support also Miguel's proposal
>
> There have also been good amount of debate whether reference to OECD
> and Council of Europe is acceptable or not, in relation to the issue
> of how to promote the participation of developing countries into
> global policy making and governance.
>
> Will send another note.
>
> izumi
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>       governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>       governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 iza at anr.org  Fri Nov 19 10:18:25 2010
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2010 00:18:25 +0900
Subject: [governance] Consensus Call for CSTD IGF Questionnaire - Clean
In-Reply-To: <4CE692F2.3060907@wzb.eu>
References: <1290120838.4ce5ae863a8c2@webmail.ovh.fr> <1290120961.4ce5af015f4cf@webmail.ovh.fr>
 <AANLkTineLd8UE24jX-_D4W41Y3SQDxKUUFV=sNd7eLkc@mail.gmail.com> <4CE692F2.3060907@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <AANLkTikcXmzdutAJk_6nc6=aGaPrLLhindSYvrWoXyY3@mail.gmail.com>

Yes, Jeannette, I totally understand that. And I do appreciate that
Bill and you raised the concerns. As the civil society caucus, we
have almost always have had diverse views and positions which
is only natural, and despite these or because of these diversity,
we can become rich in quality and dynamic in action.

So please everyone continue to express the ideas and ideals
straight. Making compromise or balanced output is, to large
degree, what is tasked to the coordinators, I am aware of that
and happy to struggle for.

Thanks again,

izumi



2010/11/20 Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu>:
> Hi, I am not vetoing the text. I am just not happy with it (but, alas,
> without the time to suggest language).
>
> 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 iza at anr.org  Fri Nov 19 10:20:53 2010
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2010 00:20:53 +0900
Subject: [governance] Final text to submit to CSTD on IGF Questionnaire
Message-ID: <AANLkTin1vTS7rB1u=aVCXDVQmVQ6TF4=V1y-NQPY=Fmp@mail.gmail.com>

Dear list,

By now, we have 17 people supported [excluding 2 co-coordinators,
Jeremy and myself], and 2 people disagreed.

Since we could not use the online poll, the number of "votes" are not as many
as we wanted it to be, but we can still call that there is rough
consensus and therefore
will submit the following text to the CSTD secretariat shortly.

In Q 3 a),  "recommendations" was changed into " recommendations or
messages" and
also "rough consensus" was changed into “consensus” in the last
sentence. This is
to try to find mutual solution.

In Q 6 a), Internet Society is added.

For Q9. the following sentence is added.
"Since we are still in the early stage of the consultation process,
our comments include some tentative ideas. We will closely follow the
WG process and will provide more comments and suggestions
accordingly."

The full text is attached here and the Word file with history is also attached.

Sorry for not capturing all the great suggestions, and also not able to make
the balanced conclusion within the short amount of time. But still I think we
have reasonable compromise and and hope to carry the valuable discussion
forward.

Thank you again for your contributions and support,

izumi

-------------
Answers to the CSTD Questionnaire on improvements to the IGF

Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus
Nov 19 2010

1. What do you consider the most important achievements of the first
five IGF meetings?

IGF created the space for dialogue by all stakeholders in an open,
inclusive manner. These emergence and development of the
multistakeholder principle and practice are perhaps the biggest
contribution IGF has achieved so far. It helped many participants to
understand the issues of their interest, as well as to understand how
other actors understand, act and accept their issues. Emergence of
Regional and National IGF with multistakeholder approach is another
achievement.


2. How satisfied are you with the delivery of the results of
discussions at the IGF and the impact they have had on developments in
national, regional or international Internet governance?

IGF has made a reasonable advancement of the understanding of the
issues. Yet, at national, regional and international levels, we have
mixed assessment for the impact it brought.


3. Which, if any, new mechanisms would you propose to improve the
impact of the IGF discussions, in particular as regards the
interaction between the IGF and other stakeholders? Please specify the
kind of mechanism (e.g. reporting, exchanges, recommendations,
concrete advice, etc.) and the stakeholders (e.g. intergovernmental
bodies, other fora dealing with Internet Governance, etc.).

a) One mechanism we can suggest is to come up with some form of
recommendations or messages where all stakeholders have [rough]
consensus. They will not be binding, but could still function as
model, reference or common framework. Working process towards
achieving the consensus will create better and deeper understandings
amongst different stakeholders.

b) The Secretariat and MAG should be strongly encouraged to directly
foster discussion and debate of difficult issues in main sessions,
instead of avoiding them.

4. In your view, what important new issues or themes concerning
Internet governance have emerged or become important since the Tunis
phase of the Summit, which deserve more attention in the next five
years?

IGC feels that attention to the development agenda, issues concerning
the marginalized groups or actors, have yet gained sufficient level of
work at IGF and its outcome. These may not be the “new” issues, but we
strongly feel they are very important.

Besides them, emergence of new technologies, tools and services, such
as cloud computing; user-generated, SNS and online sharing services
such as wiki, YouTube, Ustream, twitter and Facebook; DPI and
behavioral targeting advertisements; wide deployment of mobile
services including smart phones and tablet computers pose all kind of
new challenges for governance.


5. What do you think should be the priority themes and areas of work
of the IGF during the next five years?

Followings will be the areas of themes and works that have priorities we think.

a) Enhancing multi-stakeholder framework within IGF.
b) Promote capacity building for developmental agenda of governance
c) Balancing the interests – to empower those of marginalized and
under-developed in all organizations and fora dealing with Internet
governance – such as ICANN, W3C, IETF, RIRs, ITU, WIPO, CoE, OECD,
UNCTAD/CSTD and United Nations itself.

6. How can the capacity of those groups that are not yet well
represented at the IGF be improved? In particular, what could be done
to improve the capacity of representatives from developing countries?

a) Establish special funding mechanism by IGF itself to help actors
from developing countries to continuously engage in IGF and related
organizations and meetings. Fellowship works carried out by
DiploFoundation, DotAsia Organisation, Interne Society and other
institutions offer good reference for this, but they should be
expanded in larger scale. Targeting youth groups or younger generation
in profession will have, in the long run, effective impact.

b) Providing technical training to policy makers and policy training
to engineers will also help close the gap(s) within the
under-represented and also even well-represented.


7. How do you think more awareness of Internet governance issues and
the IGF process can be raised amongst groups whose lives are affected
by Internet governance but who are not yet part of the IGF process?

a) Giving more weight to regional and national IGF meetings, making
more direct “links” to the main IGF meeting will help outreach to
those who have not yet involved in IGF process. Securing the same
level of working framework of IGF, such as multi-stakeholder
composition and inclusion of civil society groups (where such practice
is relatively new or scarce) should be maintained.

b) Ensuring a plurality of civil society voices be heard in Internet
governance processes will also be effective in reaching out to those
yet to participate.

c) Online meetings are most effective when provision is made for
participation both synchronously (ie. in real time) and
asynchronously. The remote hubs and moderators at the Vilnius IGF made
good progress towards this direction. Using such tools as blogs,
Twitter, mailing lists, Facebook and so on over an extended period may
also increase the awareness.

d) Organizing some sessions completely online will create “level
playing field” among all participants, and may also demonstrate the
effectiveness of these tools/technologies, and may also improve the
quality of services in turn.

e) Increase linguistic diversity. Using UN major languages other than
English at certain meetings and occasions as main working language
(translated into other UN languages) will increase the outreach to
non-English speaking population of the globe and will give more sense
of ownership. Currently, English is the only default working language,
but we think it does not have to be so.


8. How, if at all, do you think that the IGF process (including the
format of the meeting, the preparatory process, the development of the
agenda, etc.) needs to change to meet changing circumstances and
priorities?

As we replied to the MAG questionnaire, the organizing work of IGF
primarily by MAG should be improved. More outcome oriented direction
might improve the quality and value of IGF, but this should be
carefully exercised so as not to lose the open and free spirit of IGF
which contributed a great deal.

9. Do you have any other comments?

Since we are still in the early stage of the consultation process, our
comments include some tentative ideas. We will closely follow the WG
process and will provide more comments and suggestions accordingly.
---------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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: IGCResponse_CSTD_IGFQnre_Nov19.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 42496 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101120/cda03476/attachment.doc>

From roland at internetpolicyagency.com  Fri Nov 19 10:25:04 2010
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 15:25:04 +0000
Subject: [governance] Re: Geneva Sunday
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinRgA7vZqbHssP3K8kJ2TACBxJ9O+rdFusreX_8@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1E8653E0-927A-4C7C-B373-9E8D4D18BE58@graduateinstitute.ch>
 <AANLkTimZhcB4yEcyAiYF3BvQ+PD4ddE54hrTkXnKnCMT@mail.gmail.com>
 <0613CF7C-3865-4386-AC72-C664524C4BC2@graduateinstitute.ch>
 <AANLkTinRgA7vZqbHssP3K8kJ2TACBxJ9O+rdFusreX_8@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <U4HOqUQQbp5MFADw@internetpolicyagency.com>

In message 
<AANLkTinRgA7vZqbHssP3K8kJ2TACBxJ9O+rdFusreX_8 at mail.gmail.com>, at 
22:49:55 on Fri, 19 Nov 2010, Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org> writes

>EuroDIG meeting (what does it stand for and is it open to participate)

It would have been called the "European [Regional] IGF" if that name 
hadn't been previously selected by a somewhat ill-fated initiative of 
the European Parliament. It's very open, but does have a tendency to 
have its prep meetings in odd places and inconvenient times (from my 
perspective, anyway).

To attend this one, you need to get into the Palais, which they are 
arranging by asking the Monday IGF meeting to issue 2-day badges to the 
individuals concerned (even if you aren't attending on the Monday).
-- 
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 toml at communisphere.com  Fri Nov 19 10:33:58 2010
From: toml at communisphere.com (Thomas Lowenhaupt)
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 10:33:58 -0500
Subject: [governance] Consensus Call for CSTD IGF Questionnaire - Clean
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTineLd8UE24jX-_D4W41Y3SQDxKUUFV=sNd7eLkc@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1290120838.4ce5ae863a8c2@webmail.ovh.fr> <1290120961.4ce5af015f4cf@webmail.ovh.fr> <AANLkTineLd8UE24jX-_D4W41Y3SQDxKUUFV=sNd7eLkc@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4CE698E6.40809@communisphere.com>

I too would like to be put on the list of those offering support of the 
final draft.

Thomas Lowenhaupt

On 11/19/2010 9:53 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote:
> As the deadline is approaching, and my working hours are also closing, 11:45 pm
> Tokyo time now on Friday, I like to close the Final Call for the
> consensus shortly.
>
> So far, I have recognized the following people expressed some degree
> of support for
> the Final Draft.
>
> Ian Peter
> Marilia Maciel
> Despite the fact that there are issues I would like us to be more
> strong or more specific, I generally agree with this proposal.
> Jeremy Malcolm
> Baudoin SCHOMBE
> Imran Ahmed Shah
> Mostly agreed.
> we can suggest that “Solutions&  Recommendations
> regarding governance common issues may please be vetted through
> consensus. Other suggestions, too.
> Yuliya Morenets
> Parminder
> (with minor changes as per Co-coordinators judgment, like the ISOC point)
> Lee McKnight
> Tracy Kackshaw
> Wolfgang Kleinwächter
> Anriette Esterhuysen
> Avri Doria
> i think it is a good and fair set of responses
> Ginger Praque
> Fouad Bajwa
> Graciela
>
> A total of 16.
>
> The following people expressed disagreement:
>
> William Drake
> Jeanette Hofmann
>
> A total of 2.
>
> The following people expressed substantial additional suggestions
> and/or comments,
> who have largely supported the final draft.
> Unfortunately we cannot put these into our text this time since we did
> not have sufficient amount of time to reach agreement or [rough
> consensus].
>
>
> Wolfgang Kleinwächter
> suggest "messages from the IGF", not “recommendations”
> "IGF enhances its function and could become, inter alia, an
> observatory, a clearinghouse, an early warning system of what happen
> in other forums."
>
> Migue Alcaine - suggest "messages from the IGF", not
> “recommendations”, get rid of "rough consensus"
> for 6a. IGF Secretariat will not be able to dedicate funds from its
> current level of funding in its voluntary fund for the engagement of
> Developing country actors. Either we can insist in inviting or
> strenghtening the voluntary fund and dedicate the additional funds to
> the engagement of developing countries or we can invite governments or
> the UN SG to consider a small transfer from the UN regular budget to
> the aforementioned IGF voluntary fund and dedicate such funds for the
> engagement of developing countries. I am suggesting a transfer around
> US$200,000 annually. Independently of the source of the funds, they
> should serve to make sinergies with the actors already improving the
> engagement of developing countries.
>
> Katitza Rodriguez
> I disagree with the use of the word "rough consensus".
> Agree with "Messages from IGF"
> Consensus with other stakeholders is a different approach and not an easy task.
> I would like to explore more the proposal table by Wolfgang
> support also Miguel's proposal
>
> There have also been good amount of debate whether reference to OECD
> and Council of Europe is acceptable or not, in relation to the issue
> of how to promote the participation of developing countries into
> global policy making and governance.
>
> Will send another note.
>
> izumi
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>       governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>       governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>       http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101119/09a06210/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From iza at anr.org  Fri Nov 19 10:34:04 2010
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2010 00:34:04 +0900
Subject: [governance] Consensus Call for CSTD IGF Questionnaire - Clean
 version
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTineLd8UE24jX-_D4W41Y3SQDxKUUFV=sNd7eLkc@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1290120838.4ce5ae863a8c2@webmail.ovh.fr> <1290120961.4ce5af015f4cf@webmail.ovh.fr>
 <AANLkTineLd8UE24jX-_D4W41Y3SQDxKUUFV=sNd7eLkc@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=zCw4SFr1pzO1BBci8Dz7m6SnuZS7+Y37b+yX5@mail.gmail.com>

I should take out Avri from the list of those who supported the text.
She only mentioned that "it is a good and fair set of responses".
Sorry for the confusion.

izumi



2010/11/19 Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org>:
> As the deadline is approaching, and my working hours are also closing, 11:45 pm
> Tokyo time now on Friday, I like to close the Final Call for the
> consensus shortly.
>
> So far, I have recognized the following people expressed some degree
> of support for
> the Final Draft.
>
> Ian Peter
> Marilia Maciel
> Despite the fact that there are issues I would like us to be more
> strong or more specific, I generally agree with this proposal.
> Jeremy Malcolm
> Baudoin SCHOMBE
> Imran Ahmed Shah
> Mostly agreed.
> we can suggest that “Solutions & Recommendations
> regarding governance common issues may please be vetted through
> consensus. Other suggestions, too.
> Yuliya Morenets
> Parminder
> (with minor changes as per Co-coordinators judgment, like the ISOC point)
> Lee McKnight
> Tracy Kackshaw
> Wolfgang Kleinwächter
> Anriette Esterhuysen
> Avri Doria
> i think it is a good and fair set of responses
> Ginger Praque
> Fouad Bajwa
> Graciela
>
> A total of 16.
>
> The following people expressed disagreement:
>
> William Drake
> Jeanette Hofmann
>
> A total of 2.
>
> The following people expressed substantial additional suggestions
> and/or comments,
> who have largely supported the final draft.
> Unfortunately we cannot put these into our text this time since we did
> not have sufficient amount of time to reach agreement or [rough
> consensus].
>
>
> Wolfgang Kleinwächter
> suggest "messages from the IGF", not “recommendations”
> "IGF enhances its function and could become, inter alia, an
> observatory, a clearinghouse, an early warning system of what happen
> in other forums."
>
> Migue Alcaine - suggest "messages from the IGF", not
> “recommendations”, get rid of "rough consensus"
> for 6a. IGF Secretariat will not be able to dedicate funds from its
> current level of funding in its voluntary fund for the engagement of
> Developing country actors. Either we can insist in inviting or
> strenghtening the voluntary fund and dedicate the additional funds to
> the engagement of developing countries or we can invite governments or
> the UN SG to consider a small transfer from the UN regular budget to
> the aforementioned IGF voluntary fund and dedicate such funds for the
> engagement of developing countries. I am suggesting a transfer around
> US$200,000 annually. Independently of the source of the funds, they
> should serve to make sinergies with the actors already improving the
> engagement of developing countries.
>
> Katitza Rodriguez
> I disagree with the use of the word "rough consensus".
> Agree with "Messages from IGF"
> Consensus with other stakeholders is a different approach and not an easy task.
> I would like to explore more the proposal table by Wolfgang
> support also Miguel's proposal
>
> There have also been good amount of debate whether reference to OECD
> and Council of Europe is acceptable or not, in relation to the issue
> of how to promote the participation of developing countries into
> global policy making and governance.
>
> Will send another note.
>
> izumi
>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From iza at anr.org  Fri Nov 19 10:42:03 2010
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2010 00:42:03 +0900
Subject: [governance] Fwd: Answers to the CSTD Questionnaire on
 improvements to the IGF
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinyDt9XKTn6M5Ezxn77t4d+2DQ7SFH4Dpb9xAmO@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTinyDt9XKTn6M5Ezxn77t4d+2DQ7SFH4Dpb9xAmO@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTikNmxsu=FnTvveT-mz6a4mdvoeWPmu7Rkssba9U@mail.gmail.com>

Just sent to the CSTD Secretariat and received the confirmation of their
receipt.

Jeremy, please put it to our website when you have time to work.

Thanks all,

izumi


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org>
Date: 2010/11/20
Subject: Answers to the CSTD Questionnaire on improvements to the IGF
To: cstdwg-igf at unctad.org
Cc: Mongi Hamdi <Mongi.Hamdi at unctad.org>,
Thomas.Schneider at bakom.admin.ch, frederic.riehl at bakom.admin.ch,
Franziska Klopfer <Franziska.Klopfer at unctad.org>, Anne Miroux
<Anne.Miroux at unctad.org>, Dong Wu <Dong.Wu at unctad.org>, Malou Pasinos
<Malou.Pasinos at unctad.org>, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org>


Nov 19 2010

Dear CSTD,

Here attached and following is the Answers to the CSTD Questionnaire
on improvements to the IGF.

On behalf of the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus, we submit them
for the input to the coming consultation process.

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to participate in the process
and we look forward to working with you in the coming consultation
meeting on Nov 24 in Geneva and beyond.

Sincerely,

Izumi Aizu
Jeremy Malcolm

Co-coordinators,
Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC)

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

Answers to the CSTD Questionnaire on improvements to the IGF

Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus
Nov 19 2010

1. What do you consider the most important achievements of the first
five IGF meetings?

IGF created the space for dialogue by all stakeholders in an open,
inclusive manner. These emergence and development of the
multistakeholder principle and practice are perhaps the biggest
contribution IGF has achieved so far. It helped many participants to
understand the issues of their interest, as well as to understand how
other actors understand, act and accept their issues. Emergence of
Regional and National IGF with multistakeholder approach is another
achievement.


2. How satisfied are you with the delivery of the results of
discussions at the IGF and the impact they have had on developments in
national, regional or international Internet governance?

IGF has made a reasonable advancement of the understanding of the
issues. Yet, at national, regional and international levels, we have
mixed assessment for the impact it brought.


3. Which, if any, new mechanisms would you propose to improve the
impact of the IGF discussions, in particular as regards the
interaction between the IGF and other stakeholders? Please specify the
kind of mechanism (e.g. reporting, exchanges, recommendations,
concrete advice, etc.) and the stakeholders (e.g. intergovernmental
bodies, other fora dealing with Internet Governance, etc.).

a) One mechanism we can suggest is to come up with some form of
recommendations or messages where all stakeholders have [rough]
consensus. They will not be binding, but could still function as
model, reference or common framework. Working process towards
achieving these rough consensus will create better and deeper
understandings amongst different stakeholders.


b) The Secretariat and MAG should be strongly encouraged to directly
foster discussion and debate of difficult issues in main sessions,
instead of avoiding them.

4. In your view, what important new issues or themes concerning
Internet governance have emerged or become important since the Tunis
phase of the Summit, which deserve more attention in the next five
years?

IGC feels that attention to the development agenda, issues concerning
the marginalized groups or actors, have yet gained sufficient level of
work at IGF and its outcome. These may not be the “new” issues, but we
strongly feel they are very important.

Besides them, emergence of new technologies, tools and services, such
as cloud computing; user-generated, SNS and online sharing services
such as wiki, YouTube, Ustream, twitter and Facebook; DPI and
behavioral targeting advertisements; wide deployment of mobile
services including smart phones and tablet computers pose all kind of
new challenges for governance.


5. What do you think should be the priority themes and areas of work
of the IGF during the next five years?

Followings will be the areas of themes and works that have priorities we think.

a) Enhancing multi-stakeholder framework within IGF.
b) Promote capacity building for developmental agenda of governance
c) Balancing the interests – to empower those of marginalized and
under-developed in all organizations and fora dealing with Internet
governance – such as ICANN, W3C, IETF, RIRs, ITU, WIPO, CoE, OECD,
UNCTAD/CSTD and United Nations itself.

6. How can the capacity of those groups that are not yet well
represented at the IGF be improved? In particular, what could be done
to improve the capacity of representatives from developing countries?

a) Establish special funding mechanism by IGF itself to help actors
from developing countries to continuously engage in IGF and related
organizations and meetings. Fellowship works carried out by
DiploFoundation, dDotAsia Oorganizsation, Interne Society [other
reference, please] and other institutions offer good reference for
this, but they should be expanded in larger scale. Targeting youth
groups or younger generation in profession, will have, in the long
run, effective impact.

b) Providing technical training to policy makers and policy training
to engineers will also help close the gap(s) within the
under-represented and also even well-represented.


7. How do you think more awareness of Internet governance issues and
the IGF process can be raised amongst groups whose lives are affected
by Internet governance but who are not yet part of the IGF process?

a) Giving more weight to regional and national IGF meetings, making
more direct “links” to the main IGF meeting will help outreach to
those who have not yet involved in IGF process. Securing the same
level of working framework of IGF, such as multi-stakeholder
composition and inclusion of civil society groups (where such practice
is relatively new or scarce) should be maintained.

b) Ensuring a plurality of civil society voices be heard in Internet
governance processes will also be effective in reaching out to those
yet to participate.

c) Online meetings are most effective when provision is made for
participation both synchronously (ie. in real time) and
asynchronously. The remote hubs and moderators at the Vilnius IGF made
good progress towards this direction. Using such tools as blogs,
Twitter, mailing lists, Facebook and so on over an extended period may
also increase the awareness.

d) Organizing some sessions completely online will create “level
playing field” among all participants, and may also demonstrate the
effectiveness of these tools/technologies, and may also improve the
quality of services in turn.

e) Increase linguistic diversity. Using UN major languages other than
English at certain meetings and occasions as main working language
(translated into other UN languages) will increase the outreach to
non-English speaking population of the globe and will give more sense
of ownership. Currently, English is the only default working language,
but we think it does not have to be so.


8. How, if at all, do you think that the IGF process (including the
format of the meeting, the preparatory process, the development of the
agenda, etc.) needs to change to meet changing circumstances and
priorities?

As we replied to the MAG questionnaire, the organizing work of IGF
primarily by MAG should be improved. More outcome oriented direction
might improve the quality and value of IGF, but this should be
carefully exercised so as not to lose the open and free spirit of IGF
which contributed a great deal.

9. Do you have any other comments?

Since we are still in the early stage of the consultation process, our
comments include some tentative ideas. We will closely follow the WG
process and will provide more comments and suggestions accordingly.

-----------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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: IGCResponse_CSTD_IGFQnre_Nov19Clean.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 38912 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101120/7b25db0e/attachment.doc>

From jlfullsack at orange.fr  Fri Nov 19 11:05:27 2010
From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK)
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 08:05:27 -0800 (PST)
Subject: AW: [governance] Consensus Call for CSTD IGF Questionnaire -
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimGFznj-YCZ923NrnWkxDyd4UYvD8T4S_JRVkCH@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTinyo=oKJoJiz2wVHikpv7-nYBwgq+cf7p6qrj16@mail.gmail.com>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07448@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <4CE66370.40506@itforchange.net>
 <AANLkTi=sDZiaxeD6R0=vrZVpaHmHMJn_s_y=D=EbWBqg@mail.gmail.com>
 <4CE66F81.8040404@itforchange.net>
 <AANLkTimGFznj-YCZ923NrnWkxDyd4UYvD8T4S_JRVkCH@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <26908398.99509.1290182685343.JavaMail.www@wwinf1d14>

Dear Baudouin

You wrote :

> Moreover, the implementation of its WSIS Action Lines proves sufficient.<

I'm not satisfied at all (rather I'm very disappointed) with the recent WSIS Forum outcomes !
Is the emphatically touted Broadband Commission a serious answer to the "digital divide" ? And what about "Connect Africa" and its "Marshall Plan for Africa" ? Just another slogan ?
But also : where was the African Union, BAD and Co during the WSIS Forum ? 
And what are 12 submarine cables along the African coasts doing for exchanging coms in Central Africa for instance ? Who is caring about that waste of money (some 7 billions dollars) ?
We aren't far from Internet governance when we are speaking of such issues : for Internet to be "governed" correctly it first of all needs to be  implemented ! I.e. there must be relevant traffic nodes (exchanges, GIX, PoP, ...) and a resilient network for interconnecting them on the continent ! In Africa, IG is first of all about the topology of the continental backbone, i.e. the location of IXPs, GIXes and PoPs for holding the " domestic African" traffic wthin the continent and useing the shortest or most economical links. This topology needs a relevant Internet architecture : here IG is to be at work ! Moreover, the insertion of Africa in the international traffic flow needs selected landing stations (and satellite hubs) to be the gateway stations to the global optical fiber routes that really connects Africa to the World. But, please, only this African traffic that is outgoing from, or incoming to, the continent, and not e-mail traffic between Brazzaville and Kinhasa nor this one from Accra to Lome.

Sorry for being at the "grass-root level" for our higher level thinking friends of the list. I still believe there is a missing link in the CS IGC if we only deal with "higher layers" of the NW model. Especially when we are willing to include DCs (and that is obviously a true and full CS duty). Tell me if I'm wrong ...    

Jean-Louis Fullsack
CSDPTT



> Message du 19/11/10 14:38
> De : "Baudouin SCHOMBE" 
> A : "parminder" 
> Copie à : governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Objet : Re: AW: [governance] Consensus Call for CSTD IGF Questionnaire -
> 
> 
 Again I totally agree with you. It is in this context that national IGFs must be carefully prepared to open the debate locally with strong participation of multi stakeholders including agencies knew the United Nations system in the country.Écouter Lire phonétiquementIt is an inescapable reality, and this is only my opinion, in most developing countries, particularly in Africa, we are obliged to work with the UN system that accompany the African governments in 90% of their developement program.
> Moreover, the implementation of its WSIS Action Lines proves sufficient.
> The biggest difficulty we encounter is the non-appropriation of the Geneva Action plan both the Tunis Agenda. What makes some countries there is still no national ICT strategy or national ICT policy or even a blueprint.
> At the stage where we are, it will require African countries to work closely with regional organizations like the African Union, ADB etc. .., subregional organizations such as ECOWAS, SADC, ECCAS ... just to name a few .
> That is to say that African civil society still has much work to do both at the national, subregional and regional levels.
> Work in synergy  is strongly capital  with the Caucus Global Civil Society.
> 
> Baudouin
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 2010/11/19 parminder 

> 
> 
> On Friday 19 November 2010 06:00 PM, Baudouin SCHOMBE wrote: I totally notice with your argument, Parminder, when you explain the need for participation of developing countries in discussions to defend their interests.
> It is for this reason that I insisted on national and regional IGF before world  IGF.
> Yes, certainly. I agree.
> 
> I only want it to be ensured that these national and regional IGFs are legitimate, representative, with funds for diverse participation, especially of those who are from or represent marginalized groups.... Some private dominant groups - or processes basically led and driven by such dominant groups, with some smattering of co-optive 'inclusion' - may not simply self declare themselves as national or regional IGFs.. Parminder 
> 
> 
> 
> In this way, civil society can come to mobilize actors at both national and regional levels through training workshops and multi-stakeholder forum on issues of Internet governance.
> This work must be done in synergy with the IGC, to convey the same information while allowing the flexibility to respond to national and express their views.
> 
> 
BAUDOUIN
>  
> 
> 2010/11/19 parminder 

> 
> 
> On Thursday 18 November 2010 01:52 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: Hi everybody thanks for the work. I am sorry that I jump in in a very late stage. I have three comments: 1. 3a: The old debate on receommendations is not really helpful. In the past CS tried also to use the terminology "messages". Wolfgang
> 
>  Global CS did never abandon the concept of recommendations in the IGF context, though at places 'messages' may also have been used. Recommendations (or 'recommend') is mentioned in the Tunis Agenda's mandate for the IGF and we seem to have largely supported it, in some form or the other. 
> The problem is as soon as you introduce a process to negotiate a text which then has been the subject of voting you change the nature of the the whole event. Even if you stress that these receommendations will be not binding, this does not matter. In the Un context (like in other intergovernmental mechanisms) the category "receommednation" is well defined and you can not avoid that an IGF recommendation is seen as something similar to what other Un bodies are doing with receommendations. Again I prefer the "message". BTW, I will circulate later this week the Interim Report of the Council of Europe Cross Border Expert Group where we propose also the elaboration of some instruments. The Council of Europe - or other organisations with an established procedure to negotiat texts - are a better place for such an excercise. Sure, it may be a better place. But I or my country in not in the CoE (though CoE instruments finally do impact me). So which 'better place' do you think I can look upto? Can you please provide me an answer to this. 
> 
> I continue to be (unpleasantly) surprised at the manner in which the concerns of developing countries in terms of their non-participation in global policy making and the global shaping of the ICT pehnomenon is ignored so blatantly, in a group which wants to describe itself as a global civil society group. 
> 
> We may all glibly talk about development issues or IG for development. Pl take note that in the IGF plenary on IG for development the prime issue which came up was that IG for development first of all means due participation of developing countries in global IG related policy making (see the Chairman's summary). What does the IGC plan to do on this issue? Ask us to watch and cheer on CoE and OECD policy making processes?
> 
> I can still understand the stand of someone like Milton (though I do not agree with it) who is a bit afraid of supporting new institutional development for democratic global policy making as coming out of the current 'core' UN configurations (which is why he is afraid of the enhanced cooperation or EC process), even as an positively evolutionary process (which is my considered expectation of the EC process). Because he does, correspondingly, support a more open, diverse, multistakeholder process like the IGF making some clear positive contributions towards development of global Internet policies through making policy recommendations. 
> 
> What I cant understand is the position of those who both oppose the EC process (in whichever evolutionary form) as well as oppose possibilities of the IGF making recommendations (I see Wolfgang, Katitza, Bill, Jeanette among others state that position). Moreover, they all seem to closely associate with OECD/ CoE policy making processes, which are in fact much less open, transparent, multistakeholder etc than even the 'enhanced cooperation' model which, for instance, I proposed and they strongly resisted. 
> 
> I am unable to understand why a comity of powerful nations needs specific well-structured systems of making inter-country policies (which then become default global ones) and all countires as a global group, which (unfortunately?)  include developing countries, should not aspire to any such structures. So, it appears, that while (global?) CS should enthusiastically support the former (CoE / OECD kind of process) it is presented as its bounden duty to strongly oppose any such - or in fact structurally even much better - institutional developments  at the global level.
> 
> And I also do hope that the IGC members form developing countries both increase their participation in IGC kind of groups, and become more vocal in articulating their interests. 
> 
> parminder 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. 6a: I thin SOC has an IGF Fellowship Programm. 3. Under nine we could say that we ould like to see that the IGF enhances its function and could become, inter alia, an observatory, a clearinghouse, an early warning system and a watchdog. Sorry for the late reply. If it is too late then ignore it. Best wishes wolfgang ________________________________ Von: izumiaizu at gmail.com im Auftrag von Izumi AIZU Gesendet: Do 18.11.2010 03:13 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org Betreff: [governance] Consensus Call for CSTD IGF Questionnaire - Clean version Here follows are the Clean version of the Final Draft for the CSTD IGF questionnaire answer in full text. Sorry for the confusion. Please respond if you agree or disagree as soon as possible. Friday, Nov 19 is the deadline for submission. More comments are also very much appreciated as we can further feed them into the Consultation meetings next week in Geneva. Thanks! izumi ------------ FINAL Draft for Questionnaire on improvements to the IGF 1. What do you consider the most important achievements of the first five IGF meetings? IGF created the space for dialogue by all stakeholders in an open, inclusive manner. These emergence and development of the multistakeholder principle and practice are perhaps the biggest contribution IGF has achieved so far. It helped many participants to understand the issues of their interest, as well as to understand how other actors understand, act and accept their issues. Emergence of Regional and National IGF with multistakeholder approach is another achievement. 2. How satisfied are you with the delivery of the results of discussions at the IGF and the impact they have had on developments in national, regional or international Internet governance? IGF has made a reasonable advancement of the understanding of the issues. Yet, at national, regional and international levels, we have mixed assessment for the impact it brought. 3. Which, if any, new mechanisms would you propose to improve the impact of the IGF discussions, in particular as regards the interaction between the IGF and other stakeholders? Please specify the kind of mechanism (e.g. reporting, exchanges, recommendations, concrete advice, etc.) and the stakeholders (e.g. intergovernmental bodies, other fora dealing with Internet Governance, etc.). a) One mechanism we can suggest is to come up with some form of recommendations where all stakeholders have [rough] consensus. They will not be binding, but could still function as model, reference or common framework. Working process towards achieving these rough consensus will create better and deeper understandings amongst different stakeholders. b) The Secretariat and MAG should be strongly encouraged to directly foster discussion and debate of difficult issues in main sessions, instead of avoiding them. 4. In your view, what important new issues or themes concerning Internet governance have emerged or become important since the Tunis phase of the Summit, which deserve more attention in the next five years? IGC feels that attention to the development agenda, issues concerning the marginalized groups or actors, have yet gained sufficient level of work at IGF and its outcome. These may not be the "new" issues, but we strongly feel they are very important. Besides them, emergence of new technologies, tools and services, such as cloud computing; user-generated, SNS and online sharing services such as wiki, YouTube, Ustream, twitter and Facebook; DPI and behavioral targeting advertisements; wide deployment of mobile services including smart phones and tablet computers pose all kind of new challenges for governance. 5. What do you think should be the priority themes and areas of work of the IGF during the next five years? Followings will be the areas of themes and works that have priorities we think. a) Enhancing multi-stakeholder framework within IGF. b) Promote capacity building for developmental agenda of governance c) Balancing the interests - to empower those of marginalized and under-developed in all organizations and fora dealing with Internet governance - such as ICANN, W3C, IETF, RIRs, ITU, WIPO, CoE, OECD, UNCTAD/CSTD and United Nations itself. 6. How can the capacity of those groups that are not yet well represented at the IGF be improved? In particular, what could be done to improve the capacity of representatives from developing countries? a) Establish special funding mechanism by IGF itself to help actors from developing countries to continuously engage in IGF and related organizations and meetings. Fellowship works carried out by DiploFoundation, dotAsia organization [other reference, please] and other institutions offer good reference for this, but they should be expanded in larger scale. Targeting youth groups or younger generation in profession, will have, in the long run, effective impact. b) Providing technical training to policy makers and policy training to engineers will also help close the gap(s) within the under-represented and also even well-represented. 7. How do you think more awareness of Internet governance issues and the IGF process can be raised amongst groups whose lives are affected by Internet governance but who are not yet part of the IGF process? a) Giving more weight to regional and national IGF meetings, making more direct "links" to the main IGF meeting will help outreach to those who have not yet involved in IGF process. Securing the same level of working framework of IGF, such as multi-stakeholder composition and inclusion of civil society groups (where such practice is relatively new or scarce) should be maintained. b) Ensuring a plurality of civil society voices be heard in Internet governance processes will also be effective in reaching out to those yet to participate. c) Online meetings are most effective when provision is made for participation both synchronously (ie. in real time) and asynchronously. The remote hubs and moderators at the Vilnius IGF made good progress towards this direction. Using such tools as blogs, Twitter, mailing lists, Facebook and so on over an extended period may also increase the awareness. d) Organizing some sessions completely online will create "level playing field" among all participants, and may also demonstrate the effectiveness of these tools/technologies, and may also improve the quality of services in turn. e) Increase linguistic diversity. Using UN major languages other than English at certain meetings and occasions as main working language (translated into other UN languages) will increase the outreach to non-English speaking population of the globe and will give more sense of ownership. Currently, English is the only default working language, but we think it does not have to be so. 8. How, if at all, do you think that the IGF process needs to change to meet changing circumstances and priorities? As we replied to the MAG questionnaire, the organizing work of IGF primarily by MAG should be improved. More outcome oriented direction might improve the quality and value of IGF, but this should be carefully exercised so as not to lose the open and free spirit of IGF which contributed a great deal. 9. Do you have any other comments? No. END ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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
> 
> 
> 
>
> [ message-footer.txt (0.4 Ko) ]
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101119/2b3aea66/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From fouadbajwa at gmail.com  Fri Nov 19 11:15:43 2010
From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa)
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 17:15:43 +0100
Subject: AW: [governance] Consensus Call for CSTD IGF Questionnaire -
In-Reply-To: <7A412AD0-B27E-4CAA-B3A8-AA21B8AB8BF0@psg.com>
References: <AANLkTinyo=oKJoJiz2wVHikpv7-nYBwgq+cf7p6qrj16@mail.gmail.com>
	<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07448@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
	<4CE66370.40506@itforchange.net>
	<AANLkTi=sDZiaxeD6R0=vrZVpaHmHMJn_s_y=D=EbWBqg@mail.gmail.com>
	<7A412AD0-B27E-4CAA-B3A8-AA21B8AB8BF0@psg.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTinJzzkD-Ud6rB-zCf1SYesGeoSO-6FkjiMo+H5u@mail.gmail.com>

SAARC for us in South Asia remains the same meaningless meeting point
exploited by elites and so called representatives of South Asian
nations to keep everyone busy in discussion leading nothing anywhere.
The political, social and economic situations of the 8 member
countries tell the wonderful story of the failure of this so called
SAUnion.

The model may work well for African, Latin/CT and European
citizens/members but not for this part of the world. ASEAN tends to be
more stronger in Asia Pacific. Really, do we have to be orthodox and
step back into the systems and unions of the non-internet oriented era
whereas we can progress towards forming an institution more
contextual, responsive and engaged in Internet and its context only
related issues?

Maybe a bridge out of that institution may exist that can link all
these institutional models of the past that really haven't helped much
and the global financial meltdown, recession and now struggling bonds
and interest based hair-cuts are blowing the sanity out of them?

It may be wise to step back for once and recap what has happened in
the past 5 years with regards to the IGF. Athens was the strong-point,
Vilnius, though lots of improvements and opportunities also portrayed
how many years back things might fall if not improved for the next
five years.

The issue remains valid. We need the developing world voices to voice
our concerns and for us our concerns remain very similar to Athens, we
want something from the IGF........its open, inclusive and
participative dialogue on IG and related issues is
wonderful........but where do we go from here? Do we stay the same way
or do we learn from our regional IGFs that there is an opportunity to
evolve into something more meaningful where messages and
recommendations with working groups are being felt to be the first
step and way forward?

--- Best

Fouad

On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 2:26 PM, Avri Doria <avri at psg.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This seems to make a lot of sense to me.
>
> I also wonder, what did people think of the suggestion I made that developing nations also work through the regional intergovernmental organizations that their nations belong to, of which i believe there are scores e.g.:
>
> African Union
> ASEAN
> D-8
> SIDS
> USAN
> ...
>
> or  smaller groups like
>
> CARICOM (The Caribbean Community)
> Indian Ocean Commission
> SAARC (South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation)
> SADC (Southern African Development Community)
> ECOWAS (Economic Community of Central African States)
> ECLAC (Economic Commission of Latin America and Caribbean)
>
>
> Wouldn't this complement the work being done in COE and OECD etc  and make sure that everyone was invovled and that the development perspective was heard and reinforced?  What am I missing?
>
> a.
>
>
>
> On 19 Nov 2010, at 13:30, Baudouin SCHOMBE wrote:
>
>> I totally notice with your argument, Parminder, when you explain the need for participation of developing countries in discussions to defend their interests.
>> It is for this reason that I insisted on national and regional IGF before world  IGF.
>> In this way, civil society can come to mobilize actors at both national and regional levels through training workshops and multi-stakeholder forum on issues of Internet governance.
>> This work must be done in synergy with the IGC, to convey the same information while allowing the flexibility to respond to national and express their views.
>>
>>
>> BAUDOUIN
>>
>>
>> 2010/11/19 parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
>>
>>
>> On Thursday 18 November 2010 01:52 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
>>> Hi everybody
>>>
>>> thanks for the work. I am sorry that I jump in in a very late stage. I have three comments:
>>>
>>> 1. 3a: The old debate on receommendations is not really helpful. In the past CS tried also to use the terminology "messages".
>>>
>> Wolfgang
>>
>>  Global CS did never abandon the concept of recommendations in the IGF context, though at places 'messages' may also have been used. Recommendations (or 'recommend') is mentioned in the Tunis Agenda's mandate for the IGF and we seem to have largely supported it, in some form or the other.
>>>  The problem is as soon as you introduce a process to negotiate a text which then has been the subject of voting you change the nature of the the whole event. Even if you stress that these receommendations will be not binding, this does not matter. In the Un context (like in other intergovernmental mechanisms) the category "receommednation" is well defined and you can not avoid that an IGF recommendation is seen as something similar to what other Un bodies are doing with receommendations. Again I prefer the "message". BTW, I will circulate later this week the Interim Report of the Council of Europe Cross Border Expert Group where we propose also the elaboration of some instruments. The Council of Europe - or other organisations with an established procedure to negotiat texts - are a better place for such
>>> an excercise.
>>>
>>>
>> Sure, it may be a better place. But I or my country in not in the CoE (though CoE instruments finally do impact me). So which 'better place' do you think I can look upto? Can you please provide me an answer to this.
>>
>> I continue to be (unpleasantly) surprised at the manner in which the concerns of developing countries in terms of their non-participation in global policy making and the global shaping of the ICT pehnomenon is ignored so blatantly, in a group which wants to describe itself as a global civil society group.
>>
>> We may all glibly talk about development issues or IG for development. Pl take note that in the IGF plenary on IG for development the prime issue which came up was that IG for development first of all means due participation of developing countries in global IG related policy making (see the Chairman's summary). What does the IGC plan to do on this issue? Ask us to watch and cheer on CoE and OECD policy making processes?
>>
>> I can still understand the stand of someone like Milton (though I do not agree with it) who is a bit afraid of supporting new institutional development for democratic global policy making as coming out of the current 'core' UN configurations (which is why he is afraid of the enhanced cooperation or EC process), even as an positively evolutionary process (which is my considered expectation of the EC process). Because he does, correspondingly, support a more open, diverse, multistakeholder process like the IGF making some clear positive contributions towards development of global Internet policies through making policy recommendations.
>>
>> What I cant understand is the position of those who both oppose the EC process (in whichever evolutionary form) as well as oppose possibilities of the IGF making recommendations (I see Wolfgang, Katitza, Bill, Jeanette among others state that position). Moreover, they all seem to closely associate with OECD/ CoE policy making processes, which are in fact much less open, transparent, multistakeholder etc than even the 'enhanced cooperation' model which, for instance, I proposed and they strongly resisted.
>>
>> I am unable to understand why a comity of powerful nations needs specific well-structured systems of making inter-country policies (which then become default global ones) and all countires as a global group, which (unfortunately?)  include developing countries, should not aspire to any such structures. So, it appears, that while (global?) CS should enthusiastically support the former (CoE / OECD kind of process) it is presented as its bounden duty to strongly oppose any such - or in fact structurally even much better - institutional developments  at the global level.
>>
>> And I also do hope that the IGC members form developing countries both increase their participation in IGC kind of groups, and become more vocal in articulating their interests.
>>
>> parminder
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> 2. 6a: I thin SOC has an IGF Fellowship Programm.
>>>
>>> 3. Under nine we could say that we ould like to see that the IGF enhances its function and could become, inter alia, an observatory, a clearinghouse, an early warning system and a watchdog.
>>>
>>> Sorry for the late reply. If it is too late then ignore it.
>>>
>>> Best wishes
>>>
>>> wolfgang
>>> ________________________________
>>>
>>> Von:
>>> izumiaizu at gmail.com
>>>  im Auftrag von Izumi AIZU
>>> Gesendet: Do 18.11.2010 03:13
>>> An:
>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>
>>> Betreff: [governance] Consensus Call for CSTD IGF Questionnaire - Clean version
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Here follows are the Clean version of the Final Draft for the CSTD IGF
>>> questionnaire answer
>>> in full text. Sorry for the confusion.
>>>
>>> Please respond if you agree or disagree as soon as possible.  Friday, Nov 19
>>> is the deadline for submission. More comments are also very much appreciated
>>> as we can further feed them into the Consultation meetings next week in Geneva.
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>> izumi
>>>
>>> ------------
>>>
>>> FINAL Draft for Questionnaire on improvements to the IGF
>>>
>>> 1. What do you consider the most important achievements of the first
>>> five IGF meetings?
>>>
>>> IGF created the space for dialogue by all stakeholders in an open,
>>> inclusive manner. These emergence and development of the
>>> multistakeholder principle and practice are perhaps the biggest
>>> contribution IGF has achieved so far. It helped many participants to
>>> understand the issues of their interest, as well as to understand how
>>> other actors understand, act and accept their issues. Emergence of
>>> Regional and National IGF with multistakeholder approach is another
>>> achievement.
>>>
>>> 2. How satisfied are you with the delivery of the results of
>>> discussions at the IGF and the impact they have had on developments in
>>> national, regional or international Internet governance?
>>>
>>> IGF has made a reasonable advancement of the understanding of the
>>> issues. Yet, at national, regional and international levels, we have
>>> mixed assessment for the impact it brought.
>>>
>>> 3. Which, if any, new mechanisms would you propose to improve the
>>> impact of the IGF discussions, in particular as regards the
>>> interaction between the IGF and other stakeholders? Please specify the
>>> kind of mechanism (e.g. reporting, exchanges, recommendations,
>>> concrete advice, etc.) and the stakeholders (e.g. intergovernmental
>>> bodies, other fora dealing with Internet Governance, etc.).
>>>
>>> a) One mechanism we can suggest is to come up with some form of
>>> recommendations where all stakeholders have [rough] consensus. They
>>> will not be binding, but could still function as model, reference or
>>> common framework. Working process towards achieving these rough
>>> consensus will create better and deeper understandings amongst
>>> different stakeholders.
>>>
>>> b) The Secretariat and MAG should be strongly encouraged to directly
>>> foster discussion and debate of difficult issues in main sessions,
>>> instead of avoiding them.
>>>
>>> 4. In your view, what important new issues or themes concerning
>>> Internet governance have emerged or become important since the Tunis
>>> phase of the Summit, which deserve more attention in the next five
>>> years?
>>>
>>> IGC feels that attention to the development agenda, issues concerning
>>> the marginalized groups or actors, have yet gained sufficient level of
>>> work at IGF and its outcome. These may not be the "new" issues, but we
>>> strongly feel they are very important.
>>>
>>> Besides them, emergence of new technologies, tools and services, such
>>> as cloud computing; user-generated, SNS and online sharing services
>>> such as wiki, YouTube, Ustream, twitter and Facebook; DPI and
>>> behavioral targeting advertisements; wide deployment of mobile
>>> services including smart phones and tablet computers pose all kind of
>>> new challenges for governance.
>>>
>>>
>>> 5. What do you think should be the priority themes and areas of work
>>> of the IGF during the next five years?
>>>
>>> Followings will be the areas of themes and works that have priorities we think.
>>> a) Enhancing multi-stakeholder framework within IGF.
>>> b) Promote capacity building for developmental agenda of governance
>>> c) Balancing the interests - to empower those of marginalized and
>>> under-developed in all organizations and fora dealing with Internet
>>> governance - such as ICANN, W3C, IETF, RIRs, ITU, WIPO, CoE, OECD,
>>> UNCTAD/CSTD and United Nations itself.
>>>
>>> 6. How can the capacity of those groups that are not yet well
>>> represented at the IGF be improved? In particular, what could be done
>>> to improve the capacity of representatives from developing countries?
>>>
>>> a) Establish special funding mechanism by IGF itself to help actors
>>> from developing countries to continuously engage in IGF and related
>>> organizations and meetings. Fellowship works carried out by
>>> DiploFoundation, dotAsia organization [other reference, please] and
>>> other institutions offer good reference for this, but they should be
>>> expanded in larger scale. Targeting youth groups or younger generation
>>> in profession, will have, in the long run, effective impact.
>>>
>>> b) Providing technical training to policy makers and policy training
>>> to engineers will also help close the gap(s) within the
>>> under-represented and also even well-represented.
>>>
>>> 7. How do you think more awareness of Internet governance issues and
>>> the IGF process can be raised amongst groups whose lives are affected
>>> by Internet governance but who are not yet part of the IGF process?
>>>
>>> a) Giving more weight to regional and national IGF meetings, making
>>> more direct "links" to the main IGF meeting will help outreach to
>>> those who have not yet involved in IGF process. Securing the same
>>> level of working framework of IGF, such as multi-stakeholder
>>> composition and inclusion of civil society groups (where such practice
>>> is relatively new or scarce) should be maintained.
>>>
>>> b) Ensuring a plurality of civil society voices be heard in Internet
>>> governance processes will also be effective in reaching out to those
>>> yet to participate.
>>>
>>> c) Online meetings are most effective when provision is made for
>>> participation both synchronously (ie. in real time) and
>>> asynchronously. The remote hubs and moderators at the Vilnius IGF made
>>> good progress towards this direction. Using such tools as blogs,
>>> Twitter, mailing lists, Facebook and so on over an extended period may
>>> also increase the awareness.
>>>
>>> d) Organizing some sessions completely online will create "level
>>> playing field" among all participants, and may also demonstrate the
>>> effectiveness of these tools/technologies, and may also improve the
>>> quality of services in turn.
>>>
>>> e) Increase linguistic diversity. Using UN major languages other than
>>> English at certain meetings and occasions as main working language
>>> (translated into other UN languages) will increase the outreach to
>>> non-English speaking population of the globe and will give more sense
>>> of ownership. Currently, English is the only default working language,
>>> but we think it does not have to be so.
>>>
>>> 8. How, if at all, do you think that the IGF process needs to change
>>> to meet changing circumstances and priorities?
>>>
>>> As we replied to the MAG questionnaire, the organizing work of IGF
>>> primarily by MAG should be improved. More outcome oriented direction
>>> might improve the quality and value of IGF, but this should be
>>> carefully exercised so as not to lose the open and free spirit of IGF
>>> which contributed a great deal.
>>>
>>> 9. Do you have any other comments?
>>>
>>> No.
>>>
>>> END
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From jlfullsack at orange.fr  Fri Nov 19 11:21:32 2010
From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK)
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 08:21:32 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [governance] Consensus Call for CSTD IGF Questionnaire - Clean
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTineLd8UE24jX-_D4W41Y3SQDxKUUFV=sNd7eLkc@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1290120838.4ce5ae863a8c2@webmail.ovh.fr>
 <1290120961.4ce5af015f4cf@webmail.ovh.fr>
 <AANLkTineLd8UE24jX-_D4W41Y3SQDxKUUFV=sNd7eLkc@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <17836072.100295.1290183666184.JavaMail.www@wwinf1d14>

> So far, I have recognized the following people expressed some degree
> of support for
> the Final Draft.
> 
Dear Izumi

You can add me to the list

Jean-Louis Fullsack
CSDPTT




> Message du 19/11/10 15:54
> De : "Izumi AIZU" 
> A : "Governance List" 
> Copie à : 
> Objet : Re: [governance] Consensus Call for CSTD IGF Questionnaire - Clean version
> 
> 
> As the deadline is approaching, and my working hours are also closing, 11:45 pm
> Tokyo time now on Friday, I like to close the Final Call for the
> consensus shortly.
> 

> Ian Peter
> Marilia Maciel
> Despite the fact that there are issues I would like us to be more
> strong or more specific, I generally agree with this proposal.
> Jeremy Malcolm
> Baudoin SCHOMBE
> Imran Ahmed Shah
> Mostly agreed.
> we can suggest that “Solutions & Recommendations
> regarding governance common issues may please be vetted through
> consensus. Other suggestions, too.
> Yuliya Morenets
> Parminder
> (with minor changes as per Co-coordinators judgment, like the ISOC point)
> Lee McKnight
> Tracy Kackshaw
> Wolfgang Kleinwächter
> Anriette Esterhuysen
> Avri Doria
> i think it is a good and fair set of responses
> Ginger Praque
> Fouad Bajwa
> Graciela
> 
> A total of 16.
> 
> The following people expressed disagreement:
> 
> William Drake
> Jeanette Hofmann
> 
> A total of 2.
> 
> The following people expressed substantial additional suggestions
> and/or comments,
> who have largely supported the final draft.
> Unfortunately we cannot put these into our text this time since we did
> not have sufficient amount of time to reach agreement or [rough
> consensus].
> 
> 
> Wolfgang Kleinwächter
> suggest "messages from the IGF", not “recommendations”
> "IGF enhances its function and could become, inter alia, an
> observatory, a clearinghouse, an early warning system of what happen
> in other forums."
> 
> Migue Alcaine - suggest "messages from the IGF", not
> “recommendations”, get rid of "rough consensus"
> for 6a. IGF Secretariat will not be able to dedicate funds from its
> current level of funding in its voluntary fund for the engagement of
> Developing country actors. Either we can insist in inviting or
> strenghtening the voluntary fund and dedicate the additional funds to
> the engagement of developing countries or we can invite governments or
> the UN SG to consider a small transfer from the UN regular budget to
> the aforementioned IGF voluntary fund and dedicate such funds for the
> engagement of developing countries. I am suggesting a transfer around
> US$200,000 annually. Independently of the source of the funds, they
> should serve to make sinergies with the actors already improving the
> engagement of developing countries.
> 
> Katitza Rodriguez
> I disagree with the use of the word "rough consensus".
> Agree with "Messages from IGF"
> Consensus with other stakeholders is a different approach and not an easy task.
> I would like to explore more the proposal table by Wolfgang
> support also Miguel's proposal
> 
> There have also been good amount of debate whether reference to OECD
> and Council of Europe is acceptable or not, in relation to the issue
> of how to promote the participation of developing countries into
> global policy making and governance.
> 
> Will send another note.
> 
> izumi
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101119/82b8ccda/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From katitza at eff.org  Fri Nov 19 11:33:17 2010
From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez)
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 08:33:17 -0800
Subject: [governance] Consensus Call for CSTD IGF Questionnaire - Clean
In-Reply-To: <D47B8970-97EC-4090-BAD0-8F6723B0D898@psg.com>
References: <411110.91188.qm@web33008.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4CE63295.70207@eff.org> <D47B8970-97EC-4090-BAD0-8F6723B0D898@psg.com>
Message-ID: <4CE6A6CD.9010301@eff.org>

Hi Avri:

There are other options. For instance there can be recommendations from 
each stakeholder group. It's an option based on a multi-stakeholder 
dialogue. I am not totally against recommendations/messages if I can 
understand how the enhance cooperation process will work in practice. We 
rely a lot on the staff of the IGF Secretariat, the great moderation of 
Nitin that fixed some of the unbalance discussions within the MAG.

One more thing: I think we should also evaluate the fact that by 
proposing recommendations, we are also changing the nature of the IGF to 
something more WIPO-oriented style. A trade-off culture that I 
wholeheartedly dislike. "Add this provision on education but delete this 
legal safeguards on surveillance of communications"

As of now, I have found the IGF a useful space to do the clearing house 
work that Wolfgang has described. The fact that the IGF has been held at 
the end of the year (except Vilnius) has help on that work, too.

On your question of EFF. We are still evaluating our position, and we 
will be blogging about it in the next days/weeks to come. As per 
strategy to follow: I can visualize plenty of strategies like creating 
coalitions to table concerted Human Rights agenda proposals, carry 
campaigns, shaming, inform policy makers for better policy outcomes, 
mobilizing citizens to get support or reject some of the recommendations 
being table.  I will do my best to get the best text out of it. That is 
for sure. Control of damage is important. Once the text is done, your 
coalition can also campaign against some of the provisions.

I also want to highlighted that I feel more comfortable to have this 
discussion within the CSTD working group. However, we should not loose 
sight of what is going on it the other venues / consultations / NY - 
g77+China. We need more information. I have no information. If someone 
want to brief me, I would really appreciated.


Katitza

On 11/19/10 1:39 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
> But Katitza,
>
> Such a full consensus is not possible unless you say nothing.
>
> Your only choices are majority rule, or near consensus (since you dislike the term rough consensus).  It is not political purity, but it has a chance of making progress.
>
> To demand full consensus is to insist on having nothing other than the most  watered down ambiguous text.
>
> I agree it would be really cool if you or EFF could convince everyone that 100% of your program was the right thing for all of us to agree to, but I will truly be amazed on the day that happens.
>
> Or do you suggest that groups like this say nothing if they can't agree to the maximalist program and move the discussion the streets.  Which is always an option.
>
> a.
>
> On 19 Nov 2010, at 09:17, Katitza Rodriguez wrote:
>
>> Dear Imran,
>>
>> In policy process discussions, consensus among civil society is not only necessary but also important in order to move an unify agenda, specially in front of other stakeholders. In special cases, people/organizations can have a dissent opinion.
>>
>> Consensus with other stakeholders is a different approach and not an easy task. There are even litigation in Courts on many  proposals that might be table. We know the boundaries. If we concentrate in negotiating a text, we will spend all our hours and energy on each detail of the document. We will have less substantive discussions and focus our energy in a more political discussion (word by word). We are changing the nature of IGF. To negotiate a text, you need a process to carry out that consultation. It is a very heavy task.
>>
>> I am less concerned of having this kind of discussions about recommendations/messages within the framework of this questionary, and through the CSTD since this is the right way to go. I would like to explore more the proposal table by Wolfgang about the "IGF enhances its function and could become, inter alia, an observatory, a clearinghouse, an early warning system of what happen in other forums."
>>
>> I also think that there are many NGOs who would have strong opinions in many of the issues we are discussing but are not on this list.... Many of them has memberships behind them that support their work or are umbrellas organizations.
>>
>> I agree with Miguel when he suggested: "- for 3a, I will suggest "messages from the IGF" for the IGF meeting. I think, an IGF host with the assistance of the MAG and Secretariat could identify people from the organizers of a main session to draft the status of the discussion of the topic, either rough agreements or the different points of view of an important subject. After, the IGF host could prepare the whole message with the assistance of the Secretariat."
>>
>> We also need to evaluate how realistics our proposals are. All the proposals regarding recommendations has been always rejected, including the Message of IGF. We work hard in the last IGF within the MAG to get that in. It was not possible. How to present a proposal also matters.
>>
>> I want to support also Miguel's proposal:
>>
>> - for 6a. IGF Secretariat will not be able to dedicate funds from its current level of funding in its voluntary fund for the engagement of Developing country actors. Either we can insist in inviting or strenghtening the voluntary fund and dedicate the additional funds to the engagement of developing countries or we can invite governments or the UN SG to consider a small transfer from the UN regular budget to the aforementioned IGF voluntary fund and dedicate such funds for the engagement of developing countries. I am suggesting a transfer around US$200,000 annually. Independently of the source of the funds, they should serve to make sinergies with the actors already improving the engagement of developing countries.
>>
>> This is an on going dialogue, and I am sharing some thoughts with you on my personal capacity.
>>
>> Katitza
>>
>>
>> On 11/18/10 11:23 PM, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote:
>>> Dear Katitza
>>> Reservations about consensus are valid to some extend
>>> But practically if we need broader impact of a any discussion,
>>> we have to care about the opinion and recommendations
>>> of the majority, even for positive decisions, we had to convince them. By the way, we are use to with the consensus at this CS IGC.
>>>   If you read the question again, they are asking that how to
>>> Improve the impact of the discussion, in my honest opinion
>>> IMHO: "a discussion may have deeper and longer impact
>>> if the professional/ public opinion is considered with justice.
>>> Higher results may be obtained if the ownership of the system/tasks
>>> are accepted by the stakeholders.
>>>
>>> I have suggested an alternate para for 3a.
>>> If you read my previous email.
>>>
>>> One mechanism we can suggest that “Solutions&   Recommendations
>>> regarding governance common issues may please be vetted through
>>> consensus. The outcomes of the consensus will not be binding but would be
>>> recommended to stakeholders to be followed. This model of consensus
>>> with better&   deeper understanding amongst different stakeholders
>>> will improve the impact of discussions.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> Imran Ahmed Shah
>>>
>>> On Fri, 19 Nov 2010 07:09 PKT Katitza Rodriguez wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dear all,
>>>>
>>>> My comments are in line with Wolfgang, Bill, and Miguel.
>>>>
>>>> I have a few points to make:
>>>>
>>>> I disagree with the use of the word "rough consensus". It is a dangerous one. It can force bad policy outcomes, and creates a "trade off" situation. This is a situation that some of us, from civil society, would not agree when it deals with fundamental human rights. For instance, you can get a good outcome incorporating on the text a provision on internet intermediaries limitation of liability but you accept a bad outcome (eg. a data retention provision that compels ISPs and telcos to retain innocent citizens' Internet traffic data). There are many situations were "rough consensus" might bring an outcome that some of us will not compromise.
>>>>
>>>> "Messages from IGF" is a model that has been tested and work well in Eurodig. If the session is well structure, you can actually have a frank discussion, and understand not only those issues that you might agree on, but also you can get to know where the boundaries are.
>>>>
>>>> At the last IGF, EFF and ISOC organized the workshop on the Future of Privacy. Based on that idea, we have recently released a report that try to identify the key messages that each speaker said. I found it quite useful as many of those statements are part of discussions that are being held in different spaces: national, regional, and international level.  Pls. see: https://www.eff.org/files/future-privacy.pdf
>>>>
>>>> EFF Discusses the Future of Internet Privacy at UN Internet Governance Forum
>>>> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/11/future-privacy-internet-governance-forum
>>>>
>>>> Many thanks,
>>>>
>>>> Katitza
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On 11/18/10 7:04 AM, Miguel Alcaine wrote:
>>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I would suggest that:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - for 3a, I will suggest "messages from the IGF" for the IGF meeting. I think, an IGF host with the assistance of the MAG and Secretariat could identify people from the organizers of a main session to draft the status of the discussion of the topic, either rough agreements or the different points of view of an important subject. After, the IGF host could prepare the whole message with the assistance of the Secretariat.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Afterwards, the messages from the IGF could be used as a basis for mailing-list discussions as to identify the appropriate fora to present the message or to refine part of the message, but I will suggest such refinements to be Ad-hoc groups (open and voluntary) to take up messages, refine them and present them in other fora, but not in the IGF behalf. Such ad-hoc groups could only claim that they started their work based on X message from the IGF.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I agree with Wolfang in avoiding recommendation and I will also suggest to get rid of "rough consensus" and rather apply the method described above.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - for 6a. IGF Secretariat will not be able to dedicate funds from its current level of funding in its voluntary fund for the engagement of Developing country actors. Either we can insist in inviting or strenghtening the voluntary fund and dedicate the additional funds to the engagement of developing countries or we can invite governments or the UN SG to consider a small transfer from the UN regular budget to the aforementioned IGF voluntary fund and dedicate such funds for the engagement of developing countries. I am suggesting a transfer around US$200,000 annually. Independently of the source of the funds, they should serve to make sinergies with the actors already improving the engagement of developing countries.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Miguel
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2010/11/18 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"<wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de<mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>      Hi everybody
>>>>>>
>>>>>>      thanks for the work. I am sorry that I jump in in a very late
>>>>>>      stage. I have three comments:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>      1. 3a: The old debate on receommendations is not really helpful.
>>>>>>      In the past CS tried also to use the terminology "messages". The
>>>>>>      problem is as soon as you introduce a process to negotiate a text
>>>>>>      which then has been the subject of voting you change the nature
>>>>>>      of the the whole event. Even if you stress that these
>>>>>>      receommendations will be not binding, this does not matter. In
>>>>>>      the Un context (like in other intergovernmental mechanisms) the
>>>>>>      category "receommednation" is well defined and you can not avoid
>>>>>>      that an IGF recommendation is seen as something similar to what
>>>>>>      other Un bodies are doing with receommendations. Again I prefer
>>>>>>      the "message". BTW, I will circulate later this week the Interim
>>>>>>      Report of the Council of Europe Cross Border Expert Group where
>>>>>>      we propose also the elaboration of some instruments. The Council
>>>>>>      of Europe - or other organisations with an established procedure
>>>>>>      to negotiat texts - are a better place for such
>>>>>>      an excercise.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>      2. 6a: I thin SOC has an IGF Fellowship Programm.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>      3. Under nine we could say that we ould like to see that the IGF
>>>>>>      enhances its function and could become, inter alia, an
>>>>>>      observatory, a clearinghouse, an early warning system and a watchdog.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>      Sorry for the late reply. If it is too late then ignore it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>      Best wishes
>>>>>>
>>>>>>      wolfgang
>>>>>>      ________________________________
>>>>>>
>>>>>>      Von: izumiaizu at gmail.com<mailto:izumiaizu at gmail.com>   im Auftrag
>>>>>>      von Izumi AIZU
>>>>>>      Gesendet: Do 18.11.2010 03:13
>>>>>>      An: governance at lists.cpsr.org<mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>>>>>>      Betreff: [governance] Consensus Call for CSTD IGF Questionnaire -
>>>>>>      Clean version
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>      Here follows are the Clean version of the Final Draft for the
>>>>>>      CSTD IGF
>>>>>>      questionnaire answer
>>>>>>      in full text. Sorry for the confusion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>      Please respond if you agree or disagree as soon as possible.
>>>>>>       Friday, Nov 19
>>>>>>      is the deadline for submission. More comments are also very much
>>>>>>      appreciated
>>>>>>      as we can further feed them into the Consultation meetings next
>>>>>>      week in Geneva.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>      Thanks!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>      izumi
>>>>>>
>>>>>>      ------------
>>>>>>
>>>>>>      FINAL Draft for Questionnaire on improvements to the IGF
>>>>>>
>>>>>>      1. What do you consider the most important achievements of the first
>>>>>>      five IGF meetings?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>      IGF created the space for dialogue by all stakeholders in an open,
>>>>>>      inclusive manner. These emergence and development of the
>>>>>>      multistakeholder principle and practice are perhaps the biggest
>>>>>>      contribution IGF has achieved so far. It helped many participants to
>>>>>>      understand the issues of their interest, as well as to understand how
>>>>>>      other actors understand, act and accept their issues. Emergence of
>>>>>>      Regional and National IGF with multistakeholder approach is another
>>>>>>      achievement.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>      2. How satisfied are you with the delivery of the results of
>>>>>>      discussions at the IGF and the impact they have had on
>>>>>>      developments in
>>>>>>      national, regional or international Internet governance?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>      IGF has made a reasonable advancement of the understanding of the
>>>>>>      issues. Yet, at national, regional and international levels, we have
>>>>>>      mixed assessment for the impact it brought.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>      3. Which, if any, new mechanisms would you propose to improve the
>>>>>>      impact of the IGF discussions, in particular as regards the
>>>>>>      interaction between the IGF and other stakeholders? Please
>>>>>>      specify the
>>>>>>      kind of mechanism (e.g. reporting, exchanges, recommendations,
>>>>>>      concrete advice, etc.) and the stakeholders (e.g. intergovernmental
>>>>>>      bodies, other fora dealing with Internet Governance, etc.).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>      a) One mechanism we can suggest is to come up with some form of
>>>>>>      recommendations where all stakeholders have [rough] consensus. They
>>>>>>      will not be binding, but could still function as model, reference or
>>>>>>      common framework. Working process towards achieving these rough
>>>>>>      consensus will create better and deeper understandings amongst
>>>>>>      different stakeholders.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>      b) The Secretariat and MAG should be strongly encouraged to directly
>>>>>>      foster discussion and debate of difficult issues in main sessions,
>>>>>>      instead of avoiding them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>      4. In your view, what important new issues or themes concerning
>>>>>>      Internet governance have emerged or become important since the Tunis
>>>>>>      phase of the Summit, which deserve more attention in the next five
>>>>>>      years?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>      IGC feels that attention to the development agenda, issues concerning
>>>>>>      the marginalized groups or actors, have yet gained sufficient
>>>>>>      level of
>>>>>>      work at IGF and its outcome. These may not be the "new" issues,
>>>>>>      but we
>>>>>>      strongly feel they are very important.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>      Besides them, emergence of new technologies, tools and services, such
>>>>>>      as cloud computing; user-generated, SNS and online sharing services
>>>>>>      such as wiki, YouTube, Ustream, twitter and Facebook; DPI and
>>>>>>      behavioral targeting advertisements; wide deployment of mobile
>>>>>>      services including smart phones and tablet computers pose all kind of
>>>>>>      new challenges for governance.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>      5. What do you think should be the priority themes and areas of work
>>>>>>      of the IGF during the next five years?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>      Followings will be the areas of themes and works that have
>>>>>>      priorities we think.
>>>>>>      a) Enhancing multi-stakeholder framework within IGF.
>>>>>>      b) Promote capacity building for developmental agenda of governance
>>>>>>      c) Balancing the interests - to empower those of marginalized and
>>>>>>      under-developed in all organizations and fora dealing with Internet
>>>>>>      governance - such as ICANN, W3C, IETF, RIRs, ITU, WIPO, CoE, OECD,
>>>>>>      UNCTAD/CSTD and United Nations itself.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>      6. How can the capacity of those groups that are not yet well
>>>>>>      represented at the IGF be improved? In particular, what could be done
>>>>>>      to improve the capacity of representatives from developing countries?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>      a) Establish special funding mechanism by IGF itself to help actors
>>>>>>      from developing countries to continuously engage in IGF and related
>>>>>>      organizations and meetings. Fellowship works carried out by
>>>>>>      DiploFoundation, dotAsia organization [other reference, please] and
>>>>>>      other institutions offer good reference for this, but they should be
>>>>>>      expanded in larger scale. Targeting youth groups or younger
>>>>>>      generation
>>>>>>      in profession, will have, in the long run, effective impact.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>      b) Providing technical training to policy makers and policy training
>>>>>>      to engineers will also help close the gap(s) within the
>>>>>>      under-represented and also even well-represented.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>      7. How do you think more awareness of Internet governance issues and
>>>>>>      the IGF process can be raised amongst groups whose lives are affected
>>>>>>      by Internet governance but who are not yet part of the IGF process?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>      a) Giving more weight to regional and national IGF meetings, making
>>>>>>      more direct "links" to the main IGF meeting will help outreach to
>>>>>>      those who have not yet involved in IGF process. Securing the same
>>>>>>      level of working framework of IGF, such as multi-stakeholder
>>>>>>      composition and inclusion of civil society groups (where such
>>>>>>      practice
>>>>>>      is relatively new or scarce) should be maintained.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>      b) Ensuring a plurality of civil society voices be heard in Internet
>>>>>>      governance processes will also be effective in reaching out to those
>>>>>>      yet to participate.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>      c) Online meetings are most effective when provision is made for
>>>>>>      participation both synchronously (ie. in real time) and
>>>>>>      asynchronously. The remote hubs and moderators at the Vilnius IGF
>>>>>>      made
>>>>>>      good progress towards this direction. Using such tools as blogs,
>>>>>>      Twitter, mailing lists, Facebook and so on over an extended
>>>>>>      period may
>>>>>>      also increase the awareness.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>      d) Organizing some sessions completely online will create "level
>>>>>>      playing field" among all participants, and may also demonstrate the
>>>>>>      effectiveness of these tools/technologies, and may also improve the
>>>>>>      quality of services in turn.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>      e) Increase linguistic diversity. Using UN major languages other than
>>>>>>      English at certain meetings and occasions as main working language
>>>>>>      (translated into other UN languages) will increase the outreach to
>>>>>>      non-English speaking population of the globe and will give more sense
>>>>>>      of ownership. Currently, English is the only default working
>>>>>>      language,
>>>>>>      but we think it does not have to be so.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>      8. How, if at all, do you think that the IGF process needs to change
>>>>>>      to meet changing circumstances and priorities?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>      As we replied to the MAG questionnaire, the organizing work of IGF
>>>>>>      primarily by MAG should be improved. More outcome oriented direction
>>>>>>      might improve the quality and value of IGF, but this should be
>>>>>>      carefully exercised so as not to lose the open and free spirit of IGF
>>>>>>      which contributed a great deal.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>      9. Do you have any other comments?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>      No.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>      END
>>>>>>      ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>>      You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org<mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>>>>>>      To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>>>>>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>>>>>      <mailto:governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>      For all list information and functions, see:
>>>>>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>>>>>
>>>>>>      Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>      ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>>      You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org<mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>>>>>>      To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>>>>>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>>>>>      <mailto:governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>      For all list information and functions, see:
>>>>>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>>>>>
>>>>>>      Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> -- 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
>>>> -- Katitza Rodriguez
>>>> International Rights Director
>>>> Electronic Frontier Foundation
>>>> katitza at eff.org
>>>> katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email)
>>>>
>>>> Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990
>>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>       governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>>       governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>>
>>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>>       http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>>
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>> -- 
>> Katitza Rodriguez
>> International Rights Director
>> Electronic Frontier Foundation
>> katitza at eff.org
>> katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email)
>>
>> Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>       governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>       governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>       http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


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

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

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

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

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


From graciela at nupef.org.br  Fri Nov 19 12:18:33 2010
From: graciela at nupef.org.br (Graciela Selaimen)
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 15:18:33 -0200
Subject: AW: [governance] Consensus Call for CSTD IGF Questionnaire -
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinJzzkD-Ud6rB-zCf1SYesGeoSO-6FkjiMo+H5u@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTinyo=oKJoJiz2wVHikpv7-nYBwgq+cf7p6qrj16@mail.gmail.com>	<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07448@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>	<4CE66370.40506@itforchange.net>	<AANLkTi=sDZiaxeD6R0=vrZVpaHmHMJn_s_y=D=EbWBqg@mail.gmail.com>	<7A412AD0-B27E-4CAA-B3A8-AA21B8AB8BF0@psg.com> <AANLkTinJzzkD-Ud6rB-zCf1SYesGeoSO-6FkjiMo+H5u@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4CE6B169.9050105@nupef.org.br>

Hi,

I have the same impression of ECLAC in regards to Latin America - a 
meaningless space, especially for the discussion on IG.
I totally agree with Fouad's last paragraph. For us, in LAC region, many 
concerns remain very similar to Athens. Others, such as the increasing 
of surveillance and attempts to control the Internet and criminalize its 
users surfaced during this 5 yers period and I think we must address 
them more concretely - and "evolve into something more meaningful", as 
Fouad said.

Best regards,
Graciela Selaimen

Em 11/19/10 2:15 PM, Fouad Bajwa escreveu:
> SAARC for us in South Asia remains the same meaningless meeting point
> exploited by elites and so called representatives of South Asian
> nations to keep everyone busy in discussion leading nothing anywhere.
> The political, social and economic situations of the 8 member
> countries tell the wonderful story of the failure of this so called
> SAUnion.
>
> The model may work well for African, Latin/CT and European
> citizens/members but not for this part of the world. ASEAN tends to be
> more stronger in Asia Pacific. Really, do we have to be orthodox and
> step back into the systems and unions of the non-internet oriented era
> whereas we can progress towards forming an institution more
> contextual, responsive and engaged in Internet and its context only
> related issues?
>
> Maybe a bridge out of that institution may exist that can link all
> these institutional models of the past that really haven't helped much
> and the global financial meltdown, recession and now struggling bonds
> and interest based hair-cuts are blowing the sanity out of them?
>
> It may be wise to step back for once and recap what has happened in
> the past 5 years with regards to the IGF. Athens was the strong-point,
> Vilnius, though lots of improvements and opportunities also portrayed
> how many years back things might fall if not improved for the next
> five years.
>
> The issue remains valid. We need the developing world voices to voice
> our concerns and for us our concerns remain very similar to Athens, we
> want something from the IGF........its open, inclusive and
> participative dialogue on IG and related issues is
> wonderful........but where do we go from here? Do we stay the same way
> or do we learn from our regional IGFs that there is an opportunity to
> evolve into something more meaningful where messages and
> recommendations with working groups are being felt to be the first
> step and way forward?
>
> --- Best
>
> Fouad
>
> On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 2:26 PM, Avri Doria<avri at psg.com>  wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> This seems to make a lot of sense to me.
>>
>> I also wonder, what did people think of the suggestion I made that developing nations also work through the regional intergovernmental organizations that their nations belong to, of which i believe there are scores e.g.:
>>
>> African Union
>> ASEAN
>> D-8
>> SIDS
>> USAN
>> ...
>>
>> or  smaller groups like
>>
>> CARICOM (The Caribbean Community)
>> Indian Ocean Commission
>> SAARC (South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation)
>> SADC (Southern African Development Community)
>> ECOWAS (Economic Community of Central African States)
>> ECLAC (Economic Commission of Latin America and Caribbean)
>>
>>
>> Wouldn't this complement the work being done in COE and OECD etc  and make sure that everyone was invovled and that the development perspective was heard and reinforced?  What am I missing?
>>
>> a.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 19 Nov 2010, at 13:30, Baudouin SCHOMBE wrote:
>>
>>> I totally notice with your argument, Parminder, when you explain the need for participation of developing countries in discussions to defend their interests.
>>> It is for this reason that I insisted on national and regional IGF before world  IGF.
>>> In this way, civil society can come to mobilize actors at both national and regional levels through training workshops and multi-stakeholder forum on issues of Internet governance.
>>> This work must be done in synergy with the IGC, to convey the same information while allowing the flexibility to respond to national and express their views.
>>>
>>>
>>> BAUDOUIN
>>>
>>>
>>> 2010/11/19 parminder<parminder at itforchange.net>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thursday 18 November 2010 01:52 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
>>>> Hi everybody
>>>>
>>>> thanks for the work. I am sorry that I jump in in a very late stage. I have three comments:
>>>>
>>>> 1. 3a: The old debate on receommendations is not really helpful. In the past CS tried also to use the terminology "messages".
>>>>
>>> Wolfgang
>>>
>>>   Global CS did never abandon the concept of recommendations in the IGF context, though at places 'messages' may also have been used. Recommendations (or 'recommend') is mentioned in the Tunis Agenda's mandate for the IGF and we seem to have largely supported it, in some form or the other.
>>>>   The problem is as soon as you introduce a process to negotiate a text which then has been the subject of voting you change the nature of the the whole event. Even if you stress that these receommendations will be not binding, this does not matter. In the Un context (like in other intergovernmental mechanisms) the category "receommednation" is well defined and you can not avoid that an IGF recommendation is seen as something similar to what other Un bodies are doing with receommendations. Again I prefer the "message". BTW, I will circulate later this week the Interim Report of the Council of Europe Cross Border Expert Group where we propose also the elaboration of some instruments. The Council of Europe - or other organisations with an established procedure to negotiat texts - are a better place for such
>>>> an excercise.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Sure, it may be a better place. But I or my country in not in the CoE (though CoE instruments finally do impact me). So which 'better place' do you think I can look upto? Can you please provide me an answer to this.
>>>
>>> I continue to be (unpleasantly) surprised at the manner in which the concerns of developing countries in terms of their non-participation in global policy making and the global shaping of the ICT pehnomenon is ignored so blatantly, in a group which wants to describe itself as a global civil society group.
>>>
>>> We may all glibly talk about development issues or IG for development. Pl take note that in the IGF plenary on IG for development the prime issue which came up was that IG for development first of all means due participation of developing countries in global IG related policy making (see the Chairman's summary). What does the IGC plan to do on this issue? Ask us to watch and cheer on CoE and OECD policy making processes?
>>>
>>> I can still understand the stand of someone like Milton (though I do not agree with it) who is a bit afraid of supporting new institutional development for democratic global policy making as coming out of the current 'core' UN configurations (which is why he is afraid of the enhanced cooperation or EC process), even as an positively evolutionary process (which is my considered expectation of the EC process). Because he does, correspondingly, support a more open, diverse, multistakeholder process like the IGF making some clear positive contributions towards development of global Internet policies through making policy recommendations.
>>>
>>> What I cant understand is the position of those who both oppose the EC process (in whichever evolutionary form) as well as oppose possibilities of the IGF making recommendations (I see Wolfgang, Katitza, Bill, Jeanette among others state that position). Moreover, they all seem to closely associate with OECD/ CoE policy making processes, which are in fact much less open, transparent, multistakeholder etc than even the 'enhanced cooperation' model which, for instance, I proposed and they strongly resisted.
>>>
>>> I am unable to understand why a comity of powerful nations needs specific well-structured systems of making inter-country policies (which then become default global ones) and all countires as a global group, which (unfortunately?)  include developing countries, should not aspire to any such structures. So, it appears, that while (global?) CS should enthusiastically support the former (CoE / OECD kind of process) it is presented as its bounden duty to strongly oppose any such - or in fact structurally even much better - institutional developments  at the global level.
>>>
>>> And I also do hope that the IGC members form developing countries both increase their participation in IGC kind of groups, and become more vocal in articulating their interests.
>>>
>>> parminder
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> 2. 6a: I thin SOC has an IGF Fellowship Programm.
>>>>
>>>> 3. Under nine we could say that we ould like to see that the IGF enhances its function and could become, inter alia, an observatory, a clearinghouse, an early warning system and a watchdog.
>>>>
>>>> Sorry for the late reply. If it is too late then ignore it.
>>>>
>>>> Best wishes
>>>>
>>>> wolfgang
>>>> ________________________________
>>>>
>>>> Von:
>>>> izumiaizu at gmail.com
>>>>   im Auftrag von Izumi AIZU
>>>> Gesendet: Do 18.11.2010 03:13
>>>> An:
>>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>>
>>>> Betreff: [governance] Consensus Call for CSTD IGF Questionnaire - Clean version
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Here follows are the Clean version of the Final Draft for the CSTD IGF
>>>> questionnaire answer
>>>> in full text. Sorry for the confusion.
>>>>
>>>> Please respond if you agree or disagree as soon as possible.  Friday, Nov 19
>>>> is the deadline for submission. More comments are also very much appreciated
>>>> as we can further feed them into the Consultation meetings next week in Geneva.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks!
>>>>
>>>> izumi
>>>>
>>>> ------------
>>>>
>>>> FINAL Draft for Questionnaire on improvements to the IGF
>>>>
>>>> 1. What do you consider the most important achievements of the first
>>>> five IGF meetings?
>>>>
>>>> IGF created the space for dialogue by all stakeholders in an open,
>>>> inclusive manner. These emergence and development of the
>>>> multistakeholder principle and practice are perhaps the biggest
>>>> contribution IGF has achieved so far. It helped many participants to
>>>> understand the issues of their interest, as well as to understand how
>>>> other actors understand, act and accept their issues. Emergence of
>>>> Regional and National IGF with multistakeholder approach is another
>>>> achievement.
>>>>
>>>> 2. How satisfied are you with the delivery of the results of
>>>> discussions at the IGF and the impact they have had on developments in
>>>> national, regional or international Internet governance?
>>>>
>>>> IGF has made a reasonable advancement of the understanding of the
>>>> issues. Yet, at national, regional and international levels, we have
>>>> mixed assessment for the impact it brought.
>>>>
>>>> 3. Which, if any, new mechanisms would you propose to improve the
>>>> impact of the IGF discussions, in particular as regards the
>>>> interaction between the IGF and other stakeholders? Please specify the
>>>> kind of mechanism (e.g. reporting, exchanges, recommendations,
>>>> concrete advice, etc.) and the stakeholders (e.g. intergovernmental
>>>> bodies, other fora dealing with Internet Governance, etc.).
>>>>
>>>> a) One mechanism we can suggest is to come up with some form of
>>>> recommendations where all stakeholders have [rough] consensus. They
>>>> will not be binding, but could still function as model, reference or
>>>> common framework. Working process towards achieving these rough
>>>> consensus will create better and deeper understandings amongst
>>>> different stakeholders.
>>>>
>>>> b) The Secretariat and MAG should be strongly encouraged to directly
>>>> foster discussion and debate of difficult issues in main sessions,
>>>> instead of avoiding them.
>>>>
>>>> 4. In your view, what important new issues or themes concerning
>>>> Internet governance have emerged or become important since the Tunis
>>>> phase of the Summit, which deserve more attention in the next five
>>>> years?
>>>>
>>>> IGC feels that attention to the development agenda, issues concerning
>>>> the marginalized groups or actors, have yet gained sufficient level of
>>>> work at IGF and its outcome. These may not be the "new" issues, but we
>>>> strongly feel they are very important.
>>>>
>>>> Besides them, emergence of new technologies, tools and services, such
>>>> as cloud computing; user-generated, SNS and online sharing services
>>>> such as wiki, YouTube, Ustream, twitter and Facebook; DPI and
>>>> behavioral targeting advertisements; wide deployment of mobile
>>>> services including smart phones and tablet computers pose all kind of
>>>> new challenges for governance.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 5. What do you think should be the priority themes and areas of work
>>>> of the IGF during the next five years?
>>>>
>>>> Followings will be the areas of themes and works that have priorities we think.
>>>> a) Enhancing multi-stakeholder framework within IGF.
>>>> b) Promote capacity building for developmental agenda of governance
>>>> c) Balancing the interests - to empower those of marginalized and
>>>> under-developed in all organizations and fora dealing with Internet
>>>> governance - such as ICANN, W3C, IETF, RIRs, ITU, WIPO, CoE, OECD,
>>>> UNCTAD/CSTD and United Nations itself.
>>>>
>>>> 6. How can the capacity of those groups that are not yet well
>>>> represented at the IGF be improved? In particular, what could be done
>>>> to improve the capacity of representatives from developing countries?
>>>>
>>>> a) Establish special funding mechanism by IGF itself to help actors
>>>> from developing countries to continuously engage in IGF and related
>>>> organizations and meetings. Fellowship works carried out by
>>>> DiploFoundation, dotAsia organization [other reference, please] and
>>>> other institutions offer good reference for this, but they should be
>>>> expanded in larger scale. Targeting youth groups or younger generation
>>>> in profession, will have, in the long run, effective impact.
>>>>
>>>> b) Providing technical training to policy makers and policy training
>>>> to engineers will also help close the gap(s) within the
>>>> under-represented and also even well-represented.
>>>>
>>>> 7. How do you think more awareness of Internet governance issues and
>>>> the IGF process can be raised amongst groups whose lives are affected
>>>> by Internet governance but who are not yet part of the IGF process?
>>>>
>>>> a) Giving more weight to regional and national IGF meetings, making
>>>> more direct "links" to the main IGF meeting will help outreach to
>>>> those who have not yet involved in IGF process. Securing the same
>>>> level of working framework of IGF, such as multi-stakeholder
>>>> composition and inclusion of civil society groups (where such practice
>>>> is relatively new or scarce) should be maintained.
>>>>
>>>> b) Ensuring a plurality of civil society voices be heard in Internet
>>>> governance processes will also be effective in reaching out to those
>>>> yet to participate.
>>>>
>>>> c) Online meetings are most effective when provision is made for
>>>> participation both synchronously (ie. in real time) and
>>>> asynchronously. The remote hubs and moderators at the Vilnius IGF made
>>>> good progress towards this direction. Using such tools as blogs,
>>>> Twitter, mailing lists, Facebook and so on over an extended period may
>>>> also increase the awareness.
>>>>
>>>> d) Organizing some sessions completely online will create "level
>>>> playing field" among all participants, and may also demonstrate the
>>>> effectiveness of these tools/technologies, and may also improve the
>>>> quality of services in turn.
>>>>
>>>> e) Increase linguistic diversity. Using UN major languages other than
>>>> English at certain meetings and occasions as main working language
>>>> (translated into other UN languages) will increase the outreach to
>>>> non-English speaking population of the globe and will give more sense
>>>> of ownership. Currently, English is the only default working language,
>>>> but we think it does not have to be so.
>>>>
>>>> 8. How, if at all, do you think that the IGF process needs to change
>>>> to meet changing circumstances and priorities?
>>>>
>>>> As we replied to the MAG questionnaire, the organizing work of IGF
>>>> primarily by MAG should be improved. More outcome oriented direction
>>>> might improve the quality and value of IGF, but this should be
>>>> carefully exercised so as not to lose the open and free spirit of IGF
>>>> which contributed a great deal.
>>>>
>>>> 9. Do you have any other comments?
>>>>
>>>> No.
>>>>
>>>> END
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>       governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>       governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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  Fri Nov 19 13:15:03 2010
From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 19:15:03 +0100
Subject: AW: [governance] Consensus Call for CSTD IGF Questionnaire -
In-Reply-To: <4CE6B169.9050105@nupef.org.br>
References: <AANLkTinyo=oKJoJiz2wVHikpv7-nYBwgq+cf7p6qrj16@mail.gmail.com>	<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07448@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>	<4CE66370.40506@itforchange.net>	<AANLkTi=sDZiaxeD6R0=vrZVpaHmHMJn_s_y=D=EbWBqg@mail.gmail.com>	<7A412AD0-B27E-4CAA-B3A8-AA21B8AB8BF0@psg.com> <AANLkTinJzzkD-Ud6rB-zCf1SYesGeoSO-6FkjiMo+H5u@mail.gmail.com> <4CE6B169.9050105@nupef.org.br>
Message-ID: <C29C51C2-280E-4FF8-AE4F-D593889D8333@psg.com>


On 19 Nov 2010, at 18:18, Graciela Selaimen wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> I have the same impression of ECLAC in regards to Latin America - a meaningless space, especially for the discussion on IG.
> 
> Em 11/19/10 2:15 PM, Fouad Bajwa escreveu:
>> SAARC for us in South Asia remains the same meaningless meeting point
>> exploited by elites and so called representatives of South Asian
>> nations to keep everyone busy in discussion leading nothing anywhere.


Question, can those spaces be transformed.  Or do they have no influence in any case.


On 19 Nov 2010, at 15:36, parminder wrote:

> Since you ask that question, what you may be missing is that OECD/ CoE countries so not just make policies for themselves. Internet is so inherently global (interestingly ISOC's EC statement uses this precise phrase) that policies made by any group of economically and politically strongest countries become the default global policies - see the cyber crime treaty, and the aspirations of ACTA, and well, also, see Wolfgang's recent email. (I kow i have said this many times before). 

Ok, given that though, would not these organization if marshaled in the cause of policies that worked for the economically and politically less strong, be better placed to stand up against OECD etc..

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 katitza at eff.org  Fri Nov 19 14:03:48 2010
From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez)
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 11:03:48 -0800
Subject: AW: [governance] Consensus Call for CSTD IGF Questionnaire -
In-Reply-To: <4CE66370.40506@itforchange.net>
References: <AANLkTinyo=oKJoJiz2wVHikpv7-nYBwgq+cf7p6qrj16@mail.gmail.com>  <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07448@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4CE66370.40506@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <4CE6CA14.2050200@eff.org>

Hi Parminder,

I am less concern about recommendations within the IGF, and provide 
those comments through the CSTD working group. However, I prefer as of 
now to observe.  I do believe the IGF has provide a practical venue for 
advocacy purposes. If recommendations are accepted, the nature of the 
IGF venue will definitely change.  Therefore, I need to make sure that 
the "process" is clear on how to get our concerted civil rights inputs 
on the text. We rely a lot on the good work that the staff of the IGF does.

Regarding your overall comments:

I also sympathetic with the fact of the problem that you have described. 
I do agree that the decisions of those inter-governmental organization 
or norm-setting venues like WIPO do affect all of us (Latin 
America/Africa/Asia). The Budapest Convention, 1980 OECD Privacy 
Guidelines, ACTA, etc for the good or for the bad,

I truly think developing countries should being able to have a strong 
participation and be able to table their own regional priorities 
including civil society developing countries priorities.  I see a big 
problem on the lack of regional spaces for policy research where civil 
society can table priorities and discuss emerging policy issues that are 
high priority at the national level. Does ELAC is an open space? Does 
they do serious policy research work? Does civil society has meaningful 
ways to provide policy advice to influence the policy outcomes? We hope 
that those spaces has a strong human rights background environment.

Regarding the support of inter-gov. organizations. I do not give any 
blanket support to any organization. Though it is very clear that an 
organization that support the European Convention of Human Rights (a 
very good human rights framework) might be in a better place than APEC 
(www.apec.org). But as I explained, those organization can also have bad 
outcomes. Nothing is white and black. A general assessment about 
supporting one organization over the other one is a simplification of 
the problem. Most of the time, we will be having a reacting agenda. 
Fight ACTA, etc. Sometimes, the political environment allows us to move 
a positive agenda (exceptions and limitation to copyright law, strong 
legal safeguards against gov. access to citizen's data), sometimes, we 
will try to provide policy recommendations to avoid damage than without 
our contributions. Even in those cases, we evaluate any single detail of 
what our contribution means or might not mean, and take decision 
accordingly. etc

In the past, the public voice coalition work hard to open OECD-ICCP 
Committee. The Business Sector and the Trade Union for years were able 
to get access to all draft documents versions, seat on the table and 
talk to all government officials, comment on revised version of a policy 
paper without almost none civil society inputs unless
one or another civil society person was invited as an expert.

In any case, I do not disagree with the discussions we are having within 
the CSTD framework. I prefer to see and react, see how things will move 
during the meeting, and what are the others proposals being table.


On 11/19/10 3:45 AM, parminder wrote:

> What I cant understand is the position of those who both oppose the EC 
> process (in whichever evolutionary form) as well as oppose 
> possibilities of the IGF making recommendations (I see Wolfgang, 
> Katitza, Bill, Jeanette among others state that position). Moreover, 
> they all seem to closely associate with OECD/ CoE policy making 
> processes, which are in fact much less open, transparent, 
> multistakeholder etc than even the 'enhanced cooperation' model which, 
> for instance, I proposed and they strongly resisted. I am unable to 
> understand why a comity of powerful nations needs specific 
> well-structured systems of making inter-country policies (which then 
> become default global ones) and all countires as a global group, which 
> (unfortunately?)  include developing countries, should not aspire to 
> any such structures. So, it appears, that while (global?) CS should 
> enthusiastically support the former (CoE / OECD kind of process) it is 
> presented as its bounden duty to strongly oppose any such - or in fact 
> structurally even much better - institutional developments  at the 
> global level.And I also do hope that the IGC members form developing 
> countries both increase their participation in IGC kind of groups, and 
> become more vocal in articulating their interests.
>
> parminder
>
>
>
>>
>> 2. 6a: I thin SOC has an IGF Fellowship Programm.
>>
>> 3. Under nine we could say that we ould like to see that the IGF enhances its function and could become, inter alia, an observatory, a clearinghouse, an early warning system and a watchdog.
>>
>> Sorry for the late reply. If it is too late then ignore it.
>>
>> Best wishes
>>
>> wolfgang
>> ________________________________
>>
>> Von:izumiaizu at gmail.com  im Auftrag von Izumi AIZU
>> Gesendet: Do 18.11.2010 03:13
>> An:governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> Betreff: [governance] Consensus Call for CSTD IGF Questionnaire - Clean version
>>
>>
>>
>> Here follows are the Clean version of the Final Draft for the CSTD IGF
>> questionnaire answer
>> in full text. Sorry for the confusion.
>>
>> Please respond if you agree or disagree as soon as possible.  Friday, Nov 19
>> is the deadline for submission. More comments are also very much appreciated
>> as we can further feed them into the Consultation meetings next week in Geneva.
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> izumi
>>
>> ------------
>>
>> FINAL Draft for Questionnaire on improvements to the IGF
>>
>> 1. What do you consider the most important achievements of the first
>> five IGF meetings?
>>
>> IGF created the space for dialogue by all stakeholders in an open,
>> inclusive manner. These emergence and development of the
>> multistakeholder principle and practice are perhaps the biggest
>> contribution IGF has achieved so far. It helped many participants to
>> understand the issues of their interest, as well as to understand how
>> other actors understand, act and accept their issues. Emergence of
>> Regional and National IGF with multistakeholder approach is another
>> achievement.
>>
>> 2. How satisfied are you with the delivery of the results of
>> discussions at the IGF and the impact they have had on developments in
>> national, regional or international Internet governance?
>>
>> IGF has made a reasonable advancement of the understanding of the
>> issues. Yet, at national, regional and international levels, we have
>> mixed assessment for the impact it brought.
>>
>> 3. Which, if any, new mechanisms would you propose to improve the
>> impact of the IGF discussions, in particular as regards the
>> interaction between the IGF and other stakeholders? Please specify the
>> kind of mechanism (e.g. reporting, exchanges, recommendations,
>> concrete advice, etc.) and the stakeholders (e.g. intergovernmental
>> bodies, other fora dealing with Internet Governance, etc.).
>>
>> a) One mechanism we can suggest is to come up with some form of
>> recommendations where all stakeholders have [rough] consensus. They
>> will not be binding, but could still function as model, reference or
>> common framework. Working process towards achieving these rough
>> consensus will create better and deeper understandings amongst
>> different stakeholders.
>>
>> b) The Secretariat and MAG should be strongly encouraged to directly
>> foster discussion and debate of difficult issues in main sessions,
>> instead of avoiding them.
>>
>> 4. In your view, what important new issues or themes concerning
>> Internet governance have emerged or become important since the Tunis
>> phase of the Summit, which deserve more attention in the next five
>> years?
>>
>> IGC feels that attention to the development agenda, issues concerning
>> the marginalized groups or actors, have yet gained sufficient level of
>> work at IGF and its outcome. These may not be the "new" issues, but we
>> strongly feel they are very important.
>>
>> Besides them, emergence of new technologies, tools and services, such
>> as cloud computing; user-generated, SNS and online sharing services
>> such as wiki, YouTube, Ustream, twitter and Facebook; DPI and
>> behavioral targeting advertisements; wide deployment of mobile
>> services including smart phones and tablet computers pose all kind of
>> new challenges for governance.
>>
>>
>> 5. What do you think should be the priority themes and areas of work
>> of the IGF during the next five years?
>>
>> Followings will be the areas of themes and works that have priorities we think.
>> a) Enhancing multi-stakeholder framework within IGF.
>> b) Promote capacity building for developmental agenda of governance
>> c) Balancing the interests - to empower those of marginalized and
>> under-developed in all organizations and fora dealing with Internet
>> governance - such as ICANN, W3C, IETF, RIRs, ITU, WIPO, CoE, OECD,
>> UNCTAD/CSTD and United Nations itself.
>>
>> 6. How can the capacity of those groups that are not yet well
>> represented at the IGF be improved? In particular, what could be done
>> to improve the capacity of representatives from developing countries?
>>
>> a) Establish special funding mechanism by IGF itself to help actors
>> from developing countries to continuously engage in IGF and related
>> organizations and meetings. Fellowship works carried out by
>> DiploFoundation, dotAsia organization [other reference, please] and
>> other institutions offer good reference for this, but they should be
>> expanded in larger scale. Targeting youth groups or younger generation
>> in profession, will have, in the long run, effective impact.
>>
>> b) Providing technical training to policy makers and policy training
>> to engineers will also help close the gap(s) within the
>> under-represented and also even well-represented.
>>
>> 7. How do you think more awareness of Internet governance issues and
>> the IGF process can be raised amongst groups whose lives are affected
>> by Internet governance but who are not yet part of the IGF process?
>>
>> a) Giving more weight to regional and national IGF meetings, making
>> more direct "links" to the main IGF meeting will help outreach to
>> those who have not yet involved in IGF process. Securing the same
>> level of working framework of IGF, such as multi-stakeholder
>> composition and inclusion of civil society groups (where such practice
>> is relatively new or scarce) should be maintained.
>>
>> b) Ensuring a plurality of civil society voices be heard in Internet
>> governance processes will also be effective in reaching out to those
>> yet to participate.
>>
>> c) Online meetings are most effective when provision is made for
>> participation both synchronously (ie. in real time) and
>> asynchronously. The remote hubs and moderators at the Vilnius IGF made
>> good progress towards this direction. Using such tools as blogs,
>> Twitter, mailing lists, Facebook and so on over an extended period may
>> also increase the awareness.
>>
>> d) Organizing some sessions completely online will create "level
>> playing field" among all participants, and may also demonstrate the
>> effectiveness of these tools/technologies, and may also improve the
>> quality of services in turn.
>>
>> e) Increase linguistic diversity. Using UN major languages other than
>> English at certain meetings and occasions as main working language
>> (translated into other UN languages) will increase the outreach to
>> non-English speaking population of the globe and will give more sense
>> of ownership. Currently, English is the only default working language,
>> but we think it does not have to be so.
>>
>> 8. How, if at all, do you think that the IGF process needs to change
>> to meet changing circumstances and priorities?
>>
>> As we replied to the MAG questionnaire, the organizing work of IGF
>> primarily by MAG should be improved. More outcome oriented direction
>> might improve the quality and value of IGF, but this should be
>> carefully exercised so as not to lose the open and free spirit of IGF
>> which contributed a great deal.
>>
>> 9. Do you have any other comments?
>>
>> No.
>>
>> END
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>       governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>       governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>       http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>
>> Translate this email:http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>       governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>       governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>       http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>
>> Translate this email:http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>    


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

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

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

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

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


From dogwallah at gmail.com  Fri Nov 19 14:52:20 2010
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 22:52:20 +0300
Subject: AW: [governance] Consensus Call for CSTD IGF Questionnaire -
In-Reply-To: <26908398.99509.1290182685343.JavaMail.www@wwinf1d14>
References: <AANLkTinyo=oKJoJiz2wVHikpv7-nYBwgq+cf7p6qrj16@mail.gmail.com>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07448@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <4CE66370.40506@itforchange.net> <AANLkTi=sDZiaxeD6R0=vrZVpaHmHMJn_s_y=D=EbWBqg@mail.gmail.com>
 <4CE66F81.8040404@itforchange.net> <AANLkTimGFznj-YCZ923NrnWkxDyd4UYvD8T4S_JRVkCH@mail.gmail.com>
 <26908398.99509.1290182685343.JavaMail.www@wwinf1d14>
Message-ID: <AANLkTimsOF5ppr22HaN_wM2ZXqvkUPVC1ranht+bLT_g@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 7:05 PM, Jean-Louis FULLSACK <jlfullsack at orange.fr>
wrote:

> And what are 12 submarine cables along the African coasts doing for
> exchanging coms in Central Africa for instance ? Who is caring about that
> waste of money (some 7 billions dollars) ?

Landing those cables is a big step, it took many years.  Once coastal
connectivity is established, inland fiber comes quite quickly due to
commercial pressure.

Why is it a waste of money? It's mostly international investors who believe
they will get a return. I doubt they see this as "waste".

There are 15 cables that land in the NYC metro area, Shouldn't Africa's
Billion people have the same access as New Yorkers?


> We aren't far from Internet governance when we are speaking of such issues
:
> for Internet to be "governed" correctly it first of all needs to be
> implemented ! I.e. there must be relevant traffic nodes (exchanges, GIX,
> PoP, ...) and a resilient network for interconnecting them on the
continent

These are being built (and in some cases operational).

> ! In Africa, IG is first of all about the topology of the continental
> backbone, i.e. the location of IXPs, GIXes and PoPs for holding the "
> domestic African" traffic wthin the continent and useing the shortest or
> most economical links.

Without the cables you decry, the shortest and cheapest route would often be
overseas and back.


 This topology needs a relevant Internet architecture
> : here IG is to be at work ! Moreover, the insertion of Africa in the
> international traffic flow needs selected landing stations (and satellite
> hubs) to be the gateway stations to the global optical fiber routes that
> really connects Africa to the World.

We have these.


-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route
indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101119/f61bd2f1/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From lmcknigh at syr.edu  Fri Nov 19 15:14:27 2010
From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight)
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 15:14:27 -0500
Subject: AW: [governance] Consensus Call for CSTD IGF Questionnaire -
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimsOF5ppr22HaN_wM2ZXqvkUPVC1ranht+bLT_g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTinyo=oKJoJiz2wVHikpv7-nYBwgq+cf7p6qrj16@mail.gmail.com>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07448@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <4CE66370.40506@itforchange.net>
 <AANLkTi=sDZiaxeD6R0=vrZVpaHmHMJn_s_y=D=EbWBqg@mail.gmail.com>
 <4CE66F81.8040404@itforchange.net>
 <AANLkTimGFznj-YCZ923NrnWkxDyd4UYvD8T4S_JRVkCH@mail.gmail.com>
 <26908398.99509.1290182685343.JavaMail.www@wwinf1d14>,<AANLkTimsOF5ppr22HaN_wM2ZXqvkUPVC1ranht+bLT_g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006E74@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>

Echoing McTim,  more fiber = cheaper bandwidth, which is good. Africa with 500m mobile subscribers..can use the bandwidth I suspect.

In Caribbean case, encouraging the laying of several new fibers through region was a major outcome from the Caribbean Internet Forum meetings, so real tangible outcomes enabling development can come from regional meetings.  

On other hand if not multistakeholder, they can just be a bunch of talking heads with little impact, so I wouldn't assume either is case without knowing specifics.

And while we debate whether COE or UN should consider 'frameworks' or 'principles' for Internet gpvernance, Caribbean multistakeholders came up with an open Internet framework several years ago...although final drafting was too intergovernmental for my taste I admit. 

Still, main point is regional meetings are fine in principle but  can be done well or poorly in practice.  Kind of like...anything else.

Last, with regard to OECD, which I haven't been able to participate much in but did participate in the opening to CS: since the door was open I and others through it worthwhile to open further. formally. To further principle and precedent.  

Now, back to our regularly scheduled global programming...

Lee

________________________________________
From: McTim [dogwallah at gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, November 19, 2010 2:52 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jean-Louis FULLSACK
Cc: Baudouin SCHOMBE
Subject: Re: AW: [governance] Consensus Call for CSTD IGF Questionnaire -

On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 7:05 PM, Jean-Louis FULLSACK <jlfullsack at orange.fr<mailto:jlfullsack at orange.fr>> wrote:

> And what are 12 submarine cables along the African coasts doing for
> exchanging coms in Central Africa for instance ? Who is caring about that
> waste of money (some 7 billions dollars) ?

Landing those cables is a big step, it took many years.  Once coastal connectivity is established, inland fiber comes quite quickly due to commercial pressure.

Why is it a waste of money? It's mostly international investors who believe they will get a return. I doubt they see this as "waste".

There are 15 cables that land in the NYC metro area, Shouldn't Africa's Billion people have the same access as New Yorkers?


> We aren't far from Internet governance when we are speaking of such issues :
> for Internet to be "governed" correctly it first of all needs to be
> implemented ! I.e. there must be relevant traffic nodes (exchanges, GIX,
> PoP, ...) and a resilient network for interconnecting them on the continent

These are being built (and in some cases operational).

> ! In Africa, IG is first of all about the topology of the continental
> backbone, i.e. the location of IXPs, GIXes and PoPs for holding the "
> domestic African" traffic wthin the continent and useing the shortest or
> most economical links.

Without the cables you decry, the shortest and cheapest route would often be overseas and back.


 This topology needs a relevant Internet architecture
> : here IG is to be at work ! Moreover, the insertion of Africa in the
> international traffic flow needs selected landing stations (and satellite
> hubs) to be the gateway stations to the global optical fiber routes that
> really connects Africa to the World.

We have these.


--
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 katitza at eff.org  Fri Nov 19 15:24:00 2010
From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez)
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 12:24:00 -0800
Subject: AW: [governance] Consensus Call for CSTD IGF Questionnaire -
In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006E74@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
References: <AANLkTinyo=oKJoJiz2wVHikpv7-nYBwgq+cf7p6qrj16@mail.gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07448@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4CE66370.40506@itforchange.net> <AANLkTi=sDZiaxeD6R0=vrZVpaHmHMJn_s_y=D=EbWBqg@mail.gmail.com> <4CE66F81.8040404@itforchange.net> <AANLkTimGFznj-YCZ923NrnWkxDyd4UYvD8T4S_JRVkCH@mail.gmail.com> <26908398.99509.1290182685343.JavaMail.www@wwinf1d14>,<AANLkTimsOF5ppr22HaN_wM2ZXqvkUPVC1ranht+bLT_g@mail.gmail.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006E74@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <4CE6DCE0.2060500@eff.org>

On 11/19/10 12:14 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote:
> Last, with regard to OECD, which I haven't been able to participate much in but did participate in the opening to CS: since the door was open I and others through it worthwhile to open further. formally. To further principle and precedent.
>
Many of us were able to participate in OECD even before CSISAC exist 
(not me. I was too young). Despite of that, many of them were not able 
to get access to all the documents in draft form. This is what I have 
always heard from all of them. Did you have access to OLIS? Have all the 
revised version and how the document is evolving over a year of 
intensive work is quite useful. It also allows you to learn what other 
countries are doing, and which are going to be their plans at the 
national level, etc

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

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

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


From lmcknigh at syr.edu  Fri Nov 19 15:40:15 2010
From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight)
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 15:40:15 -0500
Subject: AW: [governance] Consensus Call for CSTD IGF Questionnaire -
In-Reply-To: <4CE6DCE0.2060500@eff.org>
References: <AANLkTinyo=oKJoJiz2wVHikpv7-nYBwgq+cf7p6qrj16@mail.gmail.com>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07448@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <4CE66370.40506@itforchange.net>
 <AANLkTi=sDZiaxeD6R0=vrZVpaHmHMJn_s_y=D=EbWBqg@mail.gmail.com>
 <4CE66F81.8040404@itforchange.net>
 <AANLkTimGFznj-YCZ923NrnWkxDyd4UYvD8T4S_JRVkCH@mail.gmail.com>
 <26908398.99509.1290182685343.JavaMail.www@wwinf1d14>,<AANLkTimsOF5ppr22HaN_wM2ZXqvkUPVC1ranht+bLT_g@mail.gmail.com>
 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006E74@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>,<4CE6DCE0.2060500@eff.org>
Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006E75@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>

Ok, rub it in....

But yeah pre-CSISAC, you might be invited in by OECD as a cs expert to participate in or contribute to a specific topic, with the blessing/backing of your home country, but all other docs and topics would generally be off-limits -since your expertise just granted you special dispensation to contribute to that topic.  Even if you were invited to show up at the meeting, docs on other topics were not for you. And certainly not the drafts.

Unless you repped the biz community, or labor, they had seats at the table with the big boys.

 Ok actually they have cheap seats too since only governments sit at the grownups table, but at least they were invited regularly into room.  OK now I am being too kind, the biz community gets its special welcome like one might expect, and might participate in drafting.

And that's all post-cold war thawing, in the good old days they treated a draft memo on info policy like it was a state secret, or inter-state secret.  


________________________________________
From: Katitza Rodriguez [katitza at eff.org]
Sent: Friday, November 19, 2010 3:24 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Lee W McKnight
Cc: McTim; Jean-Louis FULLSACK; Baudouin SCHOMBE
Subject: Re: AW: [governance] Consensus Call for CSTD IGF Questionnaire -

On 11/19/10 12:14 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote:
> Last, with regard to OECD, which I haven't been able to participate much in but did participate in the opening to CS: since the door was open I and others through it worthwhile to open further. formally. To further principle and precedent.
>
Many of us were able to participate in OECD even before CSISAC exist
(not me. I was too young). Despite of that, many of them were not able
to get access to all the documents in draft form. This is what I have
always heard from all of them. Did you have access to OLIS? Have all the
revised version and how the document is evolving over a year of
intensive work is quite useful. It also allows you to learn what other
countries are doing, and which are going to be their plans at the
national level, etc

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

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

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

From anriette at apc.org  Fri Nov 19 16:45:34 2010
From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen)
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 23:45:34 +0200
Subject: [governance] APC response to CSTD questionnaire
Message-ID: <4CE6EFFE.6060307@apc.org>

Rather hastily put together, but drawing on discussions we have been 
having for a while.

Anriette

-- 
------------------------------------------------------
anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org
executive director
association for progressive communications
www.apc.org

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

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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Questionnaire CSTD_APC_v319112010.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 92487 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101119/934ba71c/attachment.pdf>

From mariliamaciel at gmail.com  Fri Nov 19 17:27:33 2010
From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 20:27:33 -0200
Subject: [governance] Re: Geneva Sunday
In-Reply-To: <U4HOqUQQbp5MFADw@internetpolicyagency.com>
References: <1E8653E0-927A-4C7C-B373-9E8D4D18BE58@graduateinstitute.ch>
	<AANLkTimZhcB4yEcyAiYF3BvQ+PD4ddE54hrTkXnKnCMT@mail.gmail.com>
	<0613CF7C-3865-4386-AC72-C664524C4BC2@graduateinstitute.ch>
	<AANLkTinRgA7vZqbHssP3K8kJ2TACBxJ9O+rdFusreX_8@mail.gmail.com>
	<U4HOqUQQbp5MFADw@internetpolicyagency.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTikWHumv3CbL+R8vaEtdY6Xd8vxfOJhCyBWgZtVK@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Roland and all,


There will be options for remote participation in Eurodig planning meeting.
Please, see further instructions here:
http://www.eurodig.org/important/eurodig-planning-meeting-23-nov-2010

Please, let Bernard Sadaka (sdkaaa at gmail.com) know if you plan to join
remotely, so he can provide you assistance if needed.

Best,

Marilia

On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 1:25 PM, Roland Perry <
roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote:

> In message <AANLkTinRgA7vZqbHssP3K8kJ2TACBxJ9O+rdFusreX_8 at mail.gmail.com<AANLkTinRgA7vZqbHssP3K8kJ2TACBxJ9O%2BrdFusreX_8 at mail.gmail.com>>,
> at 22:49:55 on Fri, 19 Nov 2010, Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org> writes
>
>
>  EuroDIG meeting (what does it stand for and is it open to participate)
>>
>
> It would have been called the "European [Regional] IGF" if that name hadn't
> been previously selected by a somewhat ill-fated initiative of the European
> Parliament. It's very open, but does have a tendency to have its prep
> meetings in odd places and inconvenient times (from my perspective, anyway).
>
> To attend this one, you need to get into the Palais, which they are
> arranging by asking the Monday IGF meeting to issue 2-day badges to the
> individuals concerned (even if you aren't attending on the Monday).
> --
> 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
>



-- 
Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
FGV Direito Rio

Center for Technology and Society
Getulio Vargas Foundation
Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101119/0d2e47f9/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From mariliamaciel at gmail.com  Fri Nov 19 17:30:45 2010
From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 20:30:45 -0200
Subject: [governance] Re: Geneva Sunday
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimZhcB4yEcyAiYF3BvQ+PD4ddE54hrTkXnKnCMT@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1E8653E0-927A-4C7C-B373-9E8D4D18BE58@graduateinstitute.ch>
	<AANLkTimZhcB4yEcyAiYF3BvQ+PD4ddE54hrTkXnKnCMT@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=yD1=1b5e_tZMWi3C7cYkfj_23cF4kw9STey21@mail.gmail.com>

Izumi,

I will participate remotely.
Diplo office has good wi-fi, there should be no problem on yor side.

Best wishes and a safe trip to all going to Geneva!

Marilia

On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 10:17 AM, Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org> wrote:

> Dear Bill and all,
>
> Yes, I do plan to organize a meeting on Sunday, Nov 21 in Geneva
> At DiploFoundation office.
>
> Let's meet at 3 pm till say 6 pm max, with optional dinner.
>
> There are at least four or five of us to arrive on or before
> Sunday.
>
> As for Agenda, what is in my mind are:
> a) How to intervene at IGF Consultaiton mtg on Monday and also
> MAG mtg on Tuesdy when we cannot get in.
> b) how to intervene at CSTD mtg on Wednesday
> c) how to deal with Dec meetings: Dec 14, NYC by UNSESA on EC, and Dec
> 17, by CSTD on IGF in Geneva
> d) planning for IGC activities - Strategy, Work Plan and Outreach in
> mid- and long run
> e) AOB
>
> We will set up, at least Skype chat channel for remote participation.
>
> Please send us if you plan to participate - physically or remotely by
> return.
>
> best
>
> Izumi
>
>
>
> 2010/11/19, William Drake <william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch>:
> > Hi Izumi
> >
> > Lost track of something in the mail mountains.  Do I recall correctly
> that
> > you wanted to organize a caucus meeting at Diplo on Sunday?  If so,
> >
> > *when?
> > *did you have an agenda in mind?
> > *do we know that there will be members in town by then who are planning
> to
> > attend?
> >
> > 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
>



-- 
Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
FGV Direito Rio

Center for Technology and Society
Getulio Vargas Foundation
Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101119/7fc80b24/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From jefsey at jefsey.com  Fri Nov 19 20:48:27 2010
From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin)
Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2010 02:48:27 +0100
Subject: [governance] Reply to our criticism of Enhanced
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20101118104557.0632d668@jefsey.com>
References: <OFA1AE4B04.7D221F0F-ON852577DE.00058C1B-852577DE.00060716@un.org>
 <1C78A048-E18D-469B-9B9F-AE240D83EDDD@ciroap.org>
 <7.0.1.0.2.20101118104557.0632d668@jefsey.com>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20101120021907.0680f3d8@nogo>


>At 02:37 17/11/2010, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>>This letter just in.  It seems that the Enhanced Cooperation 
>>consultations on 14 December will now be open to other stakeholders 
>>to speak if time is available, and that they can register at 
>>http://www.unpan.org/dpadm/wsisfollowup. This is still not what we 
>>wanted, but is a marginal improvement.  I have replied seeking 
>>details of the contact from CONGO who will be speaking on our behalf.

Thank you for this input from UN/DESA. This led me to analyse the 
Internet Intelligent Use emerging community concerns with the current 
IGF practice: http://wikalfa.org/wiki/IUsers'_IGF_problem.
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 iza at anr.org  Fri Nov 19 21:32:18 2010
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2010 11:32:18 +0900
Subject: [governance] Re: Geneva Sunday
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=yD1=1b5e_tZMWi3C7cYkfj_23cF4kw9STey21@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1E8653E0-927A-4C7C-B373-9E8D4D18BE58@graduateinstitute.ch>
 <AANLkTimZhcB4yEcyAiYF3BvQ+PD4ddE54hrTkXnKnCMT@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTi=yD1=1b5e_tZMWi3C7cYkfj_23cF4kw9STey21@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTinxrLuMFEiLXgMQGRNoUX3Ocvhu7=aHhPy4b3pz@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks Marilia and all,
Looking forward to seeing you there or online!
I will try to setup good connection at Diplo office.

best,

izumi

2010/11/20 Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>:
> Izumi,
>
> I will participate remotely.
> Diplo office has good wi-fi, there should be no problem on yor side.
>
> Best wishes and a safe trip to all going to Geneva!
>
> Marilia
>
> On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 10:17 AM, Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org> wrote:
>>
>> Dear Bill and all,
>>
>> Yes, I do plan to organize a meeting on Sunday, Nov 21 in Geneva
>> At DiploFoundation office.
>>
>> Let's meet at 3 pm till say 6 pm max, with optional dinner.
>>
>> There are at least four or five of us to arrive on or before
>> Sunday.
>>
>> As for Agenda, what is in my mind are:
>> a) How to intervene at IGF Consultaiton mtg on Monday and also
>> MAG mtg on Tuesdy when we cannot get in.
>> b) how to intervene at CSTD mtg on Wednesday
>> c) how to deal with Dec meetings: Dec 14, NYC by UNSESA on EC, and Dec
>> 17, by CSTD on IGF in Geneva
>> d) planning for IGC activities - Strategy, Work Plan and Outreach in
>> mid- and long run
>> e) AOB
>>
>> We will set up, at least Skype chat channel for remote participation.
>>
>> Please send us if you plan to participate - physically or remotely by
>> return.
>>
>> best
>>
>> Izumi
>>
>>
>>
>> 2010/11/19, William Drake <william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch>:
>> > Hi Izumi
>> >
>> > Lost track of something in the mail mountains.  Do I recall correctly
>> > that
>> > you wanted to organize a caucus meeting at Diplo on Sunday?  If so,
>> >
>> > *when?
>> > *did you have an agenda in mind?
>> > *do we know that there will be members in town by then who are planning
>> > to
>> > attend?
>> >
>> > 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
>
>
>
> --
> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
> FGV Direito Rio
>
> Center for Technology and Society
> Getulio Vargas Foundation
> Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
>



-- 
                        >> Izumi Aizu <<

          Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo

           Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,
                                  Japan
                                 * * * * *
           << Writing the Future of the History >>
                                www.anr.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 fsylla at gmail.com  Sat Nov 20 04:36:51 2010
From: fsylla at gmail.com (Fatimata Seye Sylla)
Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2010 09:36:51 +0000
Subject: AW: [governance] Consensus Call for CSTD IGF Questionnaire -
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimsOF5ppr22HaN_wM2ZXqvkUPVC1ranht+bLT_g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTinyo=oKJoJiz2wVHikpv7-nYBwgq+cf7p6qrj16@mail.gmail.com>
	<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07448@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
	<4CE66370.40506@itforchange.net>
	<AANLkTi=sDZiaxeD6R0=vrZVpaHmHMJn_s_y=D=EbWBqg@mail.gmail.com>
	<4CE66F81.8040404@itforchange.net>
	<AANLkTimGFznj-YCZ923NrnWkxDyd4UYvD8T4S_JRVkCH@mail.gmail.com>
	<26908398.99509.1290182685343.JavaMail.www@wwinf1d14>
	<AANLkTimsOF5ppr22HaN_wM2ZXqvkUPVC1ranht+bLT_g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTimGJAYtQQon4_iK4Lias4xnfOdaAtvgOJNZmz_e@mail.gmail.com>

Thank you Jean-Louis for making the point about the specific needs for
Africa.  You are right.   We need to participate to the IG policy but
without appropriate access to internet, it will be very difficult to do so.
The investment being made to put the right infrastructure in place is
necessary for African development and can't be considered as a waste.  I
completely agree wiith the answers provided by McTim on the subject.  Again,
access is a major issue for Africa.

Fatimata


On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 7:52 PM, McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 7:05 PM, Jean-Louis FULLSACK <jlfullsack at orange.fr>
> wrote:
>
> > And what are 12 submarine cables along the African coasts doing for
> > exchanging coms in Central Africa for instance ? Who is caring about that
> > waste of money (some 7 billions dollars) ?
>
> Landing those cables is a big step, it took many years.  Once coastal
> connectivity is established, inland fiber comes quite quickly due to
> commercial pressure.
>
> Why is it a waste of money? It's mostly international investors who believe
> they will get a return. I doubt they see this as "waste".
>
> There are 15 cables that land in the NYC metro area, Shouldn't Africa's
> Billion people have the same access as New Yorkers?
>
>
>
> > We aren't far from Internet governance when we are speaking of such
> issues :
> > for Internet to be "governed" correctly it first of all needs to be
> > implemented ! I.e. there must be relevant traffic nodes (exchanges, GIX,
> > PoP, ...) and a resilient network for interconnecting them on the
> continent
>
> These are being built (and in some cases operational).
>
>
> > ! In Africa, IG is first of all about the topology of the continental
> > backbone, i.e. the location of IXPs, GIXes and PoPs for holding the "
> > domestic African" traffic wthin the continent and useing the shortest or
> > most economical links.
>
> Without the cables you decry, the shortest and cheapest route would often
> be overseas and back.
>
>
>
>  This topology needs a relevant Internet architecture
> > : here IG is to be at work ! Moreover, the insertion of Africa in the
> > international traffic flow needs selected landing stations (and satellite
> > hubs) to be the gateway stations to the global optical fiber routes that
> > really connects Africa to the World.
>
> We have these.
>
>
>
> --
> 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
>



-- 
Fatimata Seye Sylla
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101120/f09a97ad/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From cafec3m at yahoo.fr  Sat Nov 20 05:14:13 2010
From: cafec3m at yahoo.fr (CAFEC)
Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2010 11:14:13 +0100
Subject: SV: AW: [governance] Consensus Call for CSTD IGF Questionnaire
In-Reply-To: <19319636.96532.1290178557682.JavaMail.www@wwinf1d14>
References: <AANLkTinyo=oKJoJiz2wVHikpv7-nYBwgq+cf7p6qrj16@mail.gmail.com>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07448@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <4CE66370.40506@itforchange.net> <AANLkTim9sinx_z5nMe55hKoGPxp5OOvtz+mAkNQCf_ZR@mail.gmail.com>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0746A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <19319636.96532.1290178557682.JavaMail.www@wwinf1d14>
Message-ID: <AANLkTin16XtYQOEKcDZw-oMteo5OLH91p3gDGNaq1ksT@mail.gmail.com>

I agree also on the side of Jean Louis on the argument of Wolfgang and
gladly accepted in March 2011 but by the first week to avoid some overlap in
our schedules.

 BAUDOUIN



2010/11/19 Jean-Louis FULLSACK <jlfullsack at orange.fr>

> This is a good way Wolfgang !
>
> *<When the COE offered the Cybercrime Convention in 2001 for global
> signature, a lot of states which are no members of the COE, joined. However
> some countries, like Brazil, rejected the concept because they were not
> involved in the making of the instrument. The COE has learned. What our
> small group will propose to the COE is that they should convene a "global"
> multistakeholder conference with high level governmental participation in
> April 2011 in Strasvbourg to identify ways how to move towards such an
> "Instrument". BTW we propose to be innovative also with the tilte. We will
> probably not propose to call it a "Declaration of Principles" but a
> "Framework of Commitments". Embedded into such a multistakeholder framework
> governments among themselves should work towards a more specific non-binding
> "Recommendation on Rights, Duties and Responsibilities of Government in the
> Cross Border Internet" which would specify the "respective roles" of
> governments, as called for in the Internet Governance definition, adopted by
> more than 150 heads of States and govenrments of the UN member states. And
> further embedded into this two layers governments can move forward to
> identify very concrete issues were a legally binding regulation is needed in
> form of a series of individual "Intergovernmental Internet Protocols". >
> *
> I'll set aside april 2011 in my desk diary  ...
>
> Best regards
> Jean-Louis Fullsack
> CSDPTT
>
>
>
>
> > Message du 19/11/10 13:35
> > De : ""Kleinwächter, Wolfgang""
> > A : governance at lists.cpsr.org, "McTim" , governance at lists.cpsr.org,
> "parminder"
> > Copie à :
> > Objet : SV: AW: [governance] Consensus Call for CSTD IGF Questionnaire -
> >
> >
> > Hi Parminder
> >
> > I understand your concerns and we have discussed this at length during
> the previous years.
> >
> > I fully support 100 percent involvement of developing countries into
> policy development and decision making with regard to the Internet. I am not
> in favour for exclusive rights of OECD or COE.
> >
> > When I mentioned the COE as a "better place" my argument was that
> institutions which have a procedure in place for the negotiation of texts
> are better prepared to work on consensus language than an institution like
> the IGF which is a platform for innovative and creative discussion, or, as
> said in my article for the IGF book, it is primarily an observatory, a
> laboratory, a clearing house, a watchdog, a scout, a school and an early
> warning system and not a negotiation body.
> >
> > With regard to the Council of Europe (COE), where I chair the Cross
> Border Internet expert group (established in March this year) we have
> succesfully argued so far - also with the help of experts from non COE
> countries during the recent workshop at the IGF in Vilnjus - that a possible
> COE Declaration makes only sense as a global instrument which has to involve
> also countries like India, Brazil, China and many others. BTW, a lot of COE
> members are developing countries from Asia. Also Russia is a member of the
> COE. It has 47 member states much more than the 27 member states of the EU.
> >
> > When the COE offered the Cybercrime Convention in 2001 for global
> signature, a lot of states which are no members of the COE, joined. However
> some countries, like Brazil, rejected the concept because they were not
> involved in the making of the instrument. The COE has learned. What our
> small group will propose to the COE is that they should convene a "global"
> multistakeholder conference with high level governmental participation in
> April 2011 in Strasvbourg to identify ways how to move towards such an
> "Instrument". BTW we propose to be innovative also with the tilte. We will
> probably not propose to call it a "Declaration of Principles" but a
> "Framework of Commitments". Embedded into such a multistakeholder framework
> governments among themselves should work towards a more specific non-binding
> "Recommendation on Rights, Duties and Responsibilities of Government in the
> Cross Border Internet" which would specify the "respective roles" of
> governments, as called for in the Internet Governance definition, adopted by
> more than 150 heads of States and govenrments of the UN member states. And
> further embedded into this two layers governments can move forward to
> identify very concrete issues were a legally binding regulation is needed in
> form of a series of individual "Intergovernmental Internet Protocols".
> >
> > But all this is work in progress. We have just started. And we will start
> asking for public comment before the end of the year on the COE website. And
> the April 2011 conference will give us an opportunity to discuss very
> concretly what should be done in this field. Nothing is decided, nobody is
> excluded. We are just in the beginning of a process which has been triggered
> by the IGF and EC discussions of the last five years.
> >
> > Indeed one can argue that the IGF has inspired the CEO to put this on its
> agenda and to start doing something which is needed. The COE sees this as a
> "service for the global community" by putting human rights into the center.
> As you know the COE is based upon the European Human Rights convention and
> sees itself as a key player in the field of human rights. And it provides an
> environment where you can take a next step and make a substantial
> cotribution to enhance further communication, coordination and collaboration
> (EC3) in an "Enhanced cooperation mechanism for Internet Governance".
> >
> > Hope this brings us a little bit foreward.
> >
> > best wishes
> >
> > Wolfgang
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
> > Fra: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com]
> > Sendt: fr 19-11-2010 13:02
> > Til: governance at lists.cpsr.org; parminder
> > Emne: Re: AW: [governance] Consensus Call for CSTD IGF Questionnaire -
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi Parminder. Some of us dont think in terms of nation states as the
> > unit of Internet policy making, we think of networks and individuals
> > taking this role instead. At least, thats my position. Rgds, mctim
> >
> > On 11/19/10, parminder wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thursday 18 November 2010 01:52 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
> > >> Hi everybody
> > >>
> > >> thanks for the work. I am sorry that I jump in in a very late stage. I
> > >> have three comments:
> > >>
> > >> 1. 3a: The old debate on receommendations is not really helpful. In
> the
> > >> past CS tried also to use the terminology "messages".
> > > Wolfgang
> > >
> > > Global CS did never abandon the concept of recommendations in the IGF
> > > context, though at places 'messages' may also have been used.
> > > Recommendations (or 'recommend') is mentioned in the Tunis Agenda's
> > > mandate for the IGF and we seem to have largely supported it, in some
> > > form or the other.
> > >> The problem is as soon as you introduce a process to negotiate a text
> > >> which then has been the subject of voting you change the nature of the
> the
> > >> whole event. Even if you stress that these receommendations will be
> not
> > >> binding, this does not matter. In the Un context (like in other
> > >> intergovernmental mechanisms) the category "receommednation" is well
> > >> defined and you can not avoid that an IGF recommendation is seen as
> > >> something similar to what other Un bodies are doing with
> receommendations.
> > >> Again I prefer the "message". BTW, I will circulate later this week
> the
> > >> Interim Report of the Council of Europe Cross Border Expert Group
> where we
> > >> propose also the elaboration of some instruments. The Council of
> Europe -
> > >> or other organisations with an established procedure to negotiat texts
> -
> > >> are a better place for such
> > >> an excercise.
> > >>
> > > Sure, it may be a better place. But I or my country in not in the CoE
> > > (though CoE instruments finally do impact me). So which 'better place'
> > > do you think I can look upto? Can you please provide me an answer to
> this.
> > >
> > > I continue to be (unpleasantly) surprised at the manner in which the
> > > concerns of developing countries in terms of their non-participation in
> > > global policy making and the global shaping of the ICT pehnomenon is
> > > ignored so blatantly, in a group which wants to describe itself as a
> > > global civil society group.
> > >
> > > We may all glibly talk about development issues or IG for development.
> > > Pl take note that in the IGF plenary on IG for development the prime
> > > issue which came up was that IG for development first of all means due
> > > participation of developing countries in global IG related policy
> making
> > > (see the Chairman's summary). What does the IGC plan to do on this
> > > issue? Ask us to watch and cheer on CoE and OECD policy making
> processes?
> > >
> > > I can still understand the stand of someone like Milton (though I do
> not
> > > agree with it) who is a bit afraid of supporting new institutional
> > > development for democratic global policy making as coming out of the
> > > current 'core' UN configurations (which is why he is afraid of the
> > > enhanced cooperation or EC process), even as an positively evolutionary
> > > process (which is my considered expectation of the EC process). Because
> > > he does, correspondingly, support a more open, diverse,
> multistakeholder
> > > process like the IGF making some clear positive contributions towards
> > > development of global Internet policies through making policy
> > > recommendations.
> > >
> > > What I cant understand is the position of those who both oppose the EC
> > > process (in whichever evolutionary form) as well as oppose
> possibilities
> > > of the IGF making recommendations (I see Wolfgang, Katitza, Bill,
> > > Jeanette among others state that position). Moreover, they all seem to
> > > closely associate with OECD/ CoE policy making processes, which are in
> > > fact much less open, transparent, multistakeholder etc than even the
> > > 'enhanced cooperation' model which, for instance, I proposed and they
> > > strongly resisted.
> > >
> > > I am unable to understand why a comity of powerful nations needs
> > > specific well-structured systems of making inter-country policies
> (which
> > > then become default global ones) and all countires as a global group,
> > > which (unfortunately?) include developing countries, should not aspire
> > > to any such structures. So, it appears, that while (global?) CS should
> > > enthusiastically support the former (CoE / OECD kind of process) it is
> > > presented as its bounden duty to strongly oppose any such - or in fact
> > > structurally even much better - institutional developments at the
> > > global level.
> > >
> > > And I also do hope that the IGC members form developing countries both
> > > increase their participation in IGC kind of groups, and become more
> > > vocal in articulating their interests.
> > >
> > > parminder
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >>
> > >> 2. 6a: I thin SOC has an IGF Fellowship Programm.
> > >>
> > >> 3. Under nine we could say that we ould like to see that the IGF
> enhances
> > >> its function and could become, inter alia, an observatory, a
> > >> clearinghouse, an early warning system and a watchdog.
> > >>
> > >> Sorry for the late reply. If it is too late then ignore it.
> > >>
> > >> Best wishes
> > >>
> > >> wolfgang
> > >> ________________________________
> > >>
> > >> Von: izumiaizu at gmail.com im Auftrag von Izumi AIZU
> > >> Gesendet: Do 18.11.2010 03:13
> > >> An: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > >> Betreff: [governance] Consensus Call for CSTD IGF Questionnaire -
> Clean
> > >> version
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Here follows are the Clean version of the Final Draft for the CSTD IGF
> > >> questionnaire answer
> > >> in full text. Sorry for the confusion.
> > >>
> > >> Please respond if you agree or disagree as soon as possible. Friday,
> Nov
> > >> 19
> > >> is the deadline for submission. More comments are also very much
> > >> appreciated
> > >> as we can further feed them into the Consultation meetings next week
> in
> > >> Geneva.
> > >>
> > >> Thanks!
> > >>
> > >> izumi
> > >>
> > >> ------------
> > >>
> > >> FINAL Draft for Questionnaire on improvements to the IGF
> > >>
> > >> 1. What do you consider the most important achievements of the first
> > >> five IGF meetings?
> > >>
> > >> IGF created the space for dialogue by all stakeholders in an open,
> > >> inclusive manner. These emergence and development of the
> > >> multistakeholder principle and practice are perhaps the biggest
> > >> contribution IGF has achieved so far. It helped many participants to
> > >> understand the issues of their interest, as well as to understand how
> > >> other actors understand, act and accept their issues. Emergence of
> > >> Regional and National IGF with multistakeholder approach is another
> > >> achievement.
> > >>
> > >> 2. How satisfied are you with the delivery of the results of
> > >> discussions at the IGF and the impact they have had on developments in
> > >> national, regional or international Internet governance?
> > >>
> > >> IGF has made a reasonable advancement of the understanding of the
> > >> issues. Yet, at national, regional and international levels, we have
> > >> mixed assessment for the impact it brought.
> > >>
> > >> 3. Which, if any, new mechanisms would you propose to improve the
> > >> impact of the IGF discussions, in particular as regards the
> > >> interaction between the IGF and other stakeholders? Please specify the
> > >> kind of mechanism (e.g. reporting, exchanges, recommendations,
> > >> concrete advice, etc.) and the stakeholders (e.g. intergovernmental
> > >> bodies, other fora dealing with Internet Governance, etc.).
> > >>
> > >> a) One mechanism we can suggest is to come up with some form of
> > >> recommendations where all stakeholders have [rough] consensus. They
> > >> will not be binding, but could still function as model, reference or
> > >> common framework. Working process towards achieving these rough
> > >> consensus will create better and deeper understandings amongst
> > >> different stakeholders.
> > >>
> > >> b) The Secretariat and MAG should be strongly encouraged to directly
> > >> foster discussion and debate of difficult issues in main sessions,
> > >> instead of avoiding them.
> > >>
> > >> 4. In your view, what important new issues or themes concerning
> > >> Internet governance have emerged or become important since the Tunis
> > >> phase of the Summit, which deserve more attention in the next five
> > >> years?
> > >>
> > >> IGC feels that attention to the development agenda, issues concerning
> > >> the marginalized groups or actors, have yet gained sufficient level of
> > >> work at IGF and its outcome. These may not be the "new" issues, but we
> > >> strongly feel they are very important.
> > >>
> > >> Besides them, emergence of new technologies, tools and services, such
> > >> as cloud computing; user-generated, SNS and online sharing services
> > >> such as wiki, YouTube, Ustream, twitter and Facebook; DPI and
> > >> behavioral targeting advertisements; wide deployment of mobile
> > >> services including smart phones and tablet computers pose all kind of
> > >> new challenges for governance.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> 5. What do you think should be the priority themes and areas of work
> > >> of the IGF during the next five years?
> > >>
> > >> Followings will be the areas of themes and works that have priorities
> we
> > >> think.
> > >> a) Enhancing multi-stakeholder framework within IGF.
> > >> b) Promote capacity building for developmental agenda of governance
> > >> c) Balancing the interests - to empower those of marginalized and
> > >> under-developed in all organizations and fora dealing with Internet
> > >> governance - such as ICANN, W3C, IETF, RIRs, ITU, WIPO, CoE, OECD,
> > >> UNCTAD/CSTD and United Nations itself.
> > >>
> > >> 6. How can the capacity of those groups that are not yet well
> > >> represented at the IGF be improved? In particular, what could be done
> > >> to improve the capacity of representatives from developing countries?
> > >>
> > >> a) Establish special funding mechanism by IGF itself to help actors
> > >> from developing countries to continuously engage in IGF and related
> > >> organizations and meetings. Fellowship works carried out by
> > >> DiploFoundation, dotAsia organization [other reference, please] and
> > >> other institutions offer good reference for this, but they should be
> > >> expanded in larger scale. Targeting youth groups or younger generation
> > >> in profession, will have, in the long run, effective impact.
> > >>
> > >> b) Providing technical training to policy makers and policy training
> > >> to engineers will also help close the gap(s) within the
> > >> under-represented and also even well-represented.
> > >>
> > >> 7. How do you think more awareness of Internet governance issues and
> > >> the IGF process can be raised amongst groups whose lives are affected
> > >> by Internet governance but who are not yet part of the IGF process?
> > >>
> > >> a) Giving more weight to regional and national IGF meetings, making
> > >> more direct "links" to the main IGF meeting will help outreach to
> > >> those who have not yet involved in IGF process. Securing the same
> > >> level of working framework of IGF, such as multi-stakeholder
> > >> composition and inclusion of civil society groups (where such practice
> > >> is relatively new or scarce) should be maintained.
> > >>
> > >> b) Ensuring a plurality of civil society voices be heard in Internet
> > >> governance processes will also be effective in reaching out to those
> > >> yet to participate.
> > >>
> > >> c) Online meetings are most effective when provision is made for
> > >> participation both synchronously (ie. in real time) and
> > >> asynchronously. The remote hubs and moderators at the Vilnius IGF made
> > >> good progress towards this direction. Using such tools as blogs,
> > >> Twitter, mailing lists, Facebook and so on over an extended period may
> > >> also increase the awareness.
> > >>
> > >> d) Organizing some sessions completely online will create "level
> > >> playing field" among all participants, and may also demonstrate the
> > >> effectiveness of these tools/technologies, and may also improve the
> > >> quality of services in turn.
> > >>
> > >> e) Increase linguistic diversity. Using UN major languages other than
> > >> English at certain meetings and occasions as main working language
> > >> (translated into other UN languages) will increase the outreach to
> > >> non-English speaking population of the globe and will give more sense
> > >> of ownership. Currently, English is the only default working language,
> > >> but we think it does not have to be so.
> > >>
> > >> 8. How, if at all, do you think that the IGF process needs to change
> > >> to meet changing circumstances and priorities?
> > >>
> > >> As we replied to the MAG questionnaire, the organizing work of IGF
> > >> primarily by MAG should be improved. More outcome oriented direction
> > >> might improve the quality and value of IGF, but this should be
> > >> carefully exercised so as not to lose the open and free spirit of IGF
> > >> which contributed a great deal.
> > >>
> > >> 9. Do you have any other comments?
> > >>
> > >> No.
> > >>
> > >> END
> > >> ____________________________________________________________
> > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > >> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> > >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Sent from my mobile device
> >
> > 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101120/54d5c0ea/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From miguel.alcaine at gmail.com  Sat Nov 20 06:04:09 2010
From: miguel.alcaine at gmail.com (Miguel Alcaine)
Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2010 12:04:09 +0100
Subject: [governance] Re: Geneva Sunday
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimZhcB4yEcyAiYF3BvQ+PD4ddE54hrTkXnKnCMT@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1E8653E0-927A-4C7C-B373-9E8D4D18BE58@graduateinstitute.ch>
	<AANLkTimZhcB4yEcyAiYF3BvQ+PD4ddE54hrTkXnKnCMT@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=bF3ssv8f9KF3i+rT99aihzKf9mQv84nk=SJmw@mail.gmail.com>

Please count me for the Sunday meeting,

Miguel

On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 1:17 PM, Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org> wrote:

> Dear Bill and all,
>
> Yes, I do plan to organize a meeting on Sunday, Nov 21 in Geneva
> At DiploFoundation office.
>
> Let's meet at 3 pm till say 6 pm max, with optional dinner.
>
> There are at least four or five of us to arrive on or before
> Sunday.
>
> As for Agenda, what is in my mind are:
> a) How to intervene at IGF Consultaiton mtg on Monday and also
> MAG mtg on Tuesdy when we cannot get in.
> b) how to intervene at CSTD mtg on Wednesday
> c) how to deal with Dec meetings: Dec 14, NYC by UNSESA on EC, and Dec
> 17, by CSTD on IGF in Geneva
> d) planning for IGC activities - Strategy, Work Plan and Outreach in
> mid- and long run
> e) AOB
>
> We will set up, at least Skype chat channel for remote participation.
>
> Please send us if you plan to participate - physically or remotely by
> return.
>
> best
>
> Izumi
>
>
>
> 2010/11/19, William Drake <william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch>:
> > Hi Izumi
> >
> > Lost track of something in the mail mountains.  Do I recall correctly
> that
> > you wanted to organize a caucus meeting at Diplo on Sunday?  If so,
> >
> > *when?
> > *did you have an agenda in mind?
> > *do we know that there will be members in town by then who are planning
> to
> > attend?
> >
> > 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101120/24cacee0/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From dogwallah at gmail.com  Sat Nov 20 06:07:58 2010
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2010 14:07:58 +0300
Subject: AW: [governance] Consensus Call for CSTD IGF Questionnaire -
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimGJAYtQQon4_iK4Lias4xnfOdaAtvgOJNZmz_e@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTinyo=oKJoJiz2wVHikpv7-nYBwgq+cf7p6qrj16@mail.gmail.com>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07448@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <4CE66370.40506@itforchange.net> <AANLkTi=sDZiaxeD6R0=vrZVpaHmHMJn_s_y=D=EbWBqg@mail.gmail.com>
 <4CE66F81.8040404@itforchange.net> <AANLkTimGFznj-YCZ923NrnWkxDyd4UYvD8T4S_JRVkCH@mail.gmail.com>
 <26908398.99509.1290182685343.JavaMail.www@wwinf1d14> <AANLkTimsOF5ppr22HaN_wM2ZXqvkUPVC1ranht+bLT_g@mail.gmail.com>
 <AANLkTimGJAYtQQon4_iK4Lias4xnfOdaAtvgOJNZmz_e@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTim3Ltg88zvq-2BD=LF9T=65JAAE03zYj5Lccpcz@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Fatimata,

On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 12:36 PM, Fatimata Seye Sylla <fsylla at gmail.com>wrote:

> Thank you Jean-Louis for making the point about the specific needs for
> Africa.  You are right.   We need to participate to the IG policy but
> without appropriate access to internet, it will be very difficult to do so.
> The investment being made to put the right infrastructure in place is
> necessary for African development and can't be considered as a waste.  I
> completely agree wiith the answers provided by McTim on the subject.  Again,
> access is a major issue for Africa.
>

I would say it is THE issue for Africa, as it has been for over a decade.

Some of JLF's concerns may be alleviated by this set of projects:

http://www.eu-africa-infrastructure-tf.net/activities/grants/african-internet-exchange-system.htm

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route
indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101120/a95ff3af/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From roland at internetpolicyagency.com  Sat Nov 20 06:00:43 2010
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2010 11:00:43 +0000
Subject: AW: [governance] Consensus Call for CSTD IGF Questionnaire -
In-Reply-To: <4CE6DCE0.2060500@eff.org>
References: <AANLkTinyo=oKJoJiz2wVHikpv7-nYBwgq+cf7p6qrj16@mail.gmail.com>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07448@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <4CE66370.40506@itforchange.net>
 <AANLkTi=sDZiaxeD6R0=vrZVpaHmHMJn_s_y=D=EbWBqg@mail.gmail.com>
 <4CE66F81.8040404@itforchange.net>
 <AANLkTimGFznj-YCZ923NrnWkxDyd4UYvD8T4S_JRVkCH@mail.gmail.com>
 <26908398.99509.1290182685343.JavaMail.www@wwinf1d14>
 <AANLkTimsOF5ppr22HaN_wM2ZXqvkUPVC1ranht+bLT_g@mail.gmail.com>
 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006E74@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
 <4CE6DCE0.2060500@eff.org>
Message-ID: <seFgD8Ebp65MFA2G@internetpolicyagency.com>

In message <4CE6DCE0.2060500 at eff.org>, at 12:24:00 on Fri, 19 Nov 2010, 
Katitza Rodriguez <katitza at eff.org> writes
>Many of us were able to participate in OECD even before CSISAC exist 
>(not me. I was too young). Despite of that, many of them were not able 
>to get access to all the documents in draft form. This is what I have 
>always heard from all of them. Did you have access to OLIS? Have all 
>the revised version and how the document is evolving over a year of 
>intensive work is quite useful. It also allows you to learn what other 
>countries are doing, and which are going to be their plans at the 
>national level, etc

It's possible to give the OECD volunteer expert advice quite 
independently, either direct to the secretariat or via a national 
delegation. At which point you'll see much of what you are asking for.

I realise that getting to the point where such invitations arise is hard 
work, but that's why so much is done through collective groupings - it 
builds a critical mass with an identifiable point of contact.

Interested parties need to get their name onto those maps of the 
Ecosystem - and I speak from experience of working with organisations 
which have been both successful and unsuccessful at this.
-- 
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 miguel.alcaine at gmail.com  Sat Nov 20 06:26:22 2010
From: miguel.alcaine at gmail.com (Miguel Alcaine)
Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2010 12:26:22 +0100
Subject: AW: [governance] Consensus Call for CSTD IGF Questionnaire -
In-Reply-To: <4CE6B169.9050105@nupef.org.br>
References: <AANLkTinyo=oKJoJiz2wVHikpv7-nYBwgq+cf7p6qrj16@mail.gmail.com>
	<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07448@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
	<4CE66370.40506@itforchange.net>
	<AANLkTi=sDZiaxeD6R0=vrZVpaHmHMJn_s_y=D=EbWBqg@mail.gmail.com>
	<7A412AD0-B27E-4CAA-B3A8-AA21B8AB8BF0@psg.com>
	<AANLkTinJzzkD-Ud6rB-zCf1SYesGeoSO-6FkjiMo+H5u@mail.gmail.com>
	<4CE6B169.9050105@nupef.org.br>
Message-ID: <AANLkTim1521eS6TU8TT0xm=GVvz3M0OE=QetHprZsivN@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Graciela and colleagues:

I tend to disagree with you in your appreciation of ECLAC regarding IG,
although I would like issues moving much more rapidly and I remain open to
hear other opinions as well about ECLAC.

Back in 2003, was the regional document agreed in the Dominican Republic,
which pointed out to the need to discuss Internet Governance. This was the
only LAC regional meeting with the participation of the USA and Canada. For
those who that may find that strange, it is in order to clarify that both
countries are full members of ECLAC as some others from the European Union.

That full membership of extra regional countries in the "regional
commission" makes things a little bit more difficult. No extra-regional
countries have participated in the following meetings in 2005, 2007 and
2010.

The regional process, eLAC can be traced back to 2005, when we met in
Brazil. There we agreed in a follow-up mechanism. In 2007, if I am not
wrong, people from all stakeholders agreed to work together in a common
position of the region regarding IG. During that year, it worked with the
approval of the mechanism and got the political endorsement of the region in
the II Ministerial Meeting in February 2008.

There has been also a Working group very much active in Infrastructure. The
amount of IXP has increased in the region. There are 6 new copies of the
root server F in the region and infrastructure like  . While this is not
directly related to IG, its indirect effect cannot be denied.

The region has had already 3 regional IGF meetings. I think networks among
people coming from different stakeholders have been formed and strengthened.

Unfortunately on other developments, there is a trend tightening freedom of
the press and freedom of information in the region, including the internet
and particularly social media. Such trend is independent of IG and it needs
to be acted against in other fora, which is being already the case in the
Interamerican Comission of Human Rights and others. These more formal
intergovernmental fora move more slowly and are as effective as the
willingness of States to abide.

Best,

Miguel


On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 6:18 PM, Graciela Selaimen <graciela at nupef.org.br>wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I have the same impression of ECLAC in regards to Latin America - a
> meaningless space, especially for the discussion on IG.
> I totally agree with Fouad's last paragraph. For us, in LAC region, many
> concerns remain very similar to Athens. Others, such as the increasing of
> surveillance and attempts to control the Internet and criminalize its users
> surfaced during this 5 yers period and I think we must address them more
> concretely - and "evolve into something more meaningful", as Fouad said.
>
> Best regards,
> Graciela Selaimen
>
> Em 11/19/10 2:15 PM, Fouad Bajwa escreveu:
>
>  SAARC for us in South Asia remains the same meaningless meeting point
>> exploited by elites and so called representatives of South Asian
>> nations to keep everyone busy in discussion leading nothing anywhere.
>> The political, social and economic situations of the 8 member
>> countries tell the wonderful story of the failure of this so called
>> SAUnion.
>>
>> The model may work well for African, Latin/CT and European
>> citizens/members but not for this part of the world. ASEAN tends to be
>> more stronger in Asia Pacific. Really, do we have to be orthodox and
>> step back into the systems and unions of the non-internet oriented era
>> whereas we can progress towards forming an institution more
>> contextual, responsive and engaged in Internet and its context only
>> related issues?
>>
>> Maybe a bridge out of that institution may exist that can link all
>> these institutional models of the past that really haven't helped much
>> and the global financial meltdown, recession and now struggling bonds
>> and interest based hair-cuts are blowing the sanity out of them?
>>
>> It may be wise to step back for once and recap what has happened in
>> the past 5 years with regards to the IGF. Athens was the strong-point,
>> Vilnius, though lots of improvements and opportunities also portrayed
>> how many years back things might fall if not improved for the next
>> five years.
>>
>> The issue remains valid. We need the developing world voices to voice
>> our concerns and for us our concerns remain very similar to Athens, we
>> want something from the IGF........its open, inclusive and
>> participative dialogue on IG and related issues is
>> wonderful........but where do we go from here? Do we stay the same way
>> or do we learn from our regional IGFs that there is an opportunity to
>> evolve into something more meaningful where messages and
>> recommendations with working groups are being felt to be the first
>> step and way forward?
>>
>> --- Best
>>
>> Fouad
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 2:26 PM, Avri Doria<avri at psg.com>  wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> This seems to make a lot of sense to me.
>>>
>>> I also wonder, what did people think of the suggestion I made that
>>> developing nations also work through the regional intergovernmental
>>> organizations that their nations belong to, of which i believe there are
>>> scores e.g.:
>>>
>>> African Union
>>> ASEAN
>>> D-8
>>> SIDS
>>> USAN
>>> ...
>>>
>>> or  smaller groups like
>>>
>>> CARICOM (The Caribbean Community)
>>> Indian Ocean Commission
>>> SAARC (South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation)
>>> SADC (Southern African Development Community)
>>> ECOWAS (Economic Community of Central African States)
>>> ECLAC (Economic Commission of Latin America and Caribbean)
>>>
>>>
>>> Wouldn't this complement the work being done in COE and OECD etc  and
>>> make sure that everyone was invovled and that the development perspective
>>> was heard and reinforced?  What am I missing?
>>>
>>> a.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 19 Nov 2010, at 13:30, Baudouin SCHOMBE wrote:
>>>
>>>  I totally notice with your argument, Parminder, when you explain the
>>>> need for participation of developing countries in discussions to defend
>>>> their interests.
>>>> It is for this reason that I insisted on national and regional IGF
>>>> before world  IGF.
>>>> In this way, civil society can come to mobilize actors at both national
>>>> and regional levels through training workshops and multi-stakeholder forum
>>>> on issues of Internet governance.
>>>> This work must be done in synergy with the IGC, to convey the same
>>>> information while allowing the flexibility to respond to national and
>>>> express their views.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> BAUDOUIN
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2010/11/19 parminder<parminder at itforchange.net>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thursday 18 November 2010 01:52 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi everybody
>>>>>
>>>>> thanks for the work. I am sorry that I jump in in a very late stage. I
>>>>> have three comments:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. 3a: The old debate on receommendations is not really helpful. In the
>>>>> past CS tried also to use the terminology "messages".
>>>>>
>>>>>  Wolfgang
>>>>
>>>>  Global CS did never abandon the concept of recommendations in the IGF
>>>> context, though at places 'messages' may also have been used.
>>>> Recommendations (or 'recommend') is mentioned in the Tunis Agenda's mandate
>>>> for the IGF and we seem to have largely supported it, in some form or the
>>>> other.
>>>>
>>>>>  The problem is as soon as you introduce a process to negotiate a text
>>>>> which then has been the subject of voting you change the nature of the the
>>>>> whole event. Even if you stress that these receommendations will be not
>>>>> binding, this does not matter. In the Un context (like in other
>>>>> intergovernmental mechanisms) the category "receommednation" is well defined
>>>>> and you can not avoid that an IGF recommendation is seen as something
>>>>> similar to what other Un bodies are doing with receommendations. Again I
>>>>> prefer the "message". BTW, I will circulate later this week the Interim
>>>>> Report of the Council of Europe Cross Border Expert Group where we propose
>>>>> also the elaboration of some instruments. The Council of Europe - or other
>>>>> organisations with an established procedure to negotiat texts - are a better
>>>>> place for such
>>>>> an excercise.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>  Sure, it may be a better place. But I or my country in not in the CoE
>>>> (though CoE instruments finally do impact me). So which 'better place' do
>>>> you think I can look upto? Can you please provide me an answer to this.
>>>>
>>>> I continue to be (unpleasantly) surprised at the manner in which the
>>>> concerns of developing countries in terms of their non-participation in
>>>> global policy making and the global shaping of the ICT pehnomenon is ignored
>>>> so blatantly, in a group which wants to describe itself as a global civil
>>>> society group.
>>>>
>>>> We may all glibly talk about development issues or IG for development.
>>>> Pl take note that in the IGF plenary on IG for development the prime issue
>>>> which came up was that IG for development first of all means due
>>>> participation of developing countries in global IG related policy making
>>>> (see the Chairman's summary). What does the IGC plan to do on this issue?
>>>> Ask us to watch and cheer on CoE and OECD policy making processes?
>>>>
>>>> I can still understand the stand of someone like Milton (though I do not
>>>> agree with it) who is a bit afraid of supporting new institutional
>>>> development for democratic global policy making as coming out of the current
>>>> 'core' UN configurations (which is why he is afraid of the enhanced
>>>> cooperation or EC process), even as an positively evolutionary process
>>>> (which is my considered expectation of the EC process). Because he does,
>>>> correspondingly, support a more open, diverse, multistakeholder process like
>>>> the IGF making some clear positive contributions towards development of
>>>> global Internet policies through making policy recommendations.
>>>>
>>>> What I cant understand is the position of those who both oppose the EC
>>>> process (in whichever evolutionary form) as well as oppose possibilities of
>>>> the IGF making recommendations (I see Wolfgang, Katitza, Bill, Jeanette
>>>> among others state that position). Moreover, they all seem to closely
>>>> associate with OECD/ CoE policy making processes, which are in fact much
>>>> less open, transparent, multistakeholder etc than even the 'enhanced
>>>> cooperation' model which, for instance, I proposed and they strongly
>>>> resisted.
>>>>
>>>> I am unable to understand why a comity of powerful nations needs
>>>> specific well-structured systems of making inter-country policies (which
>>>> then become default global ones) and all countires as a global group, which
>>>> (unfortunately?)  include developing countries, should not aspire to any
>>>> such structures. So, it appears, that while (global?) CS should
>>>> enthusiastically support the former (CoE / OECD kind of process) it is
>>>> presented as its bounden duty to strongly oppose any such - or in fact
>>>> structurally even much better - institutional developments  at the global
>>>> level.
>>>>
>>>> And I also do hope that the IGC members form developing countries both
>>>> increase their participation in IGC kind of groups, and become more vocal in
>>>> articulating their interests.
>>>>
>>>> parminder
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  2. 6a: I thin SOC has an IGF Fellowship Programm.
>>>>>
>>>>> 3. Under nine we could say that we ould like to see that the IGF
>>>>> enhances its function and could become, inter alia, an observatory, a
>>>>> clearinghouse, an early warning system and a watchdog.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry for the late reply. If it is too late then ignore it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best wishes
>>>>>
>>>>> wolfgang
>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>>
>>>>> Von:
>>>>> izumiaizu at gmail.com
>>>>>  im Auftrag von Izumi AIZU
>>>>> Gesendet: Do 18.11.2010 03:13
>>>>> An:
>>>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>>>
>>>>> Betreff: [governance] Consensus Call for CSTD IGF Questionnaire - Clean
>>>>> version
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Here follows are the Clean version of the Final Draft for the CSTD IGF
>>>>> questionnaire answer
>>>>> in full text. Sorry for the confusion.
>>>>>
>>>>> Please respond if you agree or disagree as soon as possible.  Friday,
>>>>> Nov 19
>>>>> is the deadline for submission. More comments are also very much
>>>>> appreciated
>>>>> as we can further feed them into the Consultation meetings next week in
>>>>> Geneva.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>
>>>>> izumi
>>>>>
>>>>> ------------
>>>>>
>>>>> FINAL Draft for Questionnaire on improvements to the IGF
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. What do you consider the most important achievements of the first
>>>>> five IGF meetings?
>>>>>
>>>>> IGF created the space for dialogue by all stakeholders in an open,
>>>>> inclusive manner. These emergence and development of the
>>>>> multistakeholder principle and practice are perhaps the biggest
>>>>> contribution IGF has achieved so far. It helped many participants to
>>>>> understand the issues of their interest, as well as to understand how
>>>>> other actors understand, act and accept their issues. Emergence of
>>>>> Regional and National IGF with multistakeholder approach is another
>>>>> achievement.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. How satisfied are you with the delivery of the results of
>>>>> discussions at the IGF and the impact they have had on developments in
>>>>> national, regional or international Internet governance?
>>>>>
>>>>> IGF has made a reasonable advancement of the understanding of the
>>>>> issues. Yet, at national, regional and international levels, we have
>>>>> mixed assessment for the impact it brought.
>>>>>
>>>>> 3. Which, if any, new mechanisms would you propose to improve the
>>>>> impact of the IGF discussions, in particular as regards the
>>>>> interaction between the IGF and other stakeholders? Please specify the
>>>>> kind of mechanism (e.g. reporting, exchanges, recommendations,
>>>>> concrete advice, etc.) and the stakeholders (e.g. intergovernmental
>>>>> bodies, other fora dealing with Internet Governance, etc.).
>>>>>
>>>>> a) One mechanism we can suggest is to come up with some form of
>>>>> recommendations where all stakeholders have [rough] consensus. They
>>>>> will not be binding, but could still function as model, reference or
>>>>> common framework. Working process towards achieving these rough
>>>>> consensus will create better and deeper understandings amongst
>>>>> different stakeholders.
>>>>>
>>>>> b) The Secretariat and MAG should be strongly encouraged to directly
>>>>> foster discussion and debate of difficult issues in main sessions,
>>>>> instead of avoiding them.
>>>>>
>>>>> 4. In your view, what important new issues or themes concerning
>>>>> Internet governance have emerged or become important since the Tunis
>>>>> phase of the Summit, which deserve more attention in the next five
>>>>> years?
>>>>>
>>>>> IGC feels that attention to the development agenda, issues concerning
>>>>> the marginalized groups or actors, have yet gained sufficient level of
>>>>> work at IGF and its outcome. These may not be the "new" issues, but we
>>>>> strongly feel they are very important.
>>>>>
>>>>> Besides them, emergence of new technologies, tools and services, such
>>>>> as cloud computing; user-generated, SNS and online sharing services
>>>>> such as wiki, YouTube, Ustream, twitter and Facebook; DPI and
>>>>> behavioral targeting advertisements; wide deployment of mobile
>>>>> services including smart phones and tablet computers pose all kind of
>>>>> new challenges for governance.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 5. What do you think should be the priority themes and areas of work
>>>>> of the IGF during the next five years?
>>>>>
>>>>> Followings will be the areas of themes and works that have priorities
>>>>> we think.
>>>>> a) Enhancing multi-stakeholder framework within IGF.
>>>>> b) Promote capacity building for developmental agenda of governance
>>>>> c) Balancing the interests - to empower those of marginalized and
>>>>> under-developed in all organizations and fora dealing with Internet
>>>>> governance - such as ICANN, W3C, IETF, RIRs, ITU, WIPO, CoE, OECD,
>>>>> UNCTAD/CSTD and United Nations itself.
>>>>>
>>>>> 6. How can the capacity of those groups that are not yet well
>>>>> represented at the IGF be improved? In particular, what could be done
>>>>> to improve the capacity of representatives from developing countries?
>>>>>
>>>>> a) Establish special funding mechanism by IGF itself to help actors
>>>>> from developing countries to continuously engage in IGF and related
>>>>> organizations and meetings. Fellowship works carried out by
>>>>> DiploFoundation, dotAsia organization [other reference, please] and
>>>>> other institutions offer good reference for this, but they should be
>>>>> expanded in larger scale. Targeting youth groups or younger generation
>>>>> in profession, will have, in the long run, effective impact.
>>>>>
>>>>> b) Providing technical training to policy makers and policy training
>>>>> to engineers will also help close the gap(s) within the
>>>>> under-represented and also even well-represented.
>>>>>
>>>>> 7. How do you think more awareness of Internet governance issues and
>>>>> the IGF process can be raised amongst groups whose lives are affected
>>>>> by Internet governance but who are not yet part of the IGF process?
>>>>>
>>>>> a) Giving more weight to regional and national IGF meetings, making
>>>>> more direct "links" to the main IGF meeting will help outreach to
>>>>> those who have not yet involved in IGF process. Securing the same
>>>>> level of working framework of IGF, such as multi-stakeholder
>>>>> composition and inclusion of civil society groups (where such practice
>>>>> is relatively new or scarce) should be maintained.
>>>>>
>>>>> b) Ensuring a plurality of civil society voices be heard in Internet
>>>>> governance processes will also be effective in reaching out to those
>>>>> yet to participate.
>>>>>
>>>>> c) Online meetings are most effective when provision is made for
>>>>> participation both synchronously (ie. in real time) and
>>>>> asynchronously. The remote hubs and moderators at the Vilnius IGF made
>>>>> good progress towards this direction. Using such tools as blogs,
>>>>> Twitter, mailing lists, Facebook and so on over an extended period may
>>>>> also increase the awareness.
>>>>>
>>>>> d) Organizing some sessions completely online will create "level
>>>>> playing field" among all participants, and may also demonstrate the
>>>>> effectiveness of these tools/technologies, and may also improve the
>>>>> quality of services in turn.
>>>>>
>>>>> e) Increase linguistic diversity. Using UN major languages other than
>>>>> English at certain meetings and occasions as main working language
>>>>> (translated into other UN languages) will increase the outreach to
>>>>> non-English speaking population of the globe and will give more sense
>>>>> of ownership. Currently, English is the only default working language,
>>>>> but we think it does not have to be so.
>>>>>
>>>>> 8. How, if at all, do you think that the IGF process needs to change
>>>>> to meet changing circumstances and priorities?
>>>>>
>>>>> As we replied to the MAG questionnaire, the organizing work of IGF
>>>>> primarily by MAG should be improved. More outcome oriented direction
>>>>> might improve the quality and value of IGF, but this should be
>>>>> carefully exercised so as not to lose the open and free spirit of IGF
>>>>> which contributed a great deal.
>>>>>
>>>>> 9. Do you have any other comments?
>>>>>
>>>>> No.
>>>>>
>>>>> END
>>>>>
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101120/e196ceda/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From glaser at nic.br  Sat Nov 20 06:29:35 2010
From: glaser at nic.br (Hartmut Glaser)
Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2010 09:29:35 -0200
Subject: [governance] Re: Geneva Sunday
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=bF3ssv8f9KF3i+rT99aihzKf9mQv84nk=SJmw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1E8653E0-927A-4C7C-B373-9E8D4D18BE58@graduateinstitute.ch>	<AANLkTimZhcB4yEcyAiYF3BvQ+PD4ddE54hrTkXnKnCMT@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTi=bF3ssv8f9KF3i+rT99aihzKf9mQv84nk=SJmw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4CE7B11F.9060909@nic.br>


I just arrived in Geneva ...!

Count me in for the Sunday Meeting ...

=========================================
> Please count me for the Sunday meeting,
>
> Miguel
>
> On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 1:17 PM, Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org 
> <mailto:iza at anr.org>> wrote:
>
>     Dear Bill and all,
>
>     Yes, I do plan to organize a meeting on Sunday, Nov 21 in Geneva
>     At DiploFoundation office.
>
>     Let's meet at 3 pm till say 6 pm max, with optional dinner.
>
>     There are at least four or five of us to arrive on or before
>     Sunday.
>
>     As for Agenda, what is in my mind are:
>     a) How to intervene at IGF Consultaiton mtg on Monday and also
>     MAG mtg on Tuesdy when we cannot get in.
>     b) how to intervene at CSTD mtg on Wednesday
>     c) how to deal with Dec meetings: Dec 14, NYC by UNSESA on EC, and Dec
>     17, by CSTD on IGF in Geneva
>     d) planning for IGC activities - Strategy, Work Plan and Outreach in
>     mid- and long run
>     e) AOB
>
>     We will set up, at least Skype chat channel for remote participation.
>
>     Please send us if you plan to participate - physically or remotely
>     by return.
>
>     best
>
>     Izumi
>
>
>
>     2010/11/19, William Drake <william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch
>     <mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch>>:
>     > Hi Izumi
>     >
>     > Lost track of something in the mail mountains.  Do I recall
>     correctly that
>     > you wanted to organize a caucus meeting at Diplo on Sunday?  If so,
>     >
>     > *when?
>     > *did you have an agenda in mind?
>     > *do we know that there will be members in town by then who are
>     planning to
>     > attend?
>     >
>     > Thanks,
>     >
>     > Bill
>     >
>     >
>     ____________________________________________________________
>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>     To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>     <mailto:governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org>
>
>     For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>     Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101120/46cc317c/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From glaser at nic.br  Sat Nov 20 06:45:08 2010
From: glaser at nic.br (Hartmut Glaser)
Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2010 09:45:08 -0200
Subject: AW: [governance] Consensus Call for CSTD IGF Questionnaire -
In-Reply-To: <4CE6B169.9050105@nupef.org.br>
References: <AANLkTinyo=oKJoJiz2wVHikpv7-nYBwgq+cf7p6qrj16@mail.gmail.com>	<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07448@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>	<4CE66370.40506@itforchange.net>	<AANLkTi=sDZiaxeD6R0=vrZVpaHmHMJn_s_y=D=EbWBqg@mail.gmail.com>	<7A412AD0-B27E-4CAA-B3A8-AA21B8AB8BF0@psg.com> <AANLkTinJzzkD-Ud6rB-zCf1SYesGeoSO-6FkjiMo+H5u@mail.gmail.com> <4CE6B169.9050105@nupef.org.br>
Message-ID: <4CE7B4C4.9030904@nic.br>


Dear All,

I attend the preparatory eLAC 2015 Meeting last September in Montevideo 
at have a very
positive impression. Next week in Lima will be the 'high level' 
Ministries Summit for the final
approval of the eLAC 2015 Project.  I thing that Graciela used wrong or 
partial information to
say is a meaningless space, especially for the discussion on IG. This 
was not the case at the
preparatory meeting in Montevideo and many  IC/IG points were included 
at the agenda.

All the best

Hartmut Glaser
Brazilian Internet Steering Committee

==========================================================
> Hi,
>
> I have the same impression of ECLAC in regards to Latin America - a 
> meaningless space, especially for the discussion on IG.
> I totally agree with Fouad's last paragraph. For us, in LAC region, 
> many concerns remain very similar to Athens. Others, such as the 
> increasing of surveillance and attempts to control the Internet and 
> criminalize its users surfaced during this 5 yers period and I think 
> we must address them more concretely - and "evolve into something more 
> meaningful", as Fouad said.
>
> Best regards,
> Graciela Selaimen
>
> Em 11/19/10 2:15 PM, Fouad Bajwa escreveu:
>> SAARC for us in South Asia remains the same meaningless meeting point
>> exploited by elites and so called representatives of South Asian
>> nations to keep everyone busy in discussion leading nothing anywhere.
>> The political, social and economic situations of the 8 member
>> countries tell the wonderful story of the failure of this so called
>> SAUnion.
>>
>> The model may work well for African, Latin/CT and European
>> citizens/members but not for this part of the world. ASEAN tends to be
>> more stronger in Asia Pacific. Really, do we have to be orthodox and
>> step back into the systems and unions of the non-internet oriented era
>> whereas we can progress towards forming an institution more
>> contextual, responsive and engaged in Internet and its context only
>> related issues?
>>
>> Maybe a bridge out of that institution may exist that can link all
>> these institutional models of the past that really haven't helped much
>> and the global financial meltdown, recession and now struggling bonds
>> and interest based hair-cuts are blowing the sanity out of them?
>>
>> It may be wise to step back for once and recap what has happened in
>> the past 5 years with regards to the IGF. Athens was the strong-point,
>> Vilnius, though lots of improvements and opportunities also portrayed
>> how many years back things might fall if not improved for the next
>> five years.
>>
>> The issue remains valid. We need the developing world voices to voice
>> our concerns and for us our concerns remain very similar to Athens, we
>> want something from the IGF........its open, inclusive and
>> participative dialogue on IG and related issues is
>> wonderful........but where do we go from here? Do we stay the same way
>> or do we learn from our regional IGFs that there is an opportunity to
>> evolve into something more meaningful where messages and
>> recommendations with working groups are being felt to be the first
>> step and way forward?
>>
>> --- Best
>>
>> Fouad
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 2:26 PM, Avri Doria<avri at psg.com>  wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> This seems to make a lot of sense to me.
>>>
>>> I also wonder, what did people think of the suggestion I made that 
>>> developing nations also work through the regional intergovernmental 
>>> organizations that their nations belong to, of which i believe there 
>>> are scores e.g.:
>>>
>>> African Union
>>> ASEAN
>>> D-8
>>> SIDS
>>> USAN
>>> ...
>>>
>>> or  smaller groups like
>>>
>>> CARICOM (The Caribbean Community)
>>> Indian Ocean Commission
>>> SAARC (South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation)
>>> SADC (Southern African Development Community)
>>> ECOWAS (Economic Community of Central African States)
>>> ECLAC (Economic Commission of Latin America and Caribbean)
>>>
>>>
>>> Wouldn't this complement the work being done in COE and OECD etc  
>>> and make sure that everyone was invovled and that the development 
>>> perspective was heard and reinforced?  What am I missing?
>>>
>>> a.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 19 Nov 2010, at 13:30, Baudouin SCHOMBE wrote:
>>>
>>>> I totally notice with your argument, Parminder, when you explain 
>>>> the need for participation of developing countries in discussions 
>>>> to defend their interests.
>>>> It is for this reason that I insisted on national and regional IGF 
>>>> before world  IGF.
>>>> In this way, civil society can come to mobilize actors at both 
>>>> national and regional levels through training workshops and 
>>>> multi-stakeholder forum on issues of Internet governance.
>>>> This work must be done in synergy with the IGC, to convey the same 
>>>> information while allowing the flexibility to respond to national 
>>>> and express their views.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> BAUDOUIN
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2010/11/19 parminder<parminder at itforchange.net>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thursday 18 November 2010 01:52 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
>>>>> Hi everybody
>>>>>
>>>>> thanks for the work. I am sorry that I jump in in a very late 
>>>>> stage. I have three comments:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. 3a: The old debate on receommendations is not really helpful. 
>>>>> In the past CS tried also to use the terminology "messages".
>>>>>
>>>> Wolfgang
>>>>
>>>>   Global CS did never abandon the concept of recommendations in the 
>>>> IGF context, though at places 'messages' may also have been used. 
>>>> Recommendations (or 'recommend') is mentioned in the Tunis Agenda's 
>>>> mandate for the IGF and we seem to have largely supported it, in 
>>>> some form or the other.
>>>>>   The problem is as soon as you introduce a process to negotiate a 
>>>>> text which then has been the subject of voting you change the 
>>>>> nature of the the whole event. Even if you stress that these 
>>>>> receommendations will be not binding, this does not matter. In the 
>>>>> Un context (like in other intergovernmental mechanisms) the 
>>>>> category "receommednation" is well defined and you can not avoid 
>>>>> that an IGF recommendation is seen as something similar to what 
>>>>> other Un bodies are doing with receommendations. Again I prefer 
>>>>> the "message". BTW, I will circulate later this week the Interim 
>>>>> Report of the Council of Europe Cross Border Expert Group where we 
>>>>> propose also the elaboration of some instruments. The Council of 
>>>>> Europe - or other organisations with an established procedure to 
>>>>> negotiat texts - are a better place for such
>>>>> an excercise.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Sure, it may be a better place. But I or my country in not in the 
>>>> CoE (though CoE instruments finally do impact me). So which 'better 
>>>> place' do you think I can look upto? Can you please provide me an 
>>>> answer to this.
>>>>
>>>> I continue to be (unpleasantly) surprised at the manner in which 
>>>> the concerns of developing countries in terms of their 
>>>> non-participation in global policy making and the global shaping of 
>>>> the ICT pehnomenon is ignored so blatantly, in a group which wants 
>>>> to describe itself as a global civil society group.
>>>>
>>>> We may all glibly talk about development issues or IG for 
>>>> development. Pl take note that in the IGF plenary on IG for 
>>>> development the prime issue which came up was that IG for 
>>>> development first of all means due participation of developing 
>>>> countries in global IG related policy making (see the Chairman's 
>>>> summary). What does the IGC plan to do on this issue? Ask us to 
>>>> watch and cheer on CoE and OECD policy making processes?
>>>>
>>>> I can still understand the stand of someone like Milton (though I 
>>>> do not agree with it) who is a bit afraid of supporting new 
>>>> institutional development for democratic global policy making as 
>>>> coming out of the current 'core' UN configurations (which is why he 
>>>> is afraid of the enhanced cooperation or EC process), even as an 
>>>> positively evolutionary process (which is my considered expectation 
>>>> of the EC process). Because he does, correspondingly, support a 
>>>> more open, diverse, multistakeholder process like the IGF making 
>>>> some clear positive contributions towards development of global 
>>>> Internet policies through making policy recommendations.
>>>>
>>>> What I cant understand is the position of those who both oppose the 
>>>> EC process (in whichever evolutionary form) as well as oppose 
>>>> possibilities of the IGF making recommendations (I see Wolfgang, 
>>>> Katitza, Bill, Jeanette among others state that position). 
>>>> Moreover, they all seem to closely associate with OECD/ CoE policy 
>>>> making processes, which are in fact much less open, transparent, 
>>>> multistakeholder etc than even the 'enhanced cooperation' model 
>>>> which, for instance, I proposed and they strongly resisted.
>>>>
>>>> I am unable to understand why a comity of powerful nations needs 
>>>> specific well-structured systems of making inter-country policies 
>>>> (which then become default global ones) and all countires as a 
>>>> global group, which (unfortunately?)  include developing countries, 
>>>> should not aspire to any such structures. So, it appears, that 
>>>> while (global?) CS should enthusiastically support the former (CoE 
>>>> / OECD kind of process) it is presented as its bounden duty to 
>>>> strongly oppose any such - or in fact structurally even much better 
>>>> - institutional developments  at the global level.
>>>>
>>>> And I also do hope that the IGC members form developing countries 
>>>> both increase their participation in IGC kind of groups, and become 
>>>> more vocal in articulating their interests.
>>>>
>>>> parminder
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> 2. 6a: I thin SOC has an IGF Fellowship Programm.
>>>>>
>>>>> 3. Under nine we could say that we ould like to see that the IGF 
>>>>> enhances its function and could become, inter alia, an 
>>>>> observatory, a clearinghouse, an early warning system and a watchdog.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry for the late reply. If it is too late then ignore it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best wishes
>>>>>
>>>>> wolfgang
>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>>
>>>>> Von:
>>>>> izumiaizu at gmail.com
>>>>>   im Auftrag von Izumi AIZU
>>>>> Gesendet: Do 18.11.2010 03:13
>>>>> An:
>>>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>>>
>>>>> Betreff: [governance] Consensus Call for CSTD IGF Questionnaire - 
>>>>> Clean version
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Here follows are the Clean version of the Final Draft for the CSTD 
>>>>> IGF
>>>>> questionnaire answer
>>>>> in full text. Sorry for the confusion.
>>>>>
>>>>> Please respond if you agree or disagree as soon as possible.  
>>>>> Friday, Nov 19
>>>>> is the deadline for submission. More comments are also very much 
>>>>> appreciated
>>>>> as we can further feed them into the Consultation meetings next 
>>>>> week in Geneva.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>
>>>>> izumi
>>>>>
>>>>> ------------
>>>>>
>>>>> FINAL Draft for Questionnaire on improvements to the IGF
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. What do you consider the most important achievements of the first
>>>>> five IGF meetings?
>>>>>
>>>>> IGF created the space for dialogue by all stakeholders in an open,
>>>>> inclusive manner. These emergence and development of the
>>>>> multistakeholder principle and practice are perhaps the biggest
>>>>> contribution IGF has achieved so far. It helped many participants to
>>>>> understand the issues of their interest, as well as to understand how
>>>>> other actors understand, act and accept their issues. Emergence of
>>>>> Regional and National IGF with multistakeholder approach is another
>>>>> achievement.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. How satisfied are you with the delivery of the results of
>>>>> discussions at the IGF and the impact they have had on 
>>>>> developments in
>>>>> national, regional or international Internet governance?
>>>>>
>>>>> IGF has made a reasonable advancement of the understanding of the
>>>>> issues. Yet, at national, regional and international levels, we have
>>>>> mixed assessment for the impact it brought.
>>>>>
>>>>> 3. Which, if any, new mechanisms would you propose to improve the
>>>>> impact of the IGF discussions, in particular as regards the
>>>>> interaction between the IGF and other stakeholders? Please specify 
>>>>> the
>>>>> kind of mechanism (e.g. reporting, exchanges, recommendations,
>>>>> concrete advice, etc.) and the stakeholders (e.g. intergovernmental
>>>>> bodies, other fora dealing with Internet Governance, etc.).
>>>>>
>>>>> a) One mechanism we can suggest is to come up with some form of
>>>>> recommendations where all stakeholders have [rough] consensus. They
>>>>> will not be binding, but could still function as model, reference or
>>>>> common framework. Working process towards achieving these rough
>>>>> consensus will create better and deeper understandings amongst
>>>>> different stakeholders.
>>>>>
>>>>> b) The Secretariat and MAG should be strongly encouraged to directly
>>>>> foster discussion and debate of difficult issues in main sessions,
>>>>> instead of avoiding them.
>>>>>
>>>>> 4. In your view, what important new issues or themes concerning
>>>>> Internet governance have emerged or become important since the Tunis
>>>>> phase of the Summit, which deserve more attention in the next five
>>>>> years?
>>>>>
>>>>> IGC feels that attention to the development agenda, issues concerning
>>>>> the marginalized groups or actors, have yet gained sufficient 
>>>>> level of
>>>>> work at IGF and its outcome. These may not be the "new" issues, 
>>>>> but we
>>>>> strongly feel they are very important.
>>>>>
>>>>> Besides them, emergence of new technologies, tools and services, such
>>>>> as cloud computing; user-generated, SNS and online sharing services
>>>>> such as wiki, YouTube, Ustream, twitter and Facebook; DPI and
>>>>> behavioral targeting advertisements; wide deployment of mobile
>>>>> services including smart phones and tablet computers pose all kind of
>>>>> new challenges for governance.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 5. What do you think should be the priority themes and areas of work
>>>>> of the IGF during the next five years?
>>>>>
>>>>> Followings will be the areas of themes and works that have 
>>>>> priorities we think.
>>>>> a) Enhancing multi-stakeholder framework within IGF.
>>>>> b) Promote capacity building for developmental agenda of governance
>>>>> c) Balancing the interests - to empower those of marginalized and
>>>>> under-developed in all organizations and fora dealing with Internet
>>>>> governance - such as ICANN, W3C, IETF, RIRs, ITU, WIPO, CoE, OECD,
>>>>> UNCTAD/CSTD and United Nations itself.
>>>>>
>>>>> 6. How can the capacity of those groups that are not yet well
>>>>> represented at the IGF be improved? In particular, what could be done
>>>>> to improve the capacity of representatives from developing countries?
>>>>>
>>>>> a) Establish special funding mechanism by IGF itself to help actors
>>>>> from developing countries to continuously engage in IGF and related
>>>>> organizations and meetings. Fellowship works carried out by
>>>>> DiploFoundation, dotAsia organization [other reference, please] and
>>>>> other institutions offer good reference for this, but they should be
>>>>> expanded in larger scale. Targeting youth groups or younger 
>>>>> generation
>>>>> in profession, will have, in the long run, effective impact.
>>>>>
>>>>> b) Providing technical training to policy makers and policy training
>>>>> to engineers will also help close the gap(s) within the
>>>>> under-represented and also even well-represented.
>>>>>
>>>>> 7. How do you think more awareness of Internet governance issues and
>>>>> the IGF process can be raised amongst groups whose lives are affected
>>>>> by Internet governance but who are not yet part of the IGF process?
>>>>>
>>>>> a) Giving more weight to regional and national IGF meetings, making
>>>>> more direct "links" to the main IGF meeting will help outreach to
>>>>> those who have not yet involved in IGF process. Securing the same
>>>>> level of working framework of IGF, such as multi-stakeholder
>>>>> composition and inclusion of civil society groups (where such 
>>>>> practice
>>>>> is relatively new or scarce) should be maintained.
>>>>>
>>>>> b) Ensuring a plurality of civil society voices be heard in Internet
>>>>> governance processes will also be effective in reaching out to those
>>>>> yet to participate.
>>>>>
>>>>> c) Online meetings are most effective when provision is made for
>>>>> participation both synchronously (ie. in real time) and
>>>>> asynchronously. The remote hubs and moderators at the Vilnius IGF 
>>>>> made
>>>>> good progress towards this direction. Using such tools as blogs,
>>>>> Twitter, mailing lists, Facebook and so on over an extended period 
>>>>> may
>>>>> also increase the awareness.
>>>>>
>>>>> d) Organizing some sessions completely online will create "level
>>>>> playing field" among all participants, and may also demonstrate the
>>>>> effectiveness of these tools/technologies, and may also improve the
>>>>> quality of services in turn.
>>>>>
>>>>> e) Increase linguistic diversity. Using UN major languages other than
>>>>> English at certain meetings and occasions as main working language
>>>>> (translated into other UN languages) will increase the outreach to
>>>>> non-English speaking population of the globe and will give more sense
>>>>> of ownership. Currently, English is the only default working 
>>>>> language,
>>>>> but we think it does not have to be so.
>>>>>
>>>>> 8. How, if at all, do you think that the IGF process needs to change
>>>>> to meet changing circumstances and priorities?
>>>>>
>>>>> As we replied to the MAG questionnaire, the organizing work of IGF
>>>>> primarily by MAG should be improved. More outcome oriented direction
>>>>> might improve the quality and value of IGF, but this should be
>>>>> carefully exercised so as not to lose the open and free spirit of IGF
>>>>> which contributed a great deal.
>>>>>
>>>>> 9. Do you have any other comments?
>>>>>
>>>>> No.
>>>>>
>>>>> END
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>       governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>       governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 parminder at itforchange.net  Sat Nov 20 06:56:34 2010
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2010 17:26:34 +0530
Subject: [governance] IT for Change's response to CSTD questionnaire on IGF
 improvements
Message-ID: <4CE7B772.1020405@itforchange.net>

Pl find as enclosed IT for Change's response tothe  CSTD questionnaire 
on IGF improvements. parminder
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101120/287db189/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: IGF Improvements - IT for Change- 191110 .pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 182728 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101120/287db189/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From roland at internetpolicyagency.com  Sat Nov 20 07:59:10 2010
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2010 12:59:10 +0000
Subject: AW: [governance] Consensus Call for CSTD IGF Questionnaire -
In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006E75@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
References: <AANLkTinyo=oKJoJiz2wVHikpv7-nYBwgq+cf7p6qrj16@mail.gmail.com>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07448@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <4CE66370.40506@itforchange.net>
 <AANLkTi=sDZiaxeD6R0=vrZVpaHmHMJn_s_y=D=EbWBqg@mail.gmail.com>
 <4CE66F81.8040404@itforchange.net>
 <AANLkTimGFznj-YCZ923NrnWkxDyd4UYvD8T4S_JRVkCH@mail.gmail.com>
 <26908398.99509.1290182685343.JavaMail.www@wwinf1d14>
 <AANLkTimsOF5ppr22HaN_wM2ZXqvkUPVC1ranht+bLT_g@mail.gmail.com>
 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006E74@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
 <4CE6DCE0.2060500@eff.org>
 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006E75@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <nL0yWULeY85MFA3M@internetpolicyagency.com>

In message 
<93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006E75 at suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>, 
at 15:40:15 on Fri, 19 Nov 2010, Lee W McKnight <lmcknigh at syr.edu> 
writes
>Ok, rub it in....
>
>But yeah pre-CSISAC, you might be invited in by OECD as a cs expert to 
>participate in or contribute to a specific topic, with the 
>blessing/backing of your home country, but all other docs and topics 
>would generally be off-limits -since your expertise just granted you 
>special dispensation to contribute to that topic.  Even if you were 
>invited to show up at the meeting, docs on other topics were not for 
>you. And certainly not the drafts.
>
>Unless you repped the biz community, or labor, they had seats at the 
>table with the big boys.
>
> Ok actually they have cheap seats too since only governments sit at 
>the grownups table, but at least they were invited regularly into room. 
>OK now I am being too kind, the biz community gets its special welcome 
>like one might expect, and might participate in drafting.

I agree that the business community is more thoroughly represented, but 
that's also because they have more resources to set up the "collective 
groupings" I mentioned earlier, and because they've been doing it 
longer. The resources issue also affects whether you can pay attention 
to everything a body is doing, or just get inside the handful of 
documents that you've been asked to help with.
-- 
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 iza at anr.org  Sat Nov 20 12:01:36 2010
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2010 02:01:36 +0900
Subject: [governance] Re: Geneva Sunday
In-Reply-To: <4CE7B11F.9060909@nic.br>
References: <1E8653E0-927A-4C7C-B373-9E8D4D18BE58@graduateinstitute.ch>
 <AANLkTimZhcB4yEcyAiYF3BvQ+PD4ddE54hrTkXnKnCMT@mail.gmail.com>
 <AANLkTi=bF3ssv8f9KF3i+rT99aihzKf9mQv84nk=SJmw@mail.gmail.com> <4CE7B11F.9060909@nic.br>
Message-ID: <AANLkTik=UvWtkExW_Ny_otq9WxqVkCnohHts8GM04jnr@mail.gmail.com>

Yes, Miguel and Hartmut, you are all welcome.

Just arrived at Munich, moving to Geneva tomorrow around noon.

izumi

2010/11/20 Hartmut Glaser <glaser at nic.br>:
>
> I just arrived in Geneva ...!
>
> Count me in for the Sunday Meeting ...
>
> =========================================
>
> Please count me for the Sunday meeting,
>
> Miguel
>
> On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 1:17 PM, Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org> wrote:
>>
>> Dear Bill and all,
>>
>> Yes, I do plan to organize a meeting on Sunday, Nov 21 in Geneva
>> At DiploFoundation office.
>>
>> Let's meet at 3 pm till say 6 pm max, with optional dinner.
>>
>> There are at least four or five of us to arrive on or before
>> Sunday.
>>
>> As for Agenda, what is in my mind are:
>> a) How to intervene at IGF Consultaiton mtg on Monday and also
>> MAG mtg on Tuesdy when we cannot get in.
>> b) how to intervene at CSTD mtg on Wednesday
>> c) how to deal with Dec meetings: Dec 14, NYC by UNSESA on EC, and Dec
>> 17, by CSTD on IGF in Geneva
>> d) planning for IGC activities - Strategy, Work Plan and Outreach in
>> mid- and long run
>> e) AOB
>>
>> We will set up, at least Skype chat channel for remote participation.
>>
>> Please send us if you plan to participate - physically or remotely by
>> return.
>>
>> best
>>
>> Izumi
>>
>>
>>
>> 2010/11/19, William Drake <william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch>:
>> > Hi Izumi
>> >
>> > Lost track of something in the mail mountains.  Do I recall correctly
>> > that
>> > you wanted to organize a caucus meeting at Diplo on Sunday?  If so,
>> >
>> > *when?
>> > *did you have an agenda in mind?
>> > *do we know that there will be members in town by then who are planning
>> > to
>> > attend?
>> >
>> > 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
>
>



-- 
                        >> Izumi Aizu <<

          Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo

           Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,
                                  Japan
                                 * * * * *
           << Writing the Future of the History >>
                                www.anr.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 stoyan_danev at pismo.bg  Sat Nov 20 13:51:05 2010
From: stoyan_danev at pismo.bg (Stoyan Danev)
Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2010 20:51:05 +0200 (EET)
Subject: [governance] Comment from Bulgaria to ICANN fast-track review
 process
In-Reply-To: <20059.87.119.100.253.1290277159.squirrel@pismo.bg>
References: <20059.87.119.100.253.1290277159.squirrel@pismo.bg>
Message-ID: <21721.87.119.100.253.1290279065.squirrel@pismo.bg>

Dear All,

Here is my comment to the ICANN fast-track review process.

Think it might be useful for this list.

Cheers,
Stoyan

> Dear Sirs,
>
> A few months ago the Bulgarian application under the IDN ccTLD fast-track
> program was rejected due to alleged similarity between the proposed IDN
> ccTLD string and others that exist now. The Bulgarian community has
> clearly demonstrated that selecting another string is unacceptable and if
> the proposed one is not approved, Bulgaria will remain WITHOUT an IDN
> ccTLD. This is really against the ICANN policy of making Internet
> accessible to everyone.
>
> Currently there are no re-evaluation or objection mechanism for declined
> IDN ccTLD requests. ICANN says that primary reason for this is that the
> Fast Track Process is considered an interim process, short-termed for
> those countries and territories where there is no controversy with
> implementing IDN ccTLDs.
>
> Well, the whole Bulgarian community supports the proposed string, a lot of
> international experts agreed there is no similarity between the string and
> any other existing domains!
>
> I strongly support a re-evaluation in the fast-track process for strings,
> that were rejected by the DNS Stability panel.
>
> 2. When the confusingly similar string review for the Bulgarian
> application was done by the DNS Stability panel, the Bulgarian community
> didn`t see any grounds behind the panel`s rejection! This is going way
> beyond the ICANN transparency mechanisms, as such decision does not comply
> with them.
> Moreover, rumors say the panel didn`t review the string at all - they just
> ASSUMED similarity for any IDN ccTLDs in Cyrillic or Greek with the length
> of 2 characters!!! So I don`t see any DNS Stability Panel working
> guidelines here as the ICANN announcement says - just assumptions. This is
> not right!
>
> Please see this tool, provided by the Unicode Consortium:
>
> http://unicode.org/cldr/utility/confusables.jsp?a=%D0%B1%D0%B3&r=IDNA2008
>
> There is a similarity only in the second character - the Cyrillic "G". The
> first one - "B" only looks like the digit "6".
>
> The DNS Stability panel has already approved an IDN ccTLD in the same
> situation -  the Russian .rf (.рф) -
> http://unicode.org/cldr/utility/confusables.jsp?a=%D1%80%D1%84&r=IDNA2008
>
> Where the letter "r" is similar to the Latin r, and the letter "f" is not
> similar.
>
>
> These are my thoughts under the review of the IDN ccTLD Fast Track Process
>
> Cheers,
> Stoyan
>
>
>
> --
> Stoyan Danev
> Freelance developer from Bulgaria
>
> Email me at: stoyan_danev at pismo.bg
>
>
>
>
>


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

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

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


From graciela at nupef.org.br  Sat Nov 20 17:07:51 2010
From: graciela at nupef.org.br (Graciela Selaimen)
Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2010 20:07:51 -0200
Subject: AW: [governance] Consensus Call for CSTD IGF Questionnaire -
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTim1521eS6TU8TT0xm=GVvz3M0OE=QetHprZsivN@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTinyo=oKJoJiz2wVHikpv7-nYBwgq+cf7p6qrj16@mail.gmail.com>	<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07448@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>	<4CE66370.40506@itforchange.net>	<AANLkTi=sDZiaxeD6R0=vrZVpaHmHMJn_s_y=D=EbWBqg@mail.gmail.com>	<7A412AD0-B27E-4CAA-B3A8-AA21B8AB8BF0@psg.com>	<AANLkTinJzzkD-Ud6rB-zCf1SYesGeoSO-6FkjiMo+H5u@mail.gmail.com>	<4CE6B169.9050105@nupef.org.br> <AANLkTim1521eS6TU8TT0xm=GVvz3M0OE=QetHprZsivN@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4CE846B7.8090507@nupef.org.br>

Dear Miguel, Glaser and all

I was definitely too impulsive in my response to the list. The word 
"meaningless" cannot be used in a general manner to qualify Cepal's 
work, for sure. However, from a civil society activist's point of view, 
the possibilities of participation and interference in the eLAC process 
are, IMHO, quite restricted and much of our efforts to make a difference 
in that space are very often frustrating and, why not to say, seem 
meaningless.

I am very aware of the events and processes led by Cepal - with one 
important correction, Miguel: the 3 IGF meetings that occurred in the 
LAC region had no participation of CEPAL at all. In this year's meeting, 
CEPAL sent one delegate to be a moderator in one of the panels. These 
yearly regional meetings have been made possible by the initiative of 
civil society organizations, such as APC and Nupef, together with LACNIC 
and with the important financial support of APC, LACNIC and CGI.br. 
Let's not forget it - it was an open space for whoever wanted to 
participate - what doesn't happen at the eLAC process at all.

Actually, there are a lot of difficulties in promoting a more active 
participation of civil society in the eLAC process. APC has been doing a 
remarkable work in the region being the focal point for civil society in 
eLAC. APC has sent, a month ago, a letter to the coordination of eLAC 
and to the coordination of the working groups at the eLAC process 
stressing the need for reflection on the possibilities of building a 
more inclusive process, in terms of incorporating civil society in the 
eLAC dinamics in a more systematic way and making efforts to promote 
more wider spaces for information in the national level - and also 
providing more time for the inputs of regional players in the 
consultation processes.

Moreover, it's important to highlight that, in the process of expressing 
their interests in presiding the working comissions for the eLAC 2015, 
there hasn't been any country postulating for the working comission on 
Internet Governance. This, in my opinion, shows that there is little 
interest among the countries in the region to lead the work on IG within 
eLAC and CEPAL. I wonder why.

I'd like to affirm that, although it's not meaningless in terms of 
promoting events and leading the eLAC process, in my opinion CEPAL's 
work is not open, not democratic (in a wider sense of the term) and not 
participatory - what makes many civil society advocates (myself 
included) feel that our efforts and energy put in this space 
meaningless. It's a personal opinion, I stress.

To finalize, I'd like to offer one more comment on Miguel's assertion:

 >there is a trend tightening freedom of the press and freedom of 
information in the region, including the internet and particularly 
social >media. Such trend is independent of IG and it needs to be acted 
against in other fora, which is being already the case in the 
 >Interamerican Comission of Human Rights and others.

I strongly disagree with you in this point - this trend is not 
independent of IG. I believe there's no way to separate freedom of the 
press and freedom of information from IG processes and discussions.

Also, I think that the reactions to my first message are very important 
at this precise moment. There's a discussion going on in the lac-cmsi 
list about the preparations and articulations for the 'high level' 
Ministries Summit for the final approval of the eLAC 2015 Project, that 
will happen next week. Perhaps we should continue to explore the 
differences and affinities of our views in that space and involve more 
LAC players in this discussion.

un saludo,
Graciela

Em 11/20/10 9:26 AM, Miguel Alcaine escreveu:
> Dear Graciela and colleagues:
>
> I tend to disagree with you in your appreciation of ECLAC regarding 
> IG, although I would like issues moving much more rapidly and I remain 
> open to hear other opinions as well about ECLAC.
>
> Back in 2003, was the regional document agreed in the Dominican 
> Republic, which pointed out to the need to discuss Internet 
> Governance. This was the only LAC regional meeting with the 
> participation of the USA and Canada. For those who that may find that 
> strange, it is in order to clarify that both countries are full 
> members of ECLAC as some others from the European Union.
>
> That full membership of extra regional countries in the "regional 
> commission" makes things a little bit more difficult. No 
> extra-regional countries have participated in the following meetings 
> in 2005, 2007 and 2010.
>
> The regional process, eLAC can be traced back to 2005, when we met in 
> Brazil. There we agreed in a follow-up mechanism. In 2007, if I am not 
> wrong, people from all stakeholders agreed to work together in a 
> common position of the region regarding IG. During that year, it 
> worked with the approval of the mechanism and got the political 
> endorsement of the region in the II Ministerial Meeting in February 2008.
>
> There has been also a Working group very much active in 
> Infrastructure. The amount of IXP has increased in the region. There 
> are 6 new copies of the root server F in the region and infrastructure 
> like  . While this is not directly related to IG, its indirect effect 
> cannot be denied.
>
> The region has had already 3 regional IGF meetings. I think networks 
> among people coming from different stakeholders have been formed and 
> strengthened.
>
> Unfortunately on other developments, there is a trend tightening 
> freedom of the press and freedom of information in the region, 
> including the internet and particularly social media. Such trend is 
> independent of IG and it needs to be acted against in other fora, 
> which is being already the case in the Interamerican Comission of 
> Human Rights and others. These more formal intergovernmental fora move 
> more slowly and are as effective as the willingness of States to abide.
>
> Best,
>
> Miguel
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 6:18 PM, Graciela Selaimen 
> <graciela at nupef.org.br <mailto:graciela at nupef.org.br>> wrote:
>
>     Hi,
>
>     I have the same impression of ECLAC in regards to Latin America -
>     a meaningless space, especially for the discussion on IG.
>     I totally agree with Fouad's last paragraph. For us, in LAC
>     region, many concerns remain very similar to Athens. Others, such
>     as the increasing of surveillance and attempts to control the
>     Internet and criminalize its users surfaced during this 5 yers
>     period and I think we must address them more concretely - and
>     "evolve into something more meaningful", as Fouad said.
>
>     Best regards,
>     Graciela Selaimen
>
>     Em 11/19/10 2:15 PM, Fouad Bajwa escreveu:
>
>         SAARC for us in South Asia remains the same meaningless
>         meeting point
>         exploited by elites and so called representatives of South Asian
>         nations to keep everyone busy in discussion leading nothing
>         anywhere.
>         The political, social and economic situations of the 8 member
>         countries tell the wonderful story of the failure of this so
>         called
>         SAUnion.
>
>         The model may work well for African, Latin/CT and European
>         citizens/members but not for this part of the world. ASEAN
>         tends to be
>         more stronger in Asia Pacific. Really, do we have to be
>         orthodox and
>         step back into the systems and unions of the non-internet
>         oriented era
>         whereas we can progress towards forming an institution more
>         contextual, responsive and engaged in Internet and its context
>         only
>         related issues?
>
>         Maybe a bridge out of that institution may exist that can link all
>         these institutional models of the past that really haven't
>         helped much
>         and the global financial meltdown, recession and now
>         struggling bonds
>         and interest based hair-cuts are blowing the sanity out of them?
>
>         It may be wise to step back for once and recap what has
>         happened in
>         the past 5 years with regards to the IGF. Athens was the
>         strong-point,
>         Vilnius, though lots of improvements and opportunities also
>         portrayed
>         how many years back things might fall if not improved for the next
>         five years.
>
>         The issue remains valid. We need the developing world voices
>         to voice
>         our concerns and for us our concerns remain very similar to
>         Athens, we
>         want something from the IGF........its open, inclusive and
>         participative dialogue on IG and related issues is
>         wonderful........but where do we go from here? Do we stay the
>         same way
>         or do we learn from our regional IGFs that there is an
>         opportunity to
>         evolve into something more meaningful where messages and
>         recommendations with working groups are being felt to be the first
>         step and way forward?
>
>         --- Best
>
>         Fouad
>
>         On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 2:26 PM, Avri Doria<avri at psg.com
>         <mailto:avri at psg.com>>  wrote:
>
>             Hi,
>
>             This seems to make a lot of sense to me.
>
>             I also wonder, what did people think of the suggestion I
>             made that developing nations also work through the
>             regional intergovernmental organizations that their
>             nations belong to, of which i believe there are scores e.g.:
>
>             African Union
>             ASEAN
>             D-8
>             SIDS
>             USAN
>             ...
>
>             or  smaller groups like
>
>             CARICOM (The Caribbean Community)
>             Indian Ocean Commission
>             SAARC (South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation)
>             SADC (Southern African Development Community)
>             ECOWAS (Economic Community of Central African States)
>             ECLAC (Economic Commission of Latin America and Caribbean)
>
>
>             Wouldn't this complement the work being done in COE and
>             OECD etc  and make sure that everyone was invovled and
>             that the development perspective was heard and reinforced?
>              What am I missing?
>
>             a.
>
>
>
>             On 19 Nov 2010, at 13:30, Baudouin SCHOMBE wrote:
>
>                 I totally notice with your argument, Parminder, when
>                 you explain the need for participation of developing
>                 countries in discussions to defend their interests.
>                 It is for this reason that I insisted on national and
>                 regional IGF before world  IGF.
>                 In this way, civil society can come to mobilize actors
>                 at both national and regional levels through training
>                 workshops and multi-stakeholder forum on issues of
>                 Internet governance.
>                 This work must be done in synergy with the IGC, to
>                 convey the same information while allowing the
>                 flexibility to respond to national and express their
>                 views.
>
>
>                 BAUDOUIN
>
>
>                 2010/11/19 parminder<parminder at itforchange.net
>                 <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>>
>
>
>                 On Thursday 18 November 2010 01:52 PM, "Kleinwächter,
>                 Wolfgang" wrote:
>
>                     Hi everybody
>
>                     thanks for the work. I am sorry that I jump in in
>                     a very late stage. I have three comments:
>
>                     1. 3a: The old debate on receommendations is not
>                     really helpful. In the past CS tried also to use
>                     the terminology "messages".
>
>                 Wolfgang
>
>                  Global CS did never abandon the concept of
>                 recommendations in the IGF context, though at places
>                 'messages' may also have been used. Recommendations
>                 (or 'recommend') is mentioned in the Tunis Agenda's
>                 mandate for the IGF and we seem to have largely
>                 supported it, in some form or the other.
>
>                      The problem is as soon as you introduce a process
>                     to negotiate a text which then has been the
>                     subject of voting you change the nature of the the
>                     whole event. Even if you stress that these
>                     receommendations will be not binding, this does
>                     not matter. In the Un context (like in other
>                     intergovernmental mechanisms) the category
>                     "receommednation" is well defined and you can not
>                     avoid that an IGF recommendation is seen as
>                     something similar to what other Un bodies are
>                     doing with receommendations. Again I prefer the
>                     "message". BTW, I will circulate later this week
>                     the Interim Report of the Council of Europe Cross
>                     Border Expert Group where we propose also the
>                     elaboration of some instruments. The Council of
>                     Europe - or other organisations with an
>                     established procedure to negotiat texts - are a
>                     better place for such
>                     an excercise.
>
>
>                 Sure, it may be a better place. But I or my country in
>                 not in the CoE (though CoE instruments finally do
>                 impact me). So which 'better place' do you think I can
>                 look upto? Can you please provide me an answer to this.
>
>                 I continue to be (unpleasantly) surprised at the
>                 manner in which the concerns of developing countries
>                 in terms of their non-participation in global policy
>                 making and the global shaping of the ICT pehnomenon is
>                 ignored so blatantly, in a group which wants to
>                 describe itself as a global civil society group.
>
>                 We may all glibly talk about development issues or IG
>                 for development. Pl take note that in the IGF plenary
>                 on IG for development the prime issue which came up
>                 was that IG for development first of all means due
>                 participation of developing countries in global IG
>                 related policy making (see the Chairman's summary).
>                 What does the IGC plan to do on this issue? Ask us to
>                 watch and cheer on CoE and OECD policy making processes?
>
>                 I can still understand the stand of someone like
>                 Milton (though I do not agree with it) who is a bit
>                 afraid of supporting new institutional development for
>                 democratic global policy making as coming out of the
>                 current 'core' UN configurations (which is why he is
>                 afraid of the enhanced cooperation or EC process),
>                 even as an positively evolutionary process (which is
>                 my considered expectation of the EC process). Because
>                 he does, correspondingly, support a more open,
>                 diverse, multistakeholder process like the IGF making
>                 some clear positive contributions towards development
>                 of global Internet policies through making policy
>                 recommendations.
>
>                 What I cant understand is the position of those who
>                 both oppose the EC process (in whichever evolutionary
>                 form) as well as oppose possibilities of the IGF
>                 making recommendations (I see Wolfgang, Katitza, Bill,
>                 Jeanette among others state that position). Moreover,
>                 they all seem to closely associate with OECD/ CoE
>                 policy making processes, which are in fact much less
>                 open, transparent, multistakeholder etc than even the
>                 'enhanced cooperation' model which, for instance, I
>                 proposed and they strongly resisted.
>
>                 I am unable to understand why a comity of powerful
>                 nations needs specific well-structured systems of
>                 making inter-country policies (which then become
>                 default global ones) and all countires as a global
>                 group, which (unfortunately?)  include developing
>                 countries, should not aspire to any such structures.
>                 So, it appears, that while (global?) CS should
>                 enthusiastically support the former (CoE / OECD kind
>                 of process) it is presented as its bounden duty to
>                 strongly oppose any such - or in fact structurally
>                 even much better - institutional developments  at the
>                 global level.
>
>                 And I also do hope that the IGC members form
>                 developing countries both increase their participation
>                 in IGC kind of groups, and become more vocal in
>                 articulating their interests.
>
>                 parminder
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>                     2. 6a: I thin SOC has an IGF Fellowship Programm.
>
>                     3. Under nine we could say that we ould like to
>                     see that the IGF enhances its function and could
>                     become, inter alia, an observatory, a
>                     clearinghouse, an early warning system and a watchdog.
>
>                     Sorry for the late reply. If it is too late then
>                     ignore it.
>
>                     Best wishes
>
>                     wolfgang
>                     ________________________________
>
>                     Von:
>                     izumiaizu at gmail.com <mailto:izumiaizu at gmail.com>
>                      im Auftrag von Izumi AIZU
>                     Gesendet: Do 18.11.2010 03:13
>                     An:
>                     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>                     <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>
>                     Betreff: [governance] Consensus Call for CSTD IGF
>                     Questionnaire - Clean version
>
>
>
>                     Here follows are the Clean version of the Final
>                     Draft for the CSTD IGF
>                     questionnaire answer
>                     in full text. Sorry for the confusion.
>
>                     Please respond if you agree or disagree as soon as
>                     possible.  Friday, Nov 19
>                     is the deadline for submission. More comments are
>                     also very much appreciated
>                     as we can further feed them into the Consultation
>                     meetings next week in Geneva.
>
>                     Thanks!
>
>                     izumi
>
>                     ------------
>
>                     FINAL Draft for Questionnaire on improvements to
>                     the IGF
>
>                     1. What do you consider the most important
>                     achievements of the first
>                     five IGF meetings?
>
>                     IGF created the space for dialogue by all
>                     stakeholders in an open,
>                     inclusive manner. These emergence and development
>                     of the
>                     multistakeholder principle and practice are
>                     perhaps the biggest
>                     contribution IGF has achieved so far. It helped
>                     many participants to
>                     understand the issues of their interest, as well
>                     as to understand how
>                     other actors understand, act and accept their
>                     issues. Emergence of
>                     Regional and National IGF with multistakeholder
>                     approach is another
>                     achievement.
>
>                     2. How satisfied are you with the delivery of the
>                     results of
>                     discussions at the IGF and the impact they have
>                     had on developments in
>                     national, regional or international Internet
>                     governance?
>
>                     IGF has made a reasonable advancement of the
>                     understanding of the
>                     issues. Yet, at national, regional and
>                     international levels, we have
>                     mixed assessment for the impact it brought.
>
>                     3. Which, if any, new mechanisms would you propose
>                     to improve the
>                     impact of the IGF discussions, in particular as
>                     regards the
>                     interaction between the IGF and other
>                     stakeholders? Please specify the
>                     kind of mechanism (e.g. reporting, exchanges,
>                     recommendations,
>                     concrete advice, etc.) and the stakeholders (e.g.
>                     intergovernmental
>                     bodies, other fora dealing with Internet
>                     Governance, etc.).
>
>                     a) One mechanism we can suggest is to come up with
>                     some form of
>                     recommendations where all stakeholders have
>                     [rough] consensus. They
>                     will not be binding, but could still function as
>                     model, reference or
>                     common framework. Working process towards
>                     achieving these rough
>                     consensus will create better and deeper
>                     understandings amongst
>                     different stakeholders.
>
>                     b) The Secretariat and MAG should be strongly
>                     encouraged to directly
>                     foster discussion and debate of difficult issues
>                     in main sessions,
>                     instead of avoiding them.
>
>                     4. In your view, what important new issues or
>                     themes concerning
>                     Internet governance have emerged or become
>                     important since the Tunis
>                     phase of the Summit, which deserve more attention
>                     in the next five
>                     years?
>
>                     IGC feels that attention to the development
>                     agenda, issues concerning
>                     the marginalized groups or actors, have yet gained
>                     sufficient level of
>                     work at IGF and its outcome. These may not be the
>                     "new" issues, but we
>                     strongly feel they are very important.
>
>                     Besides them, emergence of new technologies, tools
>                     and services, such
>                     as cloud computing; user-generated, SNS and online
>                     sharing services
>                     such as wiki, YouTube, Ustream, twitter and
>                     Facebook; DPI and
>                     behavioral targeting advertisements; wide
>                     deployment of mobile
>                     services including smart phones and tablet
>                     computers pose all kind of
>                     new challenges for governance.
>
>
>                     5. What do you think should be the priority themes
>                     and areas of work
>                     of the IGF during the next five years?
>
>                     Followings will be the areas of themes and works
>                     that have priorities we think.
>                     a) Enhancing multi-stakeholder framework within IGF.
>                     b) Promote capacity building for developmental
>                     agenda of governance
>                     c) Balancing the interests - to empower those of
>                     marginalized and
>                     under-developed in all organizations and fora
>                     dealing with Internet
>                     governance - such as ICANN, W3C, IETF, RIRs, ITU,
>                     WIPO, CoE, OECD,
>                     UNCTAD/CSTD and United Nations itself.
>
>                     6. How can the capacity of those groups that are
>                     not yet well
>                     represented at the IGF be improved? In particular,
>                     what could be done
>                     to improve the capacity of representatives from
>                     developing countries?
>
>                     a) Establish special funding mechanism by IGF
>                     itself to help actors
>                     from developing countries to continuously engage
>                     in IGF and related
>                     organizations and meetings. Fellowship works
>                     carried out by
>                     DiploFoundation, dotAsia organization [other
>                     reference, please] and
>                     other institutions offer good reference for this,
>                     but they should be
>                     expanded in larger scale. Targeting youth groups
>                     or younger generation
>                     in profession, will have, in the long run,
>                     effective impact.
>
>                     b) Providing technical training to policy makers
>                     and policy training
>                     to engineers will also help close the gap(s)
>                     within the
>                     under-represented and also even well-represented.
>
>                     7. How do you think more awareness of Internet
>                     governance issues and
>                     the IGF process can be raised amongst groups whose
>                     lives are affected
>                     by Internet governance but who are not yet part of
>                     the IGF process?
>
>                     a) Giving more weight to regional and national IGF
>                     meetings, making
>                     more direct "links" to the main IGF meeting will
>                     help outreach to
>                     those who have not yet involved in IGF process.
>                     Securing the same
>                     level of working framework of IGF, such as
>                     multi-stakeholder
>                     composition and inclusion of civil society groups
>                     (where such practice
>                     is relatively new or scarce) should be maintained.
>
>                     b) Ensuring a plurality of civil society voices be
>                     heard in Internet
>                     governance processes will also be effective in
>                     reaching out to those
>                     yet to participate.
>
>                     c) Online meetings are most effective when
>                     provision is made for
>                     participation both synchronously (ie. in real
>                     time) and
>                     asynchronously. The remote hubs and moderators at
>                     the Vilnius IGF made
>                     good progress towards this direction. Using such
>                     tools as blogs,
>                     Twitter, mailing lists, Facebook and so on over an
>                     extended period may
>                     also increase the awareness.
>
>                     d) Organizing some sessions completely online will
>                     create "level
>                     playing field" among all participants, and may
>                     also demonstrate the
>                     effectiveness of these tools/technologies, and may
>                     also improve the
>                     quality of services in turn.
>
>                     e) Increase linguistic diversity. Using UN major
>                     languages other than
>                     English at certain meetings and occasions as main
>                     working language
>                     (translated into other UN languages) will increase
>                     the outreach to
>                     non-English speaking population of the globe and
>                     will give more sense
>                     of ownership. Currently, English is the only
>                     default working language,
>                     but we think it does not have to be so.
>
>                     8. How, if at all, do you think that the IGF
>                     process needs to change
>                     to meet changing circumstances and priorities?
>
>                     As we replied to the MAG questionnaire, the
>                     organizing work of IGF
>                     primarily by MAG should be improved. More outcome
>                     oriented direction
>                     might improve the quality and value of IGF, but
>                     this should be
>                     carefully exercised so as not to lose the open and
>                     free spirit of IGF
>                     which contributed a great deal.
>
>                     9. Do you have any other comments?
>
>                     No.
>
>                     END
>
>         ____________________________________________________________
>         You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>         governance at lists.cpsr.org <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>         To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>         governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>         <mailto:governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org>
>
>         For all list information and functions, see:
>         http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>         Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>     ____________________________________________________________
>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>     To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>     <mailto:governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org>
>
>     For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>     Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101120/a1b6ab16/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From iza at anr.org  Sun Nov 21 04:07:23 2010
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2010 18:07:23 +0900
Subject: [governance] Re: Geneva Sunday
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTik=UvWtkExW_Ny_otq9WxqVkCnohHts8GM04jnr@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1E8653E0-927A-4C7C-B373-9E8D4D18BE58@graduateinstitute.ch>
 <AANLkTimZhcB4yEcyAiYF3BvQ+PD4ddE54hrTkXnKnCMT@mail.gmail.com>
 <AANLkTi=bF3ssv8f9KF3i+rT99aihzKf9mQv84nk=SJmw@mail.gmail.com>
 <4CE7B11F.9060909@nic.br> <AANLkTik=UvWtkExW_Ny_otq9WxqVkCnohHts8GM04jnr@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTinP+p4zv5DOdEFZVXm96mV06jUk138on5bkOdBp@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

So far I got the following names to come to the meeting today at
DiploFoundation office in Geneva.
Correct/add your name if that is the case.

Bill, are you also coming?

Hartmut Glaser
Fouad Bajwa
Izumi Aizu
Parminder Jeet Singh
Avri Doria
Jovan Kurbalija
Anriette Esterhuysen
Graciela

I also got the following names indicated to join remotely.
Could you provide you Skype names if you have not joined earlier
for IGF Vilnius one?

Ginger Paque
Raquel Gatto
Andrés Piazza
Katitza Rodriguez
Baudouin SCHOMBE
Marilia Maciel?

I hope we could have a productive meeting.

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

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

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

From gate.one205 at yahoo.fr  Sun Nov 21 04:54:39 2010
From: gate.one205 at yahoo.fr (Jean-Yves GATETE)
Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2010 09:54:39 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: [governance] Re: Geneva Sunday
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinP+p4zv5DOdEFZVXm96mV06jUk138on5bkOdBp@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <100163.85631.qm@web27803.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>

Hi,
I wish to attend remotely 
my skype : gatetejy

 
Good day,
 
Jean-Yves
Burundi
--- En date de : Dim 21.11.10, Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org> a écrit :


De: Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org>
Objet: Re: [governance] Re: Geneva Sunday
À: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Date: Dimanche 21 novembre 2010, 10h07


Hi,

So far I got the following names to come to the meeting today at
DiploFoundation office in Geneva.
Correct/add your name if that is the case.

Bill, are you also coming?

Hartmut Glaser
Fouad Bajwa
Izumi Aizu
Parminder Jeet Singh
Avri Doria
Jovan Kurbalija
Anriette Esterhuysen
Graciela

I also got the following names indicated to join remotely.
Could you provide you Skype names if you have not joined earlier
for IGF Vilnius one?

Ginger Paque
Raquel Gatto
Andrés Piazza
Katitza Rodriguez
Baudouin SCHOMBE
Marilia Maciel?

I hope we could have a productive meeting.

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

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

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


      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101121/8a490c81/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de  Sun Nov 21 05:57:28 2010
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=)
Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2010 11:57:28 +0100
Subject: SV: [governance] Re: Geneva Sunday
References: <1E8653E0-927A-4C7C-B373-9E8D4D18BE58@graduateinstitute.ch>
 <AANLkTimZhcB4yEcyAiYF3BvQ+PD4ddE54hrTkXnKnCMT@mail.gmail.com>
 <AANLkTi=bF3ssv8f9KF3i+rT99aihzKf9mQv84nk=SJmw@mail.gmail.com>
 <4CE7B11F.9060909@nic.br>
 <AANLkTik=UvWtkExW_Ny_otq9WxqVkCnohHts8GM04jnr@mail.gmail.com>
 <AANLkTinP+p4zv5DOdEFZVXm96mV06jUk138on5bkOdBp@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID:  <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07476@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

I arrive around 8.00 p.m. Do you have dinner?
 
wolfgang
 

________________________________

Från: izumiaizu at gmail.com genom Izumi AIZU
Skickat: sö 2010-11-21 10:07
Till: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Ämne: Re: [governance] Re: Geneva Sunday



Hi,

So far I got the following names to come to the meeting today at
DiploFoundation office in Geneva.
Correct/add your name if that is the case.

Bill, are you also coming?

Hartmut Glaser
Fouad Bajwa
Izumi Aizu
Parminder Jeet Singh
Avri Doria
Jovan Kurbalija
Anriette Esterhuysen
Graciela

I also got the following names indicated to join remotely.
Could you provide you Skype names if you have not joined earlier
for IGF Vilnius one?

Ginger Paque
Raquel Gatto
Andrés Piazza
Katitza Rodriguez
Baudouin SCHOMBE
Marilia Maciel?

I hope we could have a productive meeting.

izumi
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 miguel.alcaine at gmail.com  Sun Nov 21 06:15:00 2010
From: miguel.alcaine at gmail.com (Miguel Alcaine)
Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2010 12:15:00 +0100
Subject: [governance] Re: Geneva Sunday
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinP+p4zv5DOdEFZVXm96mV06jUk138on5bkOdBp@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1E8653E0-927A-4C7C-B373-9E8D4D18BE58@graduateinstitute.ch>
	<AANLkTimZhcB4yEcyAiYF3BvQ+PD4ddE54hrTkXnKnCMT@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTi=bF3ssv8f9KF3i+rT99aihzKf9mQv84nk=SJmw@mail.gmail.com>
	<4CE7B11F.9060909@nic.br>
	<AANLkTik=UvWtkExW_Ny_otq9WxqVkCnohHts8GM04jnr@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTinP+p4zv5DOdEFZVXm96mV06jUk138on5bkOdBp@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTikjo+BbawcpXZB-qg63OZRCwsHQZML5=rjc0U9Y@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Izumi,

I should be in the list coming,

It is at Diplo at 3 pm ?

Best,

Miguel

On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 10:07 AM, Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> So far I got the following names to come to the meeting today at
> DiploFoundation office in Geneva.
> Correct/add your name if that is the case.
>
> Bill, are you also coming?
>
> Hartmut Glaser
> Fouad Bajwa
> Izumi Aizu
> Parminder Jeet Singh
> Avri Doria
> Jovan Kurbalija
> Anriette Esterhuysen
> Graciela
>
> I also got the following names indicated to join remotely.
> Could you provide you Skype names if you have not joined earlier
> for IGF Vilnius one?
>
> Ginger Paque
> Raquel Gatto
> Andrés Piazza
> Katitza Rodriguez
> Baudouin SCHOMBE
> Marilia Maciel?
>
> I hope we could have a productive meeting.
>
> izumi
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101121/5cff7924/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From tracyhackshaw at gmail.com  Sun Nov 21 07:00:16 2010
From: tracyhackshaw at gmail.com (Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google)
Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2010 08:00:16 -0400
Subject: [governance] Geneva Sunday
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinP+p4zv5DOdEFZVXm96mV06jUk138on5bkOdBp@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1E8653E0-927A-4C7C-B373-9E8D4D18BE58@graduateinstitute.ch>
	<AANLkTimZhcB4yEcyAiYF3BvQ+PD4ddE54hrTkXnKnCMT@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTi=bF3ssv8f9KF3i+rT99aihzKf9mQv84nk=SJmw@mail.gmail.com>
	<4CE7B11F.9060909@nic.br>
	<AANLkTik=UvWtkExW_Ny_otq9WxqVkCnohHts8GM04jnr@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTinP+p4zv5DOdEFZVXm96mV06jUk138on5bkOdBp@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTikDopTWMCrGPjUWVKk1oUyU3p73um-BctbqcTZS@mail.gmail.com>

Skype : hackshawt

Thnx,

Tracy

On 11/21/10, Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> So far I got the following names to come to the meeting today at
> DiploFoundation office in Geneva.
> Correct/add your name if that is the case.
>
> Bill, are you also coming?
>
> Hartmut Glaser
> Fouad Bajwa
> Izumi Aizu
> Parminder Jeet Singh
> Avri Doria
> Jovan Kurbalija
> Anriette Esterhuysen
> Graciela
>
> I also got the following names indicated to join remotely.
> Could you provide you Skype names if you have not joined earlier
> for IGF Vilnius one?
>
> Ginger Paque
> Raquel Gatto
> Andrés Piazza
> Katitza Rodriguez
> Baudouin SCHOMBE
> Marilia Maciel?
>
> I hope we could have a productive meeting.
>
> izumi
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

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

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

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

From iza at anr.org  Sun Nov 21 07:47:31 2010
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2010 21:47:31 +0900
Subject: [governance] Geneva Sunday
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikDopTWMCrGPjUWVKk1oUyU3p73um-BctbqcTZS@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1E8653E0-927A-4C7C-B373-9E8D4D18BE58@graduateinstitute.ch>
 <AANLkTimZhcB4yEcyAiYF3BvQ+PD4ddE54hrTkXnKnCMT@mail.gmail.com>
 <AANLkTi=bF3ssv8f9KF3i+rT99aihzKf9mQv84nk=SJmw@mail.gmail.com>
 <4CE7B11F.9060909@nic.br> <AANLkTik=UvWtkExW_Ny_otq9WxqVkCnohHts8GM04jnr@mail.gmail.com>
 <AANLkTinP+p4zv5DOdEFZVXm96mV06jUk138on5bkOdBp@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTikDopTWMCrGPjUWVKk1oUyU3p73um-BctbqcTZS@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTimah22xM9QZD7i5mcB4jAWLDDQBQ493xxed2kR1@mail.gmail.com>

Hi, arrived at Geneva,
YES, we will start around 3 pm (may take a while to set-up remote access).
And yes, Wolfgang, we plan to go to dinner, from 7 pm-ish.

My local mobile - 078-709-2862.

just text me.

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

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

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


From presidencia at internauta.org.ar  Sun Nov 21 07:55:38 2010
From: presidencia at internauta.org.ar (Presidencia Internauta)
Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2010 09:55:38 -0300
Subject: [governance] Geneva Sunday
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikDopTWMCrGPjUWVKk1oUyU3p73um-BctbqcTZS@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1E8653E0-927A-4C7C-B373-9E8D4D18BE58@graduateinstitute.ch>	<AANLkTimZhcB4yEcyAiYF3BvQ+PD4ddE54hrTkXnKnCMT@mail.gmail.com>	<AANLkTi=bF3ssv8f9KF3i+rT99aihzKf9mQv84nk=SJmw@mail.gmail.com>	<4CE7B11F.9060909@nic.br>	<AANLkTik=UvWtkExW_Ny_otq9WxqVkCnohHts8GM04jnr@mail.gmail.com>	<AANLkTinP+p4zv5DOdEFZVXm96mV06jUk138on5bkOdBp@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTikDopTWMCrGPjUWVKk1oUyU3p73um-BctbqcTZS@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4CE916CA.3080607@internauta.org.ar>

Skype: internautaargentina
Thanks!!!

<b>Sergio Salinas Porto
Presidente
Internauta Argentina
Asociación Argentina de Usuarios de Internet
http://internauta.org.ar
presidencia at internauta.org.ar
skype:internautaargentina
talk:salinasporto at gmail.com
MSN:salinasporto at hotmail.com
TeL:+54 9 223 (15) 5 215819</b>



El 21/11/2010 09:00 a.m., Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google escribió:
> Skype : hackshawt
>
> Thnx,
>
> Tracy
>
> On 11/21/10, Izumi AIZU<iza at anr.org>  wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> So far I got the following names to come to the meeting today at
>> DiploFoundation office in Geneva.
>> Correct/add your name if that is the case.
>>
>> Bill, are you also coming?
>>
>> Hartmut Glaser
>> Fouad Bajwa
>> Izumi Aizu
>> Parminder Jeet Singh
>> Avri Doria
>> Jovan Kurbalija
>> Anriette Esterhuysen
>> Graciela
>>
>> I also got the following names indicated to join remotely.
>> Could you provide you Skype names if you have not joined earlier
>> for IGF Vilnius one?
>>
>> Ginger Paque
>> Raquel Gatto
>> Andrés Piazza
>> Katitza Rodriguez
>> Baudouin SCHOMBE
>> Marilia Maciel?
>>
>> I hope we could have a productive meeting.
>>
>> izumi
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>       governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>       governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>       http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-- 
<b>Sergio Salinas Porto
Presidente
Internauta Argentina
Asociación Argentina de Usuarios de Internet
http://internauta.org.ar
presidencia at internauta.org.ar
skype:internautaargentina
talk:salinasporto at gmail.com
MSN:salinasporto at hotmail.com
TeL:+54 9 223 (15) 5 215819</b>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101121/811471fc/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From miguel.alcaine at gmail.com  Sun Nov 21 08:39:19 2010
From: miguel.alcaine at gmail.com (Miguel Alcaine)
Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2010 14:39:19 +0100
Subject: [governance] Fwd: A text and an interactive presentation
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimj_SaFE9ASxmVYUeMmqLGjihYwVWKUtSdBnFVv@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTimj_SaFE9ASxmVYUeMmqLGjihYwVWKUtSdBnFVv@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTimMKafukVf-NgbLZ=LOJBO8KYcApcjQs-0tCmWC@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all,

This is an interactive presentation on WSIS implementation and follow-up
(swf format) I prepared some days ago which you may find interesting. I
planned to write down something on it and maybe publish it in UNESCO site.



Best,

Miguel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101121/06104e4d/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101121/06104e4d/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: wsis.swf
Type: application/x-shockwave-flash
Size: 508020 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101121/06104e4d/attachment.swf>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

From shahzad at bytesforall.net  Sun Nov 21 08:43:39 2010
From: shahzad at bytesforall.net (Shahzad Ahmad)
Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2010 18:43:39 +0500
Subject: [governance] Re: Geneva Sunday
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinP+p4zv5DOdEFZVXm96mV06jUk138on5bkOdBp@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1E8653E0-927A-4C7C-B373-9E8D4D18BE58@graduateinstitute.ch> <AANLkTimZhcB4yEcyAiYF3BvQ+PD4ddE54hrTkXnKnCMT@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTi=bF3ssv8f9KF3i+rT99aihzKf9mQv84nk=SJmw@mail.gmail.com> <4CE7B11F.9060909@nic.br> <AANLkTik=UvWtkExW_Ny_otq9WxqVkCnohHts8GM04jnr@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTinP+p4zv5DOdEFZVXm96mV06jUk138on5bkOdBp@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <039901cb8982$20c11670$62434350$@net>

Hi everyone, 

Requesting for remote participation:

	Shahzad Ahmad
	Skype: WSAPAKISTAN

Already added to the IGF10 group. I understand meeting is about to start :)

Best wishes
Shahzad


-----Original Message-----
From: izumiaizu at gmail.com [mailto:izumiaizu at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Izumi
AIZU
Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2010 2:07 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: Re: [governance] Re: Geneva Sunday

Hi,

So far I got the following names to come to the meeting today at
DiploFoundation office in Geneva.
Correct/add your name if that is the case.

Bill, are you also coming?

Hartmut Glaser
Fouad Bajwa
Izumi Aizu
Parminder Jeet Singh
Avri Doria
Jovan Kurbalija
Anriette Esterhuysen
Graciela

I also got the following names indicated to join remotely.
Could you provide you Skype names if you have not joined earlier
for IGF Vilnius one?

Ginger Paque
Raquel Gatto
Andrés Piazza
Katitza Rodriguez
Baudouin SCHOMBE
Marilia Maciel?

I hope we could have a productive meeting.

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

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

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

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

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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From mariliamaciel at gmail.com  Sun Nov 21 08:51:52 2010
From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2010 11:51:52 -0200
Subject: [governance] Re: Geneva Sunday
In-Reply-To: <039901cb8982$20c11670$62434350$@net>
References: <1E8653E0-927A-4C7C-B373-9E8D4D18BE58@graduateinstitute.ch>
	<AANLkTimZhcB4yEcyAiYF3BvQ+PD4ddE54hrTkXnKnCMT@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTi=bF3ssv8f9KF3i+rT99aihzKf9mQv84nk=SJmw@mail.gmail.com>
	<4CE7B11F.9060909@nic.br>
	<AANLkTik=UvWtkExW_Ny_otq9WxqVkCnohHts8GM04jnr@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTinP+p4zv5DOdEFZVXm96mV06jUk138on5bkOdBp@mail.gmail.com>
	<039901cb8982$20c11670$62434350$@net>
Message-ID: <AANLkTinY5vkoV4NSz1tBYCJwDYAqihn9mZy_Y_FC4Q9H@mail.gmail.com>

My Skype contact:
marilia.ferreira.maciel

On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 11:43 AM, Shahzad Ahmad <shahzad at bytesforall.net>wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> Requesting for remote participation:
>
>        Shahzad Ahmad
>        Skype: WSAPAKISTAN
>
> Already added to the IGF10 group. I understand meeting is about to start :)
>
> Best wishes
> Shahzad
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: izumiaizu at gmail.com [mailto:izumiaizu at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Izumi
> AIZU
> Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2010 2:07 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] Re: Geneva Sunday
>
> Hi,
>
> So far I got the following names to come to the meeting today at
> DiploFoundation office in Geneva.
> Correct/add your name if that is the case.
>
> Bill, are you also coming?
>
> Hartmut Glaser
> Fouad Bajwa
> Izumi Aizu
> Parminder Jeet Singh
> Avri Doria
> Jovan Kurbalija
> Anriette Esterhuysen
> Graciela
>
> I also got the following names indicated to join remotely.
> Could you provide you Skype names if you have not joined earlier
> for IGF Vilnius one?
>
> Ginger Paque
> Raquel Gatto
> Andrés Piazza
> Katitza Rodriguez
> Baudouin SCHOMBE
> Marilia Maciel?
>
> I hope we could have a productive meeting.
>
> izumi
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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
>



-- 
Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
FGV Direito Rio

Center for Technology and Society
Getulio Vargas Foundation
Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101121/9881d8a6/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From avri at psg.com  Sun Nov 21 09:00:58 2010
From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2010 15:00:58 +0100
Subject: [governance] Re: Geneva Sunday
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinP+p4zv5DOdEFZVXm96mV06jUk138on5bkOdBp@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1E8653E0-927A-4C7C-B373-9E8D4D18BE58@graduateinstitute.ch> <AANLkTimZhcB4yEcyAiYF3BvQ+PD4ddE54hrTkXnKnCMT@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTi=bF3ssv8f9KF3i+rT99aihzKf9mQv84nk=SJmw@mail.gmail.com> <4CE7B11F.9060909@nic.br> <AANLkTik=UvWtkExW_Ny_otq9WxqVkCnohHts8GM04jnr@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTinP+p4zv5DOdEFZVXm96mV06jUk138on5bkOdBp@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5B1CA189-F76C-4E39-9D8D-0948064BE6BC@psg.com>

hi,

something has come up, don't think i will make it.
have a good meeting.

a.

On 21 Nov 2010, at 10:07, Izumi AIZU wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> So far I got the following names to come to the meeting today at
> DiploFoundation office in Geneva.
> Correct/add your name if that is the case.
> 
> Bill, are you also coming?
> 
> Hartmut Glaser
> Fouad Bajwa
> Izumi Aizu
> Parminder Jeet Singh
> Avri Doria
> Jovan Kurbalija
> Anriette Esterhuysen
> Graciela
> 
> I also got the following names indicated to join remotely.
> Could you provide you Skype names if you have not joined earlier
> for IGF Vilnius one?
> 
> Ginger Paque
> Raquel Gatto
> Andrés Piazza
> Katitza Rodriguez
> Baudouin SCHOMBE
> Marilia Maciel?
> 
> I hope we could have a productive meeting.
> 
> izumi
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 iza at anr.org  Sun Nov 21 09:01:45 2010
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2010 23:01:45 +0900
Subject: [governance] Re: Geneva Sunday
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinY5vkoV4NSz1tBYCJwDYAqihn9mZy_Y_FC4Q9H@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1E8653E0-927A-4C7C-B373-9E8D4D18BE58@graduateinstitute.ch>
 <AANLkTimZhcB4yEcyAiYF3BvQ+PD4ddE54hrTkXnKnCMT@mail.gmail.com>
 <AANLkTi=bF3ssv8f9KF3i+rT99aihzKf9mQv84nk=SJmw@mail.gmail.com>
 <4CE7B11F.9060909@nic.br> <AANLkTik=UvWtkExW_Ny_otq9WxqVkCnohHts8GM04jnr@mail.gmail.com>
 <AANLkTinP+p4zv5DOdEFZVXm96mV06jUk138on5bkOdBp@mail.gmail.com>
 <039901cb8982$20c11670$62434350$@net> <AANLkTinY5vkoV4NSz1tBYCJwDYAqihn9mZy_Y_FC4Q9H@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=0JtG3F1yoG3cgCbHLxu2WG2Ge=Oi==nQGL-Ct@mail.gmail.com>

We have not started the meeting, still waiting a few more to come
to Diplo office. I have not had Skype phone meeting, am trying
to set-up.

Please send your skype name if you want to be connected.
And please be patient awhile. Doing several things at the
same time ;-)

izumi
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From iza at anr.org  Sun Nov 21 09:02:08 2010
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2010 23:02:08 +0900
Subject: [governance] Re: Geneva Sunday
In-Reply-To: <5B1CA189-F76C-4E39-9D8D-0948064BE6BC@psg.com>
References: <1E8653E0-927A-4C7C-B373-9E8D4D18BE58@graduateinstitute.ch>
 <AANLkTimZhcB4yEcyAiYF3BvQ+PD4ddE54hrTkXnKnCMT@mail.gmail.com>
 <AANLkTi=bF3ssv8f9KF3i+rT99aihzKf9mQv84nk=SJmw@mail.gmail.com>
 <4CE7B11F.9060909@nic.br> <AANLkTik=UvWtkExW_Ny_otq9WxqVkCnohHts8GM04jnr@mail.gmail.com>
 <AANLkTinP+p4zv5DOdEFZVXm96mV06jUk138on5bkOdBp@mail.gmail.com> <5B1CA189-F76C-4E39-9D8D-0948064BE6BC@psg.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=G+B6AV_xh7Gi90dH5tF-mzB3gq3+VC-V_ZBXO@mail.gmail.com>

Ok, sorry to miss you Avri.

izumi

2010/11/21 Avri Doria <avri at psg.com>:
> hi,
>
> something has come up, don't think i will make it.
> have a good meeting.
>
> a.
>
> On 21 Nov 2010, at 10:07, Izumi AIZU wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> So far I got the following names to come to the meeting today at
>> DiploFoundation office in Geneva.
>> Correct/add your name if that is the case.
>>
>> Bill, are you also coming?
>>
>> Hartmut Glaser
>> Fouad Bajwa
>> Izumi Aizu
>> Parminder Jeet Singh
>> Avri Doria
>> Jovan Kurbalija
>> Anriette Esterhuysen
>> Graciela
>>
>> I also got the following names indicated to join remotely.
>> Could you provide you Skype names if you have not joined earlier
>> for IGF Vilnius one?
>>
>> Ginger Paque
>> Raquel Gatto
>> Andrés Piazza
>> Katitza Rodriguez
>> Baudouin SCHOMBE
>> Marilia Maciel?
>>
>> I hope we could have a productive meeting.
>>
>> izumi
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>



-- 
                        >> Izumi Aizu <<

          Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo

           Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,
                                  Japan
                                 * * * * *
           << Writing the Future of the History >>
                                www.anr.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 iza at anr.org  Sun Nov 21 09:05:01 2010
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2010 23:05:01 +0900
Subject: [governance] Remote participation
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=L80JbtymHgHGqzU6EZ0TAfQ3ODBHRje4uG016@mail.gmail.com>

I have set-up Open Chat "IGF10".  I have not done this so am not sure
if you can join by yourself, or I have to invite you. By open I think
you can join yourself. Please try.

izumi
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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 Nov 21 09:26:14 2010
From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M)
Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2010 19:56:14 +0530
Subject: [governance] Remote participation
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=L80JbtymHgHGqzU6EZ0TAfQ3ODBHRje4uG016@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTi=L80JbtymHgHGqzU6EZ0TAfQ3ODBHRje4uG016@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=PHcHy82bBzpRLNbMV5OFBnz6PV7UDGFdT6xNE@mail.gmail.com>

Izumi,


Even if we are to join on our own, what is the link to the chat room?


Sivasubramanian M




On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 7:35 PM, Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org> wrote:

> I have set-up Open Chat "IGF10".  I have not done this so am not sure
> if you can join by yourself, or I have to invite you. By open I think
> you can join yourself. Please try.
>
> izumi
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101121/b973aadb/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From iza at anr.org  Sun Nov 21 09:29:19 2010
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2010 23:29:19 +0900
Subject: [governance] Re: Geneva Sunday
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=G+B6AV_xh7Gi90dH5tF-mzB3gq3+VC-V_ZBXO@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1E8653E0-927A-4C7C-B373-9E8D4D18BE58@graduateinstitute.ch>
 <AANLkTimZhcB4yEcyAiYF3BvQ+PD4ddE54hrTkXnKnCMT@mail.gmail.com>
 <AANLkTi=bF3ssv8f9KF3i+rT99aihzKf9mQv84nk=SJmw@mail.gmail.com>
 <4CE7B11F.9060909@nic.br> <AANLkTik=UvWtkExW_Ny_otq9WxqVkCnohHts8GM04jnr@mail.gmail.com>
 <AANLkTinP+p4zv5DOdEFZVXm96mV06jUk138on5bkOdBp@mail.gmail.com>
 <5B1CA189-F76C-4E39-9D8D-0948064BE6BC@psg.com> <AANLkTi=G+B6AV_xh7Gi90dH5tF-mzB3gq3+VC-V_ZBXO@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=rABKwbwb=8r7JDLYt+Y=4OZ_2_hcPZhjpC9=F@mail.gmail.com>

We will create IGC10, instead of using IGF10, so that we can
use voice talk.

izumi
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From iza at anr.org  Sun Nov 21 09:39:38 2010
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2010 23:39:38 +0900
Subject: [governance] Re: Geneva Sunday
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=rABKwbwb=8r7JDLYt+Y=4OZ_2_hcPZhjpC9=F@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1E8653E0-927A-4C7C-B373-9E8D4D18BE58@graduateinstitute.ch>
 <AANLkTimZhcB4yEcyAiYF3BvQ+PD4ddE54hrTkXnKnCMT@mail.gmail.com>
 <AANLkTi=bF3ssv8f9KF3i+rT99aihzKf9mQv84nk=SJmw@mail.gmail.com>
 <4CE7B11F.9060909@nic.br> <AANLkTik=UvWtkExW_Ny_otq9WxqVkCnohHts8GM04jnr@mail.gmail.com>
 <AANLkTinP+p4zv5DOdEFZVXm96mV06jUk138on5bkOdBp@mail.gmail.com>
 <5B1CA189-F76C-4E39-9D8D-0948064BE6BC@psg.com> <AANLkTi=G+B6AV_xh7Gi90dH5tF-mzB3gq3+VC-V_ZBXO@mail.gmail.com>
 <AANLkTi=rABKwbwb=8r7JDLYt+Y=4OZ_2_hcPZhjpC9=F@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTik=8hbQhXHhBcZxCcU3dcOGjiHy6bfL1K=Hy2nn@mail.gmail.com>

We have created IGC10 and making Skype group talk, but only a few are
now online, Shazad and Marilia. Any others want to be connected,
please send me private email.

izumi
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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  Sun Nov 21 13:14:44 2010
From: pbekono at gmail.com (Pascal Bekono)
Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2010 19:14:44 +0100
Subject: [governance] Fwd: A text and an interactive presentation
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimMKafukVf-NgbLZ=LOJBO8KYcApcjQs-0tCmWC@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTimj_SaFE9ASxmVYUeMmqLGjihYwVWKUtSdBnFVv@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTimMKafukVf-NgbLZ=LOJBO8KYcApcjQs-0tCmWC@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=Pvids1-ea9b9uU-5o65oYCCXsKb8FcTexjWPm@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Miguel,

The presentation is really interesting, good job. there, we have
suitable information

Pascal

2010/11/21, Miguel Alcaine <miguel.alcaine at gmail.com>:
> Dear all,
>
> This is an interactive presentation on WSIS implementation and follow-up
> (swf format) I prepared some days ago which you may find interesting. I
> planned to write down something on it and maybe publish it in UNESCO site.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Miguel
>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From iza at anr.org  Sun Nov 21 15:52:03 2010
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 05:52:03 +0900
Subject: [governance] Our meeting today
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=A=MTvyQGtVHNkKK7Dv_vm-E2uw5PqjndqV9JT@mail.gmail.com>

Dear list,

We had a very good, informal and sometimes intense conversation
around our three-day stay and involvement with open consultation
meetings and MAG meeting, coming agendas and logistics.
We do not have any "conculsive" outcomes per se, other than
confirming our common positions and consensuses made
with our statements, but had rich debates and brain storming.

After that most of us went for a dinner and it was just finished.

For Wednesday, we agreed to meet at 9 am at the GIC, the conference
center, the venue of CSTD consultation meeting to further exchange
our views after MAG closed meeting on Tuesday.

Will keep you with reporting,

izumi
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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  Sun Nov 21 16:39:00 2010
From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams)
Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2010 17:39:00 -0400
Subject: [governance] Our meeting today
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=A=MTvyQGtVHNkKK7Dv_vm-E2uw5PqjndqV9JT@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTi=A=MTvyQGtVHNkKK7Dv_vm-E2uw5PqjndqV9JT@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTincMXQugeqNiarsAFTAwPcEHKAyhGZ2O+0PEExh@mail.gmail.com>

Thank you Izumi, and thanks for all your efforts earlier. Technology is a
wonderful thing :-)
De

On 21 November 2010 16:52, Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org> wrote:

> Dear list,
>
> We had a very good, informal and sometimes intense conversation
> around our three-day stay and involvement with open consultation
> meetings and MAG meeting, coming agendas and logistics.
> We do not have any "conculsive" outcomes per se, other than
> confirming our common positions and consensuses made
> with our statements, but had rich debates and brain storming.
>
> After that most of us went for a dinner and it was just finished.
>
> For Wednesday, we agreed to meet at 9 am at the GIC, the conference
> center, the venue of CSTD consultation meeting to further exchange
> our views after MAG closed meeting on Tuesday.
>
> Will keep you with reporting,
>
> izumi
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101121/c73eb74e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From dogwallah at gmail.com  Mon Nov 22 00:40:51 2010
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 08:40:51 +0300
Subject: [governance] Fwd: [ PFIR ] Sci American: Web's inventor calls for
 openness, neutrality, privacy
In-Reply-To: <20101122045300.GB16853@vortex.com>
References: <20101122045300.GB16853@vortex.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTinaTeZLJAZzTSSoV_qpE8LNuQGNLb_6_72XciKQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

Very good read IMO.

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route
indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: <pfir at pfir.org>
Date: Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 7:53 AM
Subject: [ PFIR ] Sci American: Web's inventor calls for openness,
neutrality, privacy
To: pfir-list at pfir.org




Sci American: Web's inventor calls for openness, neutrality, privacy

http://bit.ly/aYtV2t  (Scientific American)

--Lauren--
Lauren Weinstein (lauren at vortex.com)
http://www.vortex.com/lauren
Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800
Co-Founder, PFIR (People For Internet Responsibility): http://www.pfir.org
Founder, NNSquad (Network Neutrality Squad): http://www.nnsquad.org
Founder, GCTIP (Global Coalition for Transparent Internet Performance):
  http://www.gctip.org
Founder, PRIVACY Forum: http://www.vortex.com
Member, ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy
Lauren's Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com
Twitter: https://twitter.com/laurenweinstein
Google Buzz: http://bit.ly/lauren-buzz

_______________________________________________
pfir mailing list
http://lists.pfir.org/mailman/listinfo/pfir
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101122/ff741fcf/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From iza at anr.org  Mon Nov 22 04:46:35 2010
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 18:46:35 +0900
Subject: [governance] IGF consultation starting
Message-ID: <AANLkTimKHNtP1JVoWsAeUOdEXEQkMgGTwxXpw4FRAFY+@mail.gmail.com>

After making a long que to enter the Palais de Nation, I finally got
in 40 min delay.
Markus is reading the summary of the past five years, one by one, and now
he recognized the outstanding effort of Ginger and Marilia for the
remote participation
organizing work for IGF Vilnius meeting. Big applause followed.
Thank you Ginver, Marilia and all!

izumi
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From mariliamaciel at gmail.com  Mon Nov 22 09:20:48 2010
From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 12:20:48 -0200
Subject: [governance] IGF consultation starting
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimKHNtP1JVoWsAeUOdEXEQkMgGTwxXpw4FRAFY+@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTimKHNtP1JVoWsAeUOdEXEQkMgGTwxXpw4FRAFY+@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=rFV58eS1b83ZK3KiMzWV3d_8_PvttdcRkzy4w@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks CS and IGC for the support! By including remote participation in
statements and publicly recognizing its importance you gave us conditions to
move the initiative forward.

Best!

Marília

On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 7:46 AM, Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org> wrote:

> After making a long que to enter the Palais de Nation, I finally got
> in 40 min delay.
> Markus is reading the summary of the past five years, one by one, and now
> he recognized the outstanding effort of Ginger and Marilia for the
> remote participation
> organizing work for IGF Vilnius meeting. Big applause followed.
> Thank you Ginver, Marilia and all!
>
> izumi
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>



-- 
Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
FGV Direito Rio

Center for Technology and Society
Getulio Vargas Foundation
Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101122/cbf8d210/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From gpaque at gmail.com  Mon Nov 22 09:23:57 2010
From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque)
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 09:53:57 -0430
Subject: [governance] IGF consultation starting
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=rFV58eS1b83ZK3KiMzWV3d_8_PvttdcRkzy4w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTimKHNtP1JVoWsAeUOdEXEQkMgGTwxXpw4FRAFY+@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTi=rFV58eS1b83ZK3KiMzWV3d_8_PvttdcRkzy4w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4CEA7CFD.5090209@paque.net>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101122/4820c395/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From iza at anr.org  Mon Nov 22 09:41:01 2010
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 23:41:01 +0900
Subject: [governance] IGF consultation starting
In-Reply-To: <4CEA7CFD.5090209@paque.net>
References: <AANLkTimKHNtP1JVoWsAeUOdEXEQkMgGTwxXpw4FRAFY+@mail.gmail.com>
 <AANLkTi=rFV58eS1b83ZK3KiMzWV3d_8_PvttdcRkzy4w@mail.gmail.com> <4CEA7CFD.5090209@paque.net>
Message-ID: <AANLkTinOuhZ95bdg4Xr3s4Rhb8HuWZ3NeqDDVd8Wnz13@mail.gmail.com>

You may have heard my reading the IGC statement, which specifically
mentioned on both Ginger and Marilia taking the leadership and showed
the precedence. You really did.

izumi

2010/11/22 Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com>:
> Yes, I agree with Marilia, CS and IGC support for remote participation has
> been very important. We appreciate your involvement to make it work. gp
>
> On 11/22/2010 9:50 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote:
>
> Thanks CS and IGC for the support! By including remote participation in
> statements and publicly recognizing its importance you gave us conditions to
> move the initiative forward.
>
> Best!
>
> Marília
>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From iza at anr.org  Mon Nov 22 10:09:14 2010
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 00:09:14 +0900
Subject: [governance] IGF consultation starting
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinOuhZ95bdg4Xr3s4Rhb8HuWZ3NeqDDVd8Wnz13@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTimKHNtP1JVoWsAeUOdEXEQkMgGTwxXpw4FRAFY+@mail.gmail.com>
 <AANLkTi=rFV58eS1b83ZK3KiMzWV3d_8_PvttdcRkzy4w@mail.gmail.com>
 <4CEA7CFD.5090209@paque.net> <AANLkTinOuhZ95bdg4Xr3s4Rhb8HuWZ3NeqDDVd8Wnz13@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTint+9DtTiqxbNb7i1NbcWDdQ=4mySY7L713+7bN@mail.gmail.com>

Below is the text I read in the afternoon session, on IGF stocktaking
and way forward.

Agenda 2.   Taking stock of the Vilnius meeting (what worked well,
what worked less well)
What worked well – remote hub, transcripts in all rooms, roundtable
Not well -
Agenda 3.   Suggestions for the 2011 IGF meeting (provided the IGF
mandate be extended)

-------

My name is Izumi Aizu, the newly elected co-coordinator of the
Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus –

We would like to extend our appreciation to the local host of IGF
Vilnius, not only the government of Vilnius, but the private sector
and civil society people there.

On the future of IGF, we like to see improved, stronger link between
workshops and main sessions – including the possibility of doing all
or most workshops up front say in the first two days, and then
feedback the outcomes to the main sessions later two days.

We also like suggest to obligate more strictly that all workshop
organisers to provide summaries that will be fed to main sessions and
to the whole IGF outcome.

We also like to point out that the MAG and the Secretariat are
strongly encouraged to directly foster discussion and debate on
difficult issues in the main session, instead of avoiding them.

In this context, IGC also like to see that we try to come-up with
“messages” or recommendations in certain areas where all stakeholders
could reach [rough] consensus. They will not be binding, but could
still function as a model or common framework. The working process
towards achieving the consensus will create better and deeper
understandings amongst different stakeholders.

Let us give more weight to regional and national IGF meetings. Making
more direct “links” to the main IGF meeting will help outreach to
those who have not yet involved in IGF process. The same level of
working framework of IGF, such as multi-stakeholder composition and
inclusion of civil society groups (where such practice is relatively
new or scarce) should be maintained.

The remote hubs and moderators at the Vilnius IGF made good progress.
We are proud to have our civil society members, Ginger and Marilia in
particular, took strong leadership for the remote moderation, thus
setting a good precedence to follow.

Further more, we like to propose to try to organize some sessions
completely online. This will create “level playing field” among all
participants everyone becomes remote and there is no “center”, and may
also demonstrate the effectiveness of these tools/technologies, and
may also improve the quality of services in turn.

Finally, we have another bold suggestion: That is to increase
linguistic diversity. Currently, English is the only default working
language, but we think it does not have to be so. How about using UN
major languages other than English at certain meetings and occasions
as main working language including, perhaps, the scripts (translated
into other UN languages). This will increase the outreach to
non-English speaking population globally and will give more sense of
ownership.
Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus would like to continue to
work with other stakeholders to the improvement of IGF processes
together with the enhanced cooperation processes.

Thank you.

------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From iza at anr.org  Mon Nov 22 10:17:16 2010
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 00:17:16 +0900
Subject: [governance] Markus to quit the IGF Secretariat
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=CcUP95zbh5tUxJC=MX48=HAGpFCpK8cxm_Yig@mail.gmail.com>

This morning, in the beginning, Markus announced that he is going to
"retire" from IGF secretariat.

The following is the script already on the IGF website.

izumi
----

Let me also take advantage of this opportunity to inform you what I
told several of
you personally already, that I will quit my present function in
January.  I had learned
a few months back that I reach U.N. retirement age next August, and after some
reflection, I came to the conclusion it would not make much sense
hanging on till
August, which will be shortly before the Nairobi meeting.

Our hosts, our presumptive hosts propose dates end of September.  So I
will leave
at the end of the first cycle, and the new team will be able to take over.

----
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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 Nov 22 10:37:34 2010
From: ceo at bnnrc.net (AHM Bazlur Rahman)
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 21:37:34 +0600
Subject: [governance] Markus to quit the IGF Secretariat
References: <AANLkTi=CcUP95zbh5tUxJC=MX48=HAGpFCpK8cxm_Yig@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BA04428DE6644553A99BA6275850C795@CEO>

Dear Izumi,
This is very sad news regarding Mr. Markus Kumar  quit the IGF secretariat.
Bazlu
_________________________
AHM. Bazlur Rahman-S21BR
Chief Executive Officer
Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio and Communication (BNNRC)
[NGO in Special Consultative Status with the UN Economic and Social Council]
&
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
Cell: 01711881647 Fax: 88-02-9138501-105
E-mail: ceo at bnnrc.net www.bnnrc.net


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Izumi AIZU" <iza at anr.org>
To: "Governance List" <governance at lists.cpsr.org>
Sent: Monday, November 22, 2010 9:17 PM
Subject: [governance] Markus to quit the IGF Secretariat


> This morning, in the beginning, Markus announced that he is going to
> "retire" from IGF secretariat.
>
> The following is the script already on the IGF website.
>
> izumi
> ----
>
> Let me also take advantage of this opportunity to inform you what I
> told several of
> you personally already, that I will quit my present function in
> January.  I had learned
> a few months back that I reach U.N. retirement age next August, and after 
> some
> reflection, I came to the conclusion it would not make much sense
> hanging on till
> August, which will be shortly before the Nairobi meeting.
>
> Our hosts, our presumptive hosts propose dates end of September.  So I
> will leave
> at the end of the first cycle, and the new team will be able to take over.
>
> ----
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 iza at anr.org  Mon Nov 22 11:54:21 2010
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 01:54:21 +0900
Subject: [governance] Our comment on MAG non-governmental member selection
Message-ID: <AANLkTik7eLOnAsefWPV6jw7MGftqN7A4gfA=WJY8Doa3@mail.gmail.com>

Below is the comment I made on behalf of IGC, on MAG selection of
non-governmental members.

Thanks,

izumi

----------------

An alternative approach to "black box" approach we proposed in the
questionnaire is the selection of MAG representatives through a bottom-up
process driven by the stakeholder groups, subject to appropriate criteria to
ensure regional and gender balance and a diversity of viewpoints.

For the implementation for the Civil Society members, various different
models are being debated among us. These include

1) the reestablishment of a civil society umbrella group such as the
WSIS civil society plenary and let this body to form nomcom function

2) the use of an independent nominating committee

3) Internet Governance Caucus itself can take such assignment, we are
willing to work together with any other like-minded group – we have
Nomcom worked for CSTD WG nomination and be ready for MAG nomination

----------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From iza at anr.org  Mon Nov 22 12:02:41 2010
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 02:02:41 +0900
Subject: [governance] Session ending - Tomorrow MAG meeting open for observer
Message-ID: <AANLkTikhRAqT-GHnaLh6d2wPd90n3Sj6ObFzZ3b6o14O@mail.gmail.com>

After round of discussions mostly on the selection of MAG members,
and associated issues, Markus is going to close the session now.
(They have to stop at 6 pm sharp for the translators).

Coming schedule according to Markus:

Next consultation of Feb 23 and 24 in Geneva
- assuming IGF mandate be extended.

WSIS Forum 16-20,  May, thus likely to have IGF consultation on May 12 and 13.

Planning meeting: end of June or early July - subject to confirmation.

Bill Drake  - Thanked for Markus

Big round of applause with standing ovation,

Markus - you can meet with me on other opportunity in other functions.

izumi


END,
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From shahzad at bytesforall.net  Mon Nov 22 12:19:25 2010
From: shahzad at bytesforall.net (Shahzad Ahmad)
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 22:19:25 +0500
Subject: [governance] Our comment on MAG non-governmental member
 selection
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTik7eLOnAsefWPV6jw7MGftqN7A4gfA=WJY8Doa3@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTik7eLOnAsefWPV6jw7MGftqN7A4gfA=WJY8Doa3@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <00d001cb8a69$6c7ef590$457ce0b0$@net>

This is fantastic Izumi. Fully agreed, particularly the 3rd option is best
as the IGC NomCom did wonderfully well for the CSTD WG nomination.

Best wishes
Shahzad


-----Original Message-----
From: izumiaizu at gmail.com [mailto:izumiaizu at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Izumi
AIZU
Sent: Monday, November 22, 2010 9:54 PM
To: Governance List
Subject: [governance] Our comment on MAG non-governmental member selection

Below is the comment I made on behalf of IGC, on MAG selection of
non-governmental members.

Thanks,

izumi

----------------

An alternative approach to "black box" approach we proposed in the
questionnaire is the selection of MAG representatives through a bottom-up
process driven by the stakeholder groups, subject to appropriate criteria to
ensure regional and gender balance and a diversity of viewpoints.

For the implementation for the Civil Society members, various different
models are being debated among us. These include

1) the reestablishment of a civil society umbrella group such as the
WSIS civil society plenary and let this body to form nomcom function

2) the use of an independent nominating committee

3) Internet Governance Caucus itself can take such assignment, we are
willing to work together with any other like-minded group - we have
Nomcom worked for CSTD WG nomination and be ready for MAG nomination

----------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t=

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From email at hakik.org  Mon Nov 22 12:35:50 2010
From: email at hakik.org (Hakikur Rahman)
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 17:35:50 +0000
Subject: [governance] Our comment on MAG non-governmental member
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTik7eLOnAsefWPV6jw7MGftqN7A4gfA=WJY8Doa3@mail.gmail.c
 om>
References: <AANLkTik7eLOnAsefWPV6jw7MGftqN7A4gfA=WJY8Doa3@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20101122173647.0CA099016C@npogroups.org>

Thanks Izumi for your update!

A fair agenda as the alternate to the "block box" 
approach. I hope IGC will be able to take these assignments.

Best regards,
Hakikur

At 04:54 PM 11/22/2010, Izumi AIZU wrote:
>Below is the comment I made on behalf of IGC, on MAG selection of
>non-governmental members.
>
>Thanks,
>
>izumi
>
>----------------
>
>An alternative approach to "black box" approach we proposed in the
>questionnaire is the selection of MAG representatives through a bottom-up
>process driven by the stakeholder groups, subject to appropriate criteria to
>ensure regional and gender balance and a diversity of viewpoints.
>
>For the implementation for the Civil Society members, various different
>models are being debated among us. These include
>
>1) the reestablishment of a civil society umbrella group such as the
>WSIS civil society plenary and let this body to form nomcom function
>
>2) the use of an independent nominating committee
>
>3) Internet Governance Caucus itself can take such assignment, we are
>willing to work together with any other like-minded group ­ we have
>Nomcom worked for CSTD WG nomination and be ready for MAG nomination
>
>----------------
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 nkurunziza1999 at yahoo.fr  Mon Nov 22 13:20:33 2010
From: nkurunziza1999 at yahoo.fr (Jean Paul NKURUNZIZA)
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 18:20:33 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?R=E9f.:_Re:_[governance]?= Markus to quit the IGF
 Secretariat
Message-ID: <200109.17843.qm@web25904.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>

Oh, really sad to know that Markus Kummer is going to leave IGF secretariat ! 
I believe he has well conducted the IGF process in an inclusive way. 

Regards

Le lun. 22 nov 2010 16:37 CET, AHM Bazlur Rahman a écrit :

>Dear Izumi,
>This is very sad news regarding Mr. Markus Kumar  quit the IGF secretariat.
>Bazlu
>_________________________
>AHM. Bazlur Rahman-S21BR
>Chief Executive Officer
>Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio and Communication (BNNRC)
>[NGO in Special Consultative Status with the UN Economic and Social Council]
>&
>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
>Cell: 01711881647 Fax: 88-02-9138501-105
>E-mail: ceo at bnnrc.net www.bnnrc.net
>
>
>----- Original Message ----- 
>From: "Izumi AIZU" <iza at anr.org>
>To: "Governance List" <governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>Sent: Monday, November 22, 2010 9:17 PM
>Subject: [governance] Markus to quit the IGF Secretariat
>
>
>> This morning, in the beginning, Markus announced that he is going to
>> "retire" from IGF secretariat.
>>
>> The following is the script already on the IGF website.
>>
>> izumi
>> ----
>>
>> Let me also take advantage of this opportunity to inform you what I
>> told several of
>> you personally already, that I will quit my present function in
>> January.  I had learned
>> a few months back that I reach U.N. retirement age next August, and after 
>> some
>> reflection, I came to the conclusion it would not make much sense
>> hanging on till
>> August, which will be shortly before the Nairobi meeting.
>>
>> Our hosts, our presumptive hosts propose dates end of September.  So I
>> will leave
>> at the end of the first cycle, and the new team will be able to take over.
>>
>> ----
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 tina.dam at icann.org  Mon Nov 22 13:37:20 2010
From: tina.dam at icann.org (Tina Dam)
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 10:37:20 -0800
Subject: [governance] Comment from Bulgaria to ICANN fast-track review
In-Reply-To: <21721.87.119.100.253.1290279065.squirrel@pismo.bg>
References: <20059.87.119.100.253.1290277159.squirrel@pismo.bg>
 <21721.87.119.100.253.1290279065.squirrel@pismo.bg>
Message-ID: <05B243F724B2284986522B6ACD0504D7D34F950E52@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>

Hi Stoyan, thank you for participating in the Fast Track Review. I don't know how familiar you are with ICANN public reviews, but at the end of the comment period staff will analyze all suggestions made and provide a proposal of appropriate changes to the process, based on received comments. This will be made publicly available, and at the end the final proposals will be provided for ICANN Board considerations.

Participation in these kind of public forums is hence essential.

About your specific concern I can assure you that all requests in the fast track process are carefully evaluated against all of the established and required criteria. There are no exceptions to this. 

If you feel that the rumors you have heard are substantiated in some way then please provide me with some more details and I will investigate why someone has started such rumors and attempt to get it closed. I am in direct contact with the DNS Stability panel and can assure you that they are doing very careful analysis, separately, of each and every request.

Kind regards,

Tina Dam
Senior Director IDNs

Mobile: +1-310-862-2026
Voice: +1-310-301-5838
ICANN | 4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330 | Marina del Rey, CA 90292



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stoyan Danev [mailto:stoyan_danev at pismo.bg]
> Sent: Saturday, November 20, 2010 10:51 AM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: [governance] Comment from Bulgaria to ICANN fast-track review
> process
> 
> Dear All,
> 
> Here is my comment to the ICANN fast-track review process.
> 
> Think it might be useful for this list.
> 
> Cheers,
> Stoyan
> 
> > Dear Sirs,
> >
> > A few months ago the Bulgarian application under the IDN ccTLD fast-
> track
> > program was rejected due to alleged similarity between the proposed
> IDN
> > ccTLD string and others that exist now. The Bulgarian community has
> > clearly demonstrated that selecting another string is unacceptable
> and if
> > the proposed one is not approved, Bulgaria will remain WITHOUT an IDN
> > ccTLD. This is really against the ICANN policy of making Internet
> > accessible to everyone.
> >
> > Currently there are no re-evaluation or objection mechanism for
> declined
> > IDN ccTLD requests. ICANN says that primary reason for this is that
> the
> > Fast Track Process is considered an interim process, short-termed for
> > those countries and territories where there is no controversy with
> > implementing IDN ccTLDs.
> >
> > Well, the whole Bulgarian community supports the proposed string, a
> lot of
> > international experts agreed there is no similarity between the
> string and
> > any other existing domains!
> >
> > I strongly support a re-evaluation in the fast-track process for
> strings,
> > that were rejected by the DNS Stability panel.
> >
> > 2. When the confusingly similar string review for the Bulgarian
> > application was done by the DNS Stability panel, the Bulgarian
> community
> > didn`t see any grounds behind the panel`s rejection! This is going
> way
> > beyond the ICANN transparency mechanisms, as such decision does not
> comply
> > with them.
> > Moreover, rumors say the panel didn`t review the string at all - they
> just
> > ASSUMED similarity for any IDN ccTLDs in Cyrillic or Greek with the
> length
> > of 2 characters!!! So I don`t see any DNS Stability Panel working
> > guidelines here as the ICANN announcement says - just assumptions.
> This is
> > not right!
> >
> > Please see this tool, provided by the Unicode Consortium:
> >
> >
> http://unicode.org/cldr/utility/confusables.jsp?a=%D0%B1%D0%B3&r=IDNA20
> 08
> >
> > There is a similarity only in the second character - the Cyrillic
> "G". The
> > first one - "B" only looks like the digit "6".
> >
> > The DNS Stability panel has already approved an IDN ccTLD in the same
> > situation -  the Russian .rf (.рф) -
> >
> http://unicode.org/cldr/utility/confusables.jsp?a=%D1%80%D1%84&r=IDNA20
> 08
> >
> > Where the letter "r" is similar to the Latin r, and the letter "f" is
> not
> > similar.
> >
> >
> > These are my thoughts under the review of the IDN ccTLD Fast Track
> Process
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Stoyan
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Stoyan Danev
> > Freelance developer from Bulgaria
> >
> > Email me at: stoyan_danev at pismo.bg
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 vanda at uol.com.br  Mon Nov 22 15:28:25 2010
From: vanda at uol.com.br (Vanda UOL)
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 18:28:25 -0200
Subject: RES: AW: [governance] Consensus Call for CSTD IGF Questionnaire -
In-Reply-To: <4CE7B4C4.9030904@nic.br>
References: <AANLkTinyo=oKJoJiz2wVHikpv7-nYBwgq+cf7p6qrj16@mail.gmail.com>	<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07448@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>	<4CE66370.40506@itforchange.net>	<AANLkTi=sDZiaxeD6R0=vrZVpaHmHMJn_s_y=D=EbWBqg@mail.gmail.com>	<7A412AD0-B27E-4CAA-B3A8-AA21B8AB8BF0@psg.com> <AANLkTinJzzkD-Ud6rB-zCf1SYesGeoSO-6FkjiMo+H5u@mail.gmail.com> <4CE6B169.9050105@nupef.org.br> <4CE7B4C4.9030904@nic.br>
Message-ID: <027e01cb8a83$d353e270$79fba750$@uol.com.br>

Good to have an insider point of view Glaser. Thanks for that.

Vanda Scartezini
Polo Consultores Associados
IT Trend
Alameda Santos 1470 – 1407,8
01418-903 São Paulo,SP, Brasil
Tel + 5511 3266.6253
Mob + 55118181.1464


-----Mensagem original-----
De: Hartmut Glaser [mailto:glaser at nic.br] 
Enviada em: sábado, 20 de novembro de 2010 09:45
Para: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Graciela Selaimen
Assunto: Re: AW: [governance] Consensus Call for CSTD IGF Questionnaire -


Dear All,

I attend the preparatory eLAC 2015 Meeting last September in Montevideo at have a very positive impression. Next week in Lima will be the 'high level' 
Ministries Summit for the final
approval of the eLAC 2015 Project.  I thing that Graciela used wrong or partial information to say is a meaningless space, especially for the discussion on IG. This was not the case at the preparatory meeting in Montevideo and many  IC/IG points were included at the agenda.

All the best

Hartmut Glaser
Brazilian Internet Steering Committee

==========================================================
> Hi,
>
> I have the same impression of ECLAC in regards to Latin America - a 
> meaningless space, especially for the discussion on IG.
> I totally agree with Fouad's last paragraph. For us, in LAC region, 
> many concerns remain very similar to Athens. Others, such as the 
> increasing of surveillance and attempts to control the Internet and 
> criminalize its users surfaced during this 5 yers period and I think 
> we must address them more concretely - and "evolve into something more 
> meaningful", as Fouad said.
>
> Best regards,
> Graciela Selaimen
>
> Em 11/19/10 2:15 PM, Fouad Bajwa escreveu:
>> SAARC for us in South Asia remains the same meaningless meeting point 
>> exploited by elites and so called representatives of South Asian 
>> nations to keep everyone busy in discussion leading nothing anywhere.
>> The political, social and economic situations of the 8 member 
>> countries tell the wonderful story of the failure of this so called 
>> SAUnion.
>>
>> The model may work well for African, Latin/CT and European 
>> citizens/members but not for this part of the world. ASEAN tends to 
>> be more stronger in Asia Pacific. Really, do we have to be orthodox 
>> and step back into the systems and unions of the non-internet 
>> oriented era whereas we can progress towards forming an institution 
>> more contextual, responsive and engaged in Internet and its context 
>> only related issues?
>>
>> Maybe a bridge out of that institution may exist that can link all 
>> these institutional models of the past that really haven't helped 
>> much and the global financial meltdown, recession and now struggling 
>> bonds and interest based hair-cuts are blowing the sanity out of them?
>>
>> It may be wise to step back for once and recap what has happened in 
>> the past 5 years with regards to the IGF. Athens was the 
>> strong-point, Vilnius, though lots of improvements and opportunities 
>> also portrayed how many years back things might fall if not improved 
>> for the next five years.
>>
>> The issue remains valid. We need the developing world voices to voice 
>> our concerns and for us our concerns remain very similar to Athens, 
>> we want something from the IGF........its open, inclusive and 
>> participative dialogue on IG and related issues is 
>> wonderful........but where do we go from here? Do we stay the same 
>> way or do we learn from our regional IGFs that there is an 
>> opportunity to evolve into something more meaningful where messages 
>> and recommendations with working groups are being felt to be the 
>> first step and way forward?
>>
>> --- Best
>>
>> Fouad
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 2:26 PM, Avri Doria<avri at psg.com>  wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> This seems to make a lot of sense to me.
>>>
>>> I also wonder, what did people think of the suggestion I made that 
>>> developing nations also work through the regional intergovernmental 
>>> organizations that their nations belong to, of which i believe there 
>>> are scores e.g.:
>>>
>>> African Union
>>> ASEAN
>>> D-8
>>> SIDS
>>> USAN
>>> ...
>>>
>>> or  smaller groups like
>>>
>>> CARICOM (The Caribbean Community)
>>> Indian Ocean Commission
>>> SAARC (South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation) SADC 
>>> (Southern African Development Community) ECOWAS (Economic Community 
>>> of Central African States) ECLAC (Economic Commission of Latin 
>>> America and Caribbean)
>>>
>>>
>>> Wouldn't this complement the work being done in COE and OECD etc and 
>>> make sure that everyone was invovled and that the development 
>>> perspective was heard and reinforced?  What am I missing?
>>>
>>> a.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 19 Nov 2010, at 13:30, Baudouin SCHOMBE wrote:
>>>
>>>> I totally notice with your argument, Parminder, when you explain 
>>>> the need for participation of developing countries in discussions 
>>>> to defend their interests.
>>>> It is for this reason that I insisted on national and regional IGF 
>>>> before world  IGF.
>>>> In this way, civil society can come to mobilize actors at both 
>>>> national and regional levels through training workshops and 
>>>> multi-stakeholder forum on issues of Internet governance.
>>>> This work must be done in synergy with the IGC, to convey the same 
>>>> information while allowing the flexibility to respond to national 
>>>> and express their views.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> BAUDOUIN
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2010/11/19 parminder<parminder at itforchange.net>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thursday 18 November 2010 01:52 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
>>>>> Hi everybody
>>>>>
>>>>> thanks for the work. I am sorry that I jump in in a very late 
>>>>> stage. I have three comments:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. 3a: The old debate on receommendations is not really helpful. 
>>>>> In the past CS tried also to use the terminology "messages".
>>>>>
>>>> Wolfgang
>>>>
>>>>   Global CS did never abandon the concept of recommendations in the 
>>>> IGF context, though at places 'messages' may also have been used.
>>>> Recommendations (or 'recommend') is mentioned in the Tunis Agenda's 
>>>> mandate for the IGF and we seem to have largely supported it, in 
>>>> some form or the other.
>>>>>   The problem is as soon as you introduce a process to negotiate a 
>>>>> text which then has been the subject of voting you change the 
>>>>> nature of the the whole event. Even if you stress that these 
>>>>> receommendations will be not binding, this does not matter. In the 
>>>>> Un context (like in other intergovernmental mechanisms) the 
>>>>> category "receommednation" is well defined and you can not avoid 
>>>>> that an IGF recommendation is seen as something similar to what 
>>>>> other Un bodies are doing with receommendations. Again I prefer 
>>>>> the "message". BTW, I will circulate later this week the Interim 
>>>>> Report of the Council of Europe Cross Border Expert Group where we 
>>>>> propose also the elaboration of some instruments. The Council of 
>>>>> Europe - or other organisations with an established procedure to 
>>>>> negotiat texts - are a better place for such an excercise.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Sure, it may be a better place. But I or my country in not in the 
>>>> CoE (though CoE instruments finally do impact me). So which 'better 
>>>> place' do you think I can look upto? Can you please provide me an 
>>>> answer to this.
>>>>
>>>> I continue to be (unpleasantly) surprised at the manner in which 
>>>> the concerns of developing countries in terms of their 
>>>> non-participation in global policy making and the global shaping of 
>>>> the ICT pehnomenon is ignored so blatantly, in a group which wants 
>>>> to describe itself as a global civil society group.
>>>>
>>>> We may all glibly talk about development issues or IG for 
>>>> development. Pl take note that in the IGF plenary on IG for 
>>>> development the prime issue which came up was that IG for 
>>>> development first of all means due participation of developing 
>>>> countries in global IG related policy making (see the Chairman's 
>>>> summary). What does the IGC plan to do on this issue? Ask us to 
>>>> watch and cheer on CoE and OECD policy making processes?
>>>>
>>>> I can still understand the stand of someone like Milton (though I 
>>>> do not agree with it) who is a bit afraid of supporting new 
>>>> institutional development for democratic global policy making as 
>>>> coming out of the current 'core' UN configurations (which is why he 
>>>> is afraid of the enhanced cooperation or EC process), even as an 
>>>> positively evolutionary process (which is my considered expectation 
>>>> of the EC process). Because he does, correspondingly, support a 
>>>> more open, diverse, multistakeholder process like the IGF making 
>>>> some clear positive contributions towards development of global 
>>>> Internet policies through making policy recommendations.
>>>>
>>>> What I cant understand is the position of those who both oppose the 
>>>> EC process (in whichever evolutionary form) as well as oppose 
>>>> possibilities of the IGF making recommendations (I see Wolfgang, 
>>>> Katitza, Bill, Jeanette among others state that position). 
>>>> Moreover, they all seem to closely associate with OECD/ CoE policy 
>>>> making processes, which are in fact much less open, transparent, 
>>>> multistakeholder etc than even the 'enhanced cooperation' model 
>>>> which, for instance, I proposed and they strongly resisted.
>>>>
>>>> I am unable to understand why a comity of powerful nations needs 
>>>> specific well-structured systems of making inter-country policies 
>>>> (which then become default global ones) and all countires as a 
>>>> global group, which (unfortunately?)  include developing countries, 
>>>> should not aspire to any such structures. So, it appears, that 
>>>> while (global?) CS should enthusiastically support the former (CoE 
>>>> / OECD kind of process) it is presented as its bounden duty to 
>>>> strongly oppose any such - or in fact structurally even much better 
>>>> - institutional developments  at the global level.
>>>>
>>>> And I also do hope that the IGC members form developing countries 
>>>> both increase their participation in IGC kind of groups, and become 
>>>> more vocal in articulating their interests.
>>>>
>>>> parminder
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> 2. 6a: I thin SOC has an IGF Fellowship Programm.
>>>>>
>>>>> 3. Under nine we could say that we ould like to see that the IGF 
>>>>> enhances its function and could become, inter alia, an 
>>>>> observatory, a clearinghouse, an early warning system and a watchdog.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry for the late reply. If it is too late then ignore it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best wishes
>>>>>
>>>>> wolfgang
>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>>
>>>>> Von:
>>>>> izumiaizu at gmail.com
>>>>>   im Auftrag von Izumi AIZU
>>>>> Gesendet: Do 18.11.2010 03:13
>>>>> An:
>>>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>>>
>>>>> Betreff: [governance] Consensus Call for CSTD IGF Questionnaire - 
>>>>> Clean version
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Here follows are the Clean version of the Final Draft for the CSTD 
>>>>> IGF
>>>>> questionnaire answer
>>>>> in full text. Sorry for the confusion.
>>>>>
>>>>> Please respond if you agree or disagree as soon as possible.  
>>>>> Friday, Nov 19
>>>>> is the deadline for submission. More comments are also very much 
>>>>> appreciated
>>>>> as we can further feed them into the Consultation meetings next 
>>>>> week in Geneva.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>
>>>>> izumi
>>>>>
>>>>> ------------
>>>>>
>>>>> FINAL Draft for Questionnaire on improvements to the IGF
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. What do you consider the most important achievements of the first
>>>>> five IGF meetings?
>>>>>
>>>>> IGF created the space for dialogue by all stakeholders in an open,
>>>>> inclusive manner. These emergence and development of the
>>>>> multistakeholder principle and practice are perhaps the biggest
>>>>> contribution IGF has achieved so far. It helped many participants to
>>>>> understand the issues of their interest, as well as to understand how
>>>>> other actors understand, act and accept their issues. Emergence of
>>>>> Regional and National IGF with multistakeholder approach is another
>>>>> achievement.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. How satisfied are you with the delivery of the results of
>>>>> discussions at the IGF and the impact they have had on 
>>>>> developments in
>>>>> national, regional or international Internet governance?
>>>>>
>>>>> IGF has made a reasonable advancement of the understanding of the
>>>>> issues. Yet, at national, regional and international levels, we have
>>>>> mixed assessment for the impact it brought.
>>>>>
>>>>> 3. Which, if any, new mechanisms would you propose to improve the
>>>>> impact of the IGF discussions, in particular as regards the
>>>>> interaction between the IGF and other stakeholders? Please specify 
>>>>> the
>>>>> kind of mechanism (e.g. reporting, exchanges, recommendations,
>>>>> concrete advice, etc.) and the stakeholders (e.g. intergovernmental
>>>>> bodies, other fora dealing with Internet Governance, etc.).
>>>>>
>>>>> a) One mechanism we can suggest is to come up with some form of
>>>>> recommendations where all stakeholders have [rough] consensus. They
>>>>> will not be binding, but could still function as model, reference or
>>>>> common framework. Working process towards achieving these rough
>>>>> consensus will create better and deeper understandings amongst
>>>>> different stakeholders.
>>>>>
>>>>> b) The Secretariat and MAG should be strongly encouraged to directly
>>>>> foster discussion and debate of difficult issues in main sessions,
>>>>> instead of avoiding them.
>>>>>
>>>>> 4. In your view, what important new issues or themes concerning
>>>>> Internet governance have emerged or become important since the Tunis
>>>>> phase of the Summit, which deserve more attention in the next five
>>>>> years?
>>>>>
>>>>> IGC feels that attention to the development agenda, issues concerning
>>>>> the marginalized groups or actors, have yet gained sufficient 
>>>>> level of
>>>>> work at IGF and its outcome. These may not be the "new" issues, 
>>>>> but we
>>>>> strongly feel they are very important.
>>>>>
>>>>> Besides them, emergence of new technologies, tools and services, such
>>>>> as cloud computing; user-generated, SNS and online sharing services
>>>>> such as wiki, YouTube, Ustream, twitter and Facebook; DPI and
>>>>> behavioral targeting advertisements; wide deployment of mobile
>>>>> services including smart phones and tablet computers pose all kind of
>>>>> new challenges for governance.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 5. What do you think should be the priority themes and areas of work
>>>>> of the IGF during the next five years?
>>>>>
>>>>> Followings will be the areas of themes and works that have 
>>>>> priorities we think.
>>>>> a) Enhancing multi-stakeholder framework within IGF.
>>>>> b) Promote capacity building for developmental agenda of governance
>>>>> c) Balancing the interests - to empower those of marginalized and
>>>>> under-developed in all organizations and fora dealing with Internet
>>>>> governance - such as ICANN, W3C, IETF, RIRs, ITU, WIPO, CoE, OECD,
>>>>> UNCTAD/CSTD and United Nations itself.
>>>>>
>>>>> 6. How can the capacity of those groups that are not yet well
>>>>> represented at the IGF be improved? In particular, what could be done
>>>>> to improve the capacity of representatives from developing countries?
>>>>>
>>>>> a) Establish special funding mechanism by IGF itself to help actors
>>>>> from developing countries to continuously engage in IGF and related
>>>>> organizations and meetings. Fellowship works carried out by
>>>>> DiploFoundation, dotAsia organization [other reference, please] and
>>>>> other institutions offer good reference for this, but they should be
>>>>> expanded in larger scale. Targeting youth groups or younger 
>>>>> generation
>>>>> in profession, will have, in the long run, effective impact.
>>>>>
>>>>> b) Providing technical training to policy makers and policy training
>>>>> to engineers will also help close the gap(s) within the
>>>>> under-represented and also even well-represented.
>>>>>
>>>>> 7. How do you think more awareness of Internet governance issues and
>>>>> the IGF process can be raised amongst groups whose lives are affected
>>>>> by Internet governance but who are not yet part of the IGF process?
>>>>>
>>>>> a) Giving more weight to regional and national IGF meetings, making
>>>>> more direct "links" to the main IGF meeting will help outreach to
>>>>> those who have not yet involved in IGF process. Securing the same
>>>>> level of working framework of IGF, such as multi-stakeholder
>>>>> composition and inclusion of civil society groups (where such 
>>>>> practice
>>>>> is relatively new or scarce) should be maintained.
>>>>>
>>>>> b) Ensuring a plurality of civil society voices be heard in Internet
>>>>> governance processes will also be effective in reaching out to those
>>>>> yet to participate.
>>>>>
>>>>> c) Online meetings are most effective when provision is made for
>>>>> participation both synchronously (ie. in real time) and
>>>>> asynchronously. The remote hubs and moderators at the Vilnius IGF 
>>>>> made
>>>>> good progress towards this direction. Using such tools as blogs,
>>>>> Twitter, mailing lists, Facebook and so on over an extended period 
>>>>> may
>>>>> also increase the awareness.
>>>>>
>>>>> d) Organizing some sessions completely online will create "level
>>>>> playing field" among all participants, and may also demonstrate the
>>>>> effectiveness of these tools/technologies, and may also improve the
>>>>> quality of services in turn.
>>>>>
>>>>> e) Increase linguistic diversity. Using UN major languages other than
>>>>> English at certain meetings and occasions as main working language
>>>>> (translated into other UN languages) will increase the outreach to
>>>>> non-English speaking population of the globe and will give more sense
>>>>> of ownership. Currently, English is the only default working 
>>>>> language,
>>>>> but we think it does not have to be so.
>>>>>
>>>>> 8. How, if at all, do you think that the IGF process needs to change
>>>>> to meet changing circumstances and priorities?
>>>>>
>>>>> As we replied to the MAG questionnaire, the organizing work of IGF
>>>>> primarily by MAG should be improved. More outcome oriented direction
>>>>> might improve the quality and value of IGF, but this should be
>>>>> carefully exercised so as not to lose the open and free spirit of IGF
>>>>> which contributed a great deal.
>>>>>
>>>>> 9. Do you have any other comments?
>>>>>
>>>>> No.
>>>>>
>>>>> END
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>       governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>       governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 aizu at anr.org  Mon Nov 22 16:16:27 2010
From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 06:16:27 +0900
Subject: [governance] Markus to quit the IGF Secretariat
In-Reply-To: <200109.17843.qm@web25904.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
References: <200109.17843.qm@web25904.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTikHjBF7XMC02ULG1zCb7TcCcSo2C4qgrFQms0rB@mail.gmail.com>

well, from what I have read between the lines, he may come back to
work for the IGF, if not the executive coordinator as such, but
with different capacity. IGF is his child, so to speak, and our child
as well. It's too precious to lose him or lose IGF.

izumi

2010/11/23 Jean Paul NKURUNZIZA <nkurunziza1999 at yahoo.fr>:
> Oh, really sad to know that Markus Kummer is going to leave IGF secretariat !
> I believe he has well conducted the IGF process in an inclusive way.
>
> Regards
>
> Le lun. 22 nov 2010 16:37 CET, AHM Bazlur Rahman a écrit :
>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From avri at acm.org  Mon Nov 22 16:44:18 2010
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 22:44:18 +0100
Subject: [governance] Markus to quit the IGF Secretariat
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikHjBF7XMC02ULG1zCb7TcCcSo2C4qgrFQms0rB@mail.gmail.com>
References: <200109.17843.qm@web25904.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <AANLkTikHjBF7XMC02ULG1zCb7TcCcSo2C4qgrFQms0rB@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <2843FA34-93E1-43D7-B9E0-8AADAB5A5219@acm.org>

really?
i did not get that impression.
hmmm.

a.

On 22 Nov 2010, at 22:16, Izumi AIZU wrote:

> well, from what I have read between the lines, he may come back to
> work for the IGF, if not the executive coordinator as such, but
> with different capacity. IGF is his child, so to speak, and our child
> as well. It's too precious to lose him or lose IGF.
> 
> izumi
> 
> 2010/11/23 Jean Paul NKURUNZIZA <nkurunziza1999 at yahoo.fr>:
>> Oh, really sad to know that Markus Kummer is going to leave IGF secretariat !
>> I believe he has well conducted the IGF process in an inclusive way.
>> 
>> Regards
>> 
>> Le lun. 22 nov 2010 16:37 CET, AHM Bazlur Rahman a écrit :
>> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 kichango at gmail.com  Mon Nov 22 18:12:20 2010
From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango)
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 18:12:20 -0500
Subject: [governance] Markus to quit the IGF Secretariat
In-Reply-To: <2843FA34-93E1-43D7-B9E0-8AADAB5A5219@acm.org>
References: <200109.17843.qm@web25904.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
	<AANLkTikHjBF7XMC02ULG1zCb7TcCcSo2C4qgrFQms0rB@mail.gmail.com>
	<2843FA34-93E1-43D7-B9E0-8AADAB5A5219@acm.org>
Message-ID: <AANLkTimdztg1i7YM1y-9=i4p20Af3Onfm=0TO1mLpcm6@mail.gmail.com>

Well, it is not unusual that retiring UN top professionals stick around to
serve as super consultants anyway, so I guess it's a reasonable assumption
to make. In the end it'll depend on the person who takes over.

m.

On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 4:44 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

> really?
> i did not get that impression.
> hmmm.
>
> a.
>
> On 22 Nov 2010, at 22:16, Izumi AIZU wrote:
>
> > well, from what I have read between the lines, he may come back to
> > work for the IGF, if not the executive coordinator as such, but
> > with different capacity. IGF is his child, so to speak, and our child
> > as well. It's too precious to lose him or lose IGF.
> >
> > izumi
> >
> > 2010/11/23 Jean Paul NKURUNZIZA <nkurunziza1999 at yahoo.fr>:
> >> Oh, really sad to know that Markus Kummer is going to leave IGF
> secretariat !
> >> I believe he has well conducted the IGF process in an inclusive way.
> >>
> >> Regards
> >>
> >> Le lun. 22 nov 2010 16:37 CET, AHM Bazlur Rahman a écrit :
> >>
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> >
> > For all list information and functions, see:
> >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> >
> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101122/def4112c/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From iza at anr.org  Tue Nov 23 04:27:28 2010
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 18:27:28 +0900
Subject: [governance] MAG "open" meeting
Message-ID: <AANLkTink7kW53jygYSezP4E8NqtFeTuPtZRcbo41qo7U@mail.gmail.com>

Upon our request, MAG agreed to allow us, observers, to get inside the room
and listen to the discussions.

Markus just kicking off, with the suggestion to make the default "open", and
also proposing live transcription be fed, with option of making it off, where
necessary.

This is great.

izumi
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From iza at anr.org  Tue Nov 23 04:29:50 2010
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 18:29:50 +0900
Subject: [governance] GA to pass resolution as early as tomorrow?
Message-ID: <AANLkTimc6FWix8XPox6kHykgFxw9JeN8xoq5Ayuj8O58@mail.gmail.com>

I chatted this morning with one of the government members of MAG,
and was told that the UN GA may pass the resolution as early as
Wednesday, that's tomorrow. AND, since G77+ China has been
very strong in pushing their position, it's likely that DESA will
assume the Secretariat - that may change the nature of IGF
to some extent.

This is still an unconfirmed information at all, but don't be surprised
if this happens.

izumi
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From rafik.dammak at gmail.com  Tue Nov 23 04:31:45 2010
From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 18:31:45 +0900
Subject: [governance] MAG "open" meeting
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTink7kW53jygYSezP4E8NqtFeTuPtZRcbo41qo7U@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTink7kW53jygYSezP4E8NqtFeTuPtZRcbo41qo7U@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTik8504KNdJGuwuqBThA=cLDZrK_yrsgO4mnW58q@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Aizu-san,

that is good news,
there is live transcription for this time or that will be for next time?

Regards

Rafik



2010/11/23 Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org>

> Upon our request, MAG agreed to allow us, observers, to get inside the room
> and listen to the discussions.
>
> Markus just kicking off, with the suggestion to make the default "open",
> and
> also proposing live transcription be fed, with option of making it off,
> where
> necessary.
>
> This is great.
>
> izumi
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101123/d09f3dd5/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From iza at anr.org  Tue Nov 23 04:39:12 2010
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 18:39:12 +0900
Subject: [governance] MAG "open" meeting
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTik8504KNdJGuwuqBThA=cLDZrK_yrsgO4mnW58q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTink7kW53jygYSezP4E8NqtFeTuPtZRcbo41qo7U@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTik8504KNdJGuwuqBThA=cLDZrK_yrsgO4mnW58q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTim=07_Fq6wrWkw4ujH2NHY5VY2nateoSgM1pGnB@mail.gmail.com>

Hi, with less participation from government members of MAG,
no one stood it against Markus's proposal.

Markus also proposed the live feed of transcripts, and there was no
opinion against, so live feed of transcript, or delayed by a few hours,
could happen.

izumi

2010/11/23 Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>:
> Hi Aizu-san,
> that is good news,
> there is live transcription for this time or that will be for next time?
> Regards
> Rafik
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From iza at anr.org  Tue Nov 23 04:41:25 2010
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 18:41:25 +0900
Subject: [governance] MAG "open" meeting
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTim=07_Fq6wrWkw4ujH2NHY5VY2nateoSgM1pGnB@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTink7kW53jygYSezP4E8NqtFeTuPtZRcbo41qo7U@mail.gmail.com>
 <AANLkTik8504KNdJGuwuqBThA=cLDZrK_yrsgO4mnW58q@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTim=07_Fq6wrWkw4ujH2NHY5VY2nateoSgM1pGnB@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTik90sdWvtQSheFAe9Wqnp1bsjCCYXKXteYs0TM+@mail.gmail.com>

AND, we agreed to follow the Chatham House rule, so we cannot provide
annotated reports, unless otherwise agreed.

Yet, if real "live" feed of transcripts happens, that Chatham rule will have no
meaning.

izumi


2010/11/23 Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org>:
> Hi, with less participation from government members of MAG,
> no one stood it against Markus's proposal.
>
> Markus also proposed the live feed of transcripts, and there was no
> opinion against, so live feed of transcript, or delayed by a few hours,
> could happen.
>
> izumi
>
> 2010/11/23 Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>:
>> Hi Aizu-san,
>> that is good news,
>> there is live transcription for this time or that will be for next time?
>> Regards
>> Rafik
>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From iza at anr.org  Tue Nov 23 05:08:04 2010
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 19:08:04 +0900
Subject: [governance] live feed to come...
Message-ID: <AANLkTim_tgc3QhED5fffy5qHpWXULT1D24v1me0HZkU_@mail.gmail.com>

Now MAG is discussing about "recommendation" and/or "messages".

Transcript feed URL should come to the IGF homepage shortly.

izumi
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From iza at anr.org  Tue Nov 23 05:14:29 2010
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 19:14:29 +0900
Subject: [governance] Live feed of transcripts of MAG meeting is now online
Message-ID: <AANLkTikNkwJFvTtMPHP90+w4139aLb++n_USpuCtO-4F@mail.gmail.com>

Here, you can read the text of MAG meeting, LIVE, now.
Thanks to the IGF secretariat.

http://www.streamtext.net/text.aspx?event=MAG23Nov2010Morning&chat=no

izumi
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch  Tue Nov 23 06:01:47 2010
From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake)
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 12:01:47 +0100
Subject: [governance] GA to pass resolution as early as tomorrow?
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimc6FWix8XPox6kHykgFxw9JeN8xoq5Ayuj8O58@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTimc6FWix8XPox6kHykgFxw9JeN8xoq5Ayuj8O58@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <407FACF9-4298-4E47-A69C-6211625F0E8D@graduateinstitute.ch>

Hi

On Nov 23, 2010, at 10:29 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote:

> I chatted this morning with one of the government members of MAG,
> and was told that the UN GA may pass the resolution as early as
> Wednesday, that's tomorrow. AND, since G77+ China has been
> very strong in pushing their position, it's likely that DESA will
> assume the Secretariat - that may change the nature of IGF
> to some extent.

Which is part of why I suggested several times that like ISOC and ICC, the IGC make a statement supporting an independent, MS-friendly secretariat in Geneva.  Not that this would have affected the outcome, but it might have been helpful in future contexts to be able to say all non-state stakeholders have expressed the same view.

> 
> This is still an unconfirmed information at all, but don't be surprised
> if this happens.

Or if there are other elements of enhanced intergovernmentalism.

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 ca at cafonso.ca  Tue Nov 23 06:02:46 2010
From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso)
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 09:02:46 -0200
Subject: [governance] GA to pass resolution as early as tomorrow?
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimc6FWix8XPox6kHykgFxw9JeN8xoq5Ayuj8O58@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTimc6FWix8XPox6kHykgFxw9JeN8xoq5Ayuj8O58@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4CEB9F56.7080803@cafonso.ca>

That *will* change the nature of the IGF -- why would China, which 
wishes to change the nature of the IGF, would keep pushing so hard for 
this? Spock says: it is only logical.

--c.a.

On 11/23/2010 07:29 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote:
> I chatted this morning with one of the government members of MAG,
> and was told that the UN GA may pass the resolution as early as
> Wednesday, that's tomorrow. AND, since G77+ China has been
> very strong in pushing their position, it's likely that DESA will
> assume the Secretariat - that may change the nature of IGF
> to some extent.
>
> This is still an unconfirmed information at all, but don't be surprised
> if this happens.
>
> izumi
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>       governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>       governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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
====================================
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 mariliamaciel at gmail.com  Tue Nov 23 06:09:56 2010
From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 09:09:56 -0200
Subject: [governance] Live feed of transcripts of MAG meeting is now
 online
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikNkwJFvTtMPHP90+w4139aLb++n_USpuCtO-4F@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTikNkwJFvTtMPHP90+w4139aLb++n_USpuCtO-4F@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=p-pBnLozR-bS-nmXxigXUDZZTcfriRg+k2WaM@mail.gmail.com>

This is great! A very positive precedent is set, if we consider that Markus
is leaving and we don´t know who the next guy will be (or what is his
opinion on this matter of MAG transparency).

Marilia

On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 8:14 AM, Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org> wrote:

> Here, you can read the text of MAG meeting, LIVE, now.
> Thanks to the IGF secretariat.
>
> http://www.streamtext.net/text.aspx?event=MAG23Nov2010Morning&chat=no
>
> izumi
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>



-- 
Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
FGV Direito Rio

Center for Technology and Society
Getulio Vargas Foundation
Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101123/e6701d40/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From mariliamaciel at gmail.com  Tue Nov 23 06:22:00 2010
From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 09:22:00 -0200
Subject: [governance] GA to pass resolution as early as tomorrow?
In-Reply-To: <4CEB9F56.7080803@cafonso.ca>
References: <AANLkTimc6FWix8XPox6kHykgFxw9JeN8xoq5Ayuj8O58@mail.gmail.com>
	<4CEB9F56.7080803@cafonso.ca>
Message-ID: <AANLkTimSahgyQBL+ga=RUcQFHXjhe0ngSueGfrwfuSUX@mail.gmail.com>

Izumi, would anyone from the Secretariat comment informally about that?
Is there anything we can do at this point?

Marilia

On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 9:02 AM, Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca> wrote:

> That *will* change the nature of the IGF -- why would China, which wishes
> to change the nature of the IGF, would keep pushing so hard for this? Spock
> says: it is only logical.
>
> --c.a.
>
>
> On 11/23/2010 07:29 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote:
>
>> I chatted this morning with one of the government members of MAG,
>> and was told that the UN GA may pass the resolution as early as
>> Wednesday, that's tomorrow. AND, since G77+ China has been
>> very strong in pushing their position, it's likely that DESA will
>> assume the Secretariat - that may change the nature of IGF
>> to some extent.
>>
>> This is still an unconfirmed information at all, but don't be surprised
>> if this happens.
>>
>> izumi
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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
> ====================================
> 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
>



-- 
Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
FGV Direito Rio

Center for Technology and Society
Getulio Vargas Foundation
Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101123/97299aac/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From iza at anr.org  Tue Nov 23 06:32:19 2010
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 20:32:19 +0900
Subject: [governance] GA to pass resolution as early as tomorrow?
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimSahgyQBL+ga=RUcQFHXjhe0ngSueGfrwfuSUX@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTimc6FWix8XPox6kHykgFxw9JeN8xoq5Ayuj8O58@mail.gmail.com>
 <4CEB9F56.7080803@cafonso.ca> <AANLkTimSahgyQBL+ga=RUcQFHXjhe0ngSueGfrwfuSUX@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=YsP1hUAnBag=Y4eGpQ+0soimos+hPTN2GgSec@mail.gmail.com>

2010/11/23 Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>:
> Izumi, would anyone from the Secretariat comment informally about that?

I will try during the lunch time today.

> Is there anything we can do at this point?

Well, almost nothing, I believe.

But Bill is right, we should come up with a statement for tomorrow's
CSTD meeting on the secretariat and perhaps the working modality
of IGF/MAG etc.

izumi

>
> Marilia
>
> On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 9:02 AM, Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca> wrote:
>>
>> That *will* change the nature of the IGF -- why would China, which wishes
>> to change the nature of the IGF, would keep pushing so hard for this? Spock
>> says: it is only logical.
>>
>> --c.a.
>>
>> On 11/23/2010 07:29 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote:
>>>
>>> I chatted this morning with one of the government members of MAG,
>>> and was told that the UN GA may pass the resolution as early as
>>> Wednesday, that's tomorrow. AND, since G77+ China has been
>>> very strong in pushing their position, it's likely that DESA will
>>> assume the Secretariat - that may change the nature of IGF
>>> to some extent.
>>>
>>> This is still an unconfirmed information at all, but don't be surprised
>>> if this happens.
>>>
>>> izumi
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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
>> ====================================
>> 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
>
>
>
> --
> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
> FGV Direito Rio
>
> Center for Technology and Society
> Getulio Vargas Foundation
> Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
>



-- 
                        >> Izumi Aizu <<

          Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo

           Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,
                                  Japan
                                 * * * * *
           << Writing the Future of the History >>
                                www.anr.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 shahzad at bytesforall.net  Tue Nov 23 06:41:30 2010
From: shahzad at bytesforall.net (Shahzad Ahmad)
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 16:41:30 +0500
Subject: [governance] GA to pass resolution as early as tomorrow?
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimc6FWix8XPox6kHykgFxw9JeN8xoq5Ayuj8O58@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTimc6FWix8XPox6kHykgFxw9JeN8xoq5Ayuj8O58@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <01e801cb8b03$624a9990$26dfccb0$@net>

Hi Izumi,

Thanks for keeping us all updated from the ground. 

So do you think that this possible change in the secretariat positioning is
the reason for Markus to leave?

Best wishes
Shahzad


-----Original Message-----
From: izumiaizu at gmail.com [mailto:izumiaizu at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Izumi
AIZU
Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2010 2:30 PM
To: Governance List
Subject: [governance] GA to pass resolution as early as tomorrow?

I chatted this morning with one of the government members of MAG,
and was told that the UN GA may pass the resolution as early as
Wednesday, that's tomorrow. AND, since G77+ China has been
very strong in pushing their position, it's likely that DESA will
assume the Secretariat - that may change the nature of IGF
to some extent.

This is still an unconfirmed information at all, but don't be surprised
if this happens.

izumi
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 iza at anr.org  Tue Nov 23 06:43:05 2010
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 20:43:05 +0900
Subject: [governance] GA to pass resolution as early as tomorrow?
In-Reply-To: <01e801cb8b03$624a9990$26dfccb0$@net>
References: <AANLkTimc6FWix8XPox6kHykgFxw9JeN8xoq5Ayuj8O58@mail.gmail.com> <01e801cb8b03$624a9990$26dfccb0$@net>
Message-ID: <AANLkTino4dm9X1z3LYuE3ngzYRu=bwynNRRhV=r4GwLr@mail.gmail.com>

Frankly, I am not sure. He said the UN retirement age is the reason, but
you never know and if it is the case, I am sure Markus will not mention it.

izumi

2010/11/23 Shahzad Ahmad <shahzad at bytesforall.net>:
> Hi Izumi,
>
> Thanks for keeping us all updated from the ground.
>
> So do you think that this possible change in the secretariat positioning is
> the reason for Markus to leave?
>
> Best wishes
> Shahzad
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From iza at anr.org  Tue Nov 23 06:48:14 2010
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 20:48:14 +0900
Subject: [governance] Additional points for tomorrow's CSTD consultation
 meeting
Message-ID: <AANLkTikX9_Cd6KY9k06HDT+Bq9GmC_7o4xQp4UmjXmef@mail.gmail.com>

Here is my crude draft statement/comment for tomorrow's CSTD consultation
meeting, in addition to the questionnaire already submitted, and I plan to
distribute the copies there.

Below is sort of sketchy draft of points I propose.

----
As the addition to the answer to the questionnaire:

IGC would like to emphasize the importance of keeping and enhancing
the secretariat functions of the past five years as follows:

Keep the Multi-stakeholder approach in line with Tunis agenda for all
exercises of IGF,
- In the organizing of the IGF meeting, MAG and Consultation meetings,
- pay attention to the balance of all stakeholders

Keep the open and inclusive approach:
- Receive and encourage the participation from all stakeholders from
all different
 parts of the world, gender balance, youth, giving no privileges to
any particular group or stakeholders.

- Give equal weight to all stakeholders (when making operational
decisions) – governments, private sector,
civil society, technical and academic communities, and IGOs.

Keep all meetings open and transparent – full use of webcast, audio,
video and transcripts
 and other online tools in IGF meeting as well as all consultation
and MAG meetings.

Keep (enhance?) its independence from the influence of financial donors.

Please add your comments and suggestions,

izumi
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de  Tue Nov 23 06:48:15 2010
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=)
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 12:48:15 +0100
Subject: [governance] UN GA Resolution
References: <AANLkTimc6FWix8XPox6kHykgFxw9JeN8xoq5Ayuj8O58@mail.gmail.com>
 <01e801cb8b03$624a9990$26dfccb0$@net>
Message-ID:  <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07494@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

 
Is somebody in New York? Can we get as soon as possible the final version of the draft resolution?
 
Thanks
 
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 jeanette at wzb.eu  Tue Nov 23 06:52:10 2010
From: jeanette at wzb.eu (jeanette at wzb.eu)
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 12:52:10 +0100
Subject: [governance] GA to pass resolution as early as tomorrow?
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTino4dm9X1z3LYuE3ngzYRu=bwynNRRhV=r4GwLr@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTimc6FWix8XPox6kHykgFxw9JeN8xoq5Ayuj8O58@mail.gmail.com>
    <01e801cb8b03$624a9990$26dfccb0$@net>
    <AANLkTino4dm9X1z3LYuE3ngzYRu=bwynNRRhV=r4GwLr@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <c9e6cd667123124b20f5057a3a82251b.squirrel@webmail.wzb.eu>


Hi,

from I understand, Markus would have to retire from his UN job at the end
of August 2011. The next IGF meeting is scheduled to take place end of
September 2011. Thus it would not make sense to remain the head of the
secretariat until the last possible day of his contract with the UN.

jeanette

> Frankly, I am not sure. He said the UN retirement age is the reason, but
> you never know and if it is the case, I am sure Markus will not mention
> it.
>
> izumi
>
> 2010/11/23 Shahzad Ahmad <shahzad at bytesforall.net>:
>> Hi Izumi,
>>
>> Thanks for keeping us all updated from the ground.
>>
>> So do you think that this possible change in the secretariat positioning
>> is
>> the reason for Markus to leave?
>>
>> Best wishes
>> Shahzad
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 nursesacrosstheborders at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 23 06:56:25 2010
From: nursesacrosstheborders at yahoo.com (NURSES ACROSS THE BORDERS)
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 11:56:25 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: [governance] UN GA Resolution
Message-ID: <232060.5998.qm@web29507.mail.ird.yahoo.com>

I shall be at the UN tomorrow wed. and I could try and get it if not too late. Could anyone send me the Reference.
Regards

Pastor Peters OMORAGBON 
Executive President/CEO 
Nurses Across the Borders Humanitarian Initiative-Inc.-(Nigeria & U.S.A) An NGO On Special Consultative Status with The Economic and Social Council of the United Nations-(ECOSOC) 
Member(OBSERVER),United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)
URL: www.nursesacrosstheborders.org  NABHI as affiliate of the United Nations is poised to uphold the TENETS of the CHARTERS of the UN. THIS it pledges to promote and publicise for enhanced Sustainable Developmet. WE believe in a World of Law and Order, Peace and Security with RESPECT for Fundamental Human Rights.  NABHI IS NOT A VISA PROCUREMENT AGENCY NOR IS IT AN INTERNATIONAL RECRUITMENT AGENCY

--- On Tue, 23/11/10, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote:

From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Subject: [governance] UN GA Resolution
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Date: Tuesday, 23 November, 2010, 11:48

 
Is somebody in New York? Can we get as soon as possible the final version of the draft resolution?
 
Thanks
 
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



      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101123/4db9379b/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From ajp at glocom.ac.jp  Tue Nov 23 07:01:55 2010
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 21:01:55 +0900
Subject: [governance] GA to pass resolution as early as tomorrow?
In-Reply-To: <01e801cb8b03$624a9990$26dfccb0$@net>
References: <AANLkTimc6FWix8XPox6kHykgFxw9JeN8xoq5Ayuj8O58@mail.gmail.com>
 <01e801cb8b03$624a9990$26dfccb0$@net>
Message-ID: <p06240817c9115b522a9a@[192.168.1.160]>

Hi, I think pretty clear the reason he's leaving is as he said in the 
meeting yesterday:

"Let me also take advantage of this opportunity to inform you what I 
told several of you personally already, that I will quit my present 
function in January. I had learned a few months back that I reach 
U.N. retirement age next August, and after some reflection, I came to 
the conclusion it would not make much sense hanging on till August, 
which will be shortly before the Nairobi meeting.

Our hosts, our presumptive hosts propose dates end of September. So I 
will leave at the end of the first cycle, and the new team will be 
able to take over."

<http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/content/article/102-transcripts2010/756-ocms>

UN rules prevent people working beyond retirement age, and I believe 
there is a required minimum break between a period of full-time 
employment and consultant contract (as you'd hope for with an 
organization like the UN.)

I think Markus felt ending as Executive Coordinator in August with an 
IGF the following month would not be helpful.  It makes sense for him 
to leave in January, but we will miss him.

Adam



>Hi Izumi,
>
>Thanks for keeping us all updated from the ground.
>
>So do you think that this possible change in the secretariat positioning is
>the reason for Markus to leave?
>
>Best wishes
>Shahzad
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: izumiaizu at gmail.com [mailto:izumiaizu at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Izumi
>AIZU
>Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2010 2:30 PM
>To: Governance List
>Subject: [governance] GA to pass resolution as early as tomorrow?
>
>I chatted this morning with one of the government members of MAG,
>and was told that the UN GA may pass the resolution as early as
>Wednesday, that's tomorrow. AND, since G77+ China has been
>very strong in pushing their position, it's likely that DESA will
>assume the Secretariat - that may change the nature of IGF
>to some extent.
>
>This is still an unconfirmed information at all, but don't be surprised
>if this happens.
>
>izumi
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
>For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
>For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From mariliamaciel at gmail.com  Tue Nov 23 07:04:33 2010
From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 10:04:33 -0200
Subject: [governance] Additional points for tomorrow's CSTD
 consultation meeting
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikX9_Cd6KY9k06HDT+Bq9GmC_7o4xQp4UmjXmef@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTikX9_Cd6KY9k06HDT+Bq9GmC_7o4xQp4UmjXmef@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=yS548UEDW3x0ye3jzyby156B_Fyq_wK_vAoWM@mail.gmail.com>

I think the role of the MAG needs to change and be reinforced. This is even
more important with Markus leaving and the possibility that DESA takes over
the process.


Regarding MAG I would add:

- Transparency on the elections

- More proactive role on producing the summary of the IGF (should not be the
responsibility of the chair alone), on identifying the main points
discussed. Map the points of divergence among stakeholders.

- If possible, help to identify points of consensus in IGF discussions

My 2 cents for now

Marilia

On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 9:48 AM, Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org> wrote:

> Here is my crude draft statement/comment for tomorrow's CSTD consultation
> meeting, in addition to the questionnaire already submitted, and I plan to
> distribute the copies there.
>
> Below is sort of sketchy draft of points I propose.
>
> ----
> As the addition to the answer to the questionnaire:
>
> IGC would like to emphasize the importance of keeping and enhancing
> the secretariat functions of the past five years as follows:
>
> Keep the Multi-stakeholder approach in line with Tunis agenda for all
> exercises of IGF,
> - In the organizing of the IGF meeting, MAG and Consultation meetings,
> - pay attention to the balance of all stakeholders
>
> Keep the open and inclusive approach:
> - Receive and encourage the participation from all stakeholders from
> all different
>  parts of the world, gender balance, youth, giving no privileges to
> any particular group or stakeholders.
>
> - Give equal weight to all stakeholders (when making operational
> decisions) – governments, private sector,
> civil society, technical and academic communities, and IGOs.
>
> Keep all meetings open and transparent – full use of webcast, audio,
> video and transcripts
>  and other online tools in IGF meeting as well as all consultation
> and MAG meetings.
>
> Keep (enhance?) its independence from the influence of financial donors.
>
> Please add your comments and suggestions,
>
> izumi
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t




-- 
Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
FGV Direito Rio

Center for Technology and Society
Getulio Vargas Foundation
Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101123/1048590b/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From aizu at anr.org  Tue Nov 23 07:07:12 2010
From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 21:07:12 +0900
Subject: [governance] UN GA Resolution
In-Reply-To: <232060.5998.qm@web29507.mail.ird.yahoo.com>
References: <232060.5998.qm@web29507.mail.ird.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTimcay87DL3xG_Pzvq7MgxCXHUwvHS7hXz2iPb-4@mail.gmail.com>

The original draft proposal for the resolution is here, introduced
on Nov. 4

http://www.un.org/en/ga/second/65/proposalstatus.shtml

It's titled as
Item 17: Information and communications technologies for development

for the Second Committee.

best,

izumi


2010/11/23 NURSES ACROSS THE BORDERS <nursesacrosstheborders at yahoo.com>

> I shall be at the UN tomorrow wed. and I could try and get it if not too
> late. Could anyone send me the Reference.
> Regards
>
>
>    - *Pastor Peters OMORAGBON*
>    Executive President/CEO
>    Nurses Across the Borders Humanitarian Initiative-Inc.-(Nigeria &
>    U.S.A) *An NGO On Special Consultative Status with The Economic and
>    Social Council of the United Nations*-(ECOSOC)
>    Member(OBSERVER),United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
>    (UNFCCC)
>    URL: www.nursesacrosstheborders.org
>    - *NABHI as affiliate of the United Nations is poised to uphold the
>    TENETS of the CHARTERS of the UN. THIS it pledges to promote and publicise
>    for enhanced Sustainable Developmet. WE believe in a World of Law and Order,
>    Peace and Security with RESPECT for Fundamental Human Rights.*
>    - NABHI IS NOT A VISA PROCUREMENT AGENCY NOR IS IT AN INTERNATIONAL
>    RECRUITMENT AGENCY
>
>
>
> --- On *Tue, 23/11/10, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" <
> wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>* wrote:
>
>
> From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" <
> wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
> Subject: [governance] UN GA Resolution
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Date: Tuesday, 23 November, 2010, 11:48
>
>
>
> Is somebody in New York? Can we get as soon as possible the final version
> of the draft resolution?
>
> Thanks
>
> wolfgang
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org<http://mc/compose?to=governance at lists.cpsr.org>
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org<http://mc/compose?to=governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org>
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>



-- 
                        >> Izumi Aizu <<

          Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo

           Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,
                                  Japan
                                 * * * * *
           << Writing the Future of the History >>
                                www.anr.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101123/4f072bab/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From email at hakik.org  Tue Nov 23 07:25:48 2010
From: email at hakik.org (Hakikur Rahman)
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 12:25:48 +0000
Subject: [governance] Additional points for tomorrow's CSTD
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=yS548UEDW3x0ye3jzyby156B_Fyq_wK_vAoWM@mail.gmail.c
 om>
References: <AANLkTikX9_Cd6KY9k06HDT+Bq9GmC_7o4xQp4UmjXmef@mail.gmail.com>
 <AANLkTi=yS548UEDW3x0ye3jzyby156B_Fyq_wK_vAoWM@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20101123122632.1402C909D7@npogroups.org>

Agree to Marilia's note on the role of MAG. It 
requires transparency in the selection (election) 
process and at the end more vibrant MAG. A 
proactive summary for further discussion and 
dissemination for knowledge update at the 
national level is another important issue she raised.

Best regards,
Hakikur

At 12:04 PM 11/23/2010, Marilia Maciel wrote:

>I think the role of the MAG needs to change and 
>be reinforced. This is even more important with 
>Markus leaving and the possibility that DESA takes over the process.
>
>
>Regarding MAG I would add:
>
>- Transparency on the elections
>
>- More proactive role on producing the summary 
>of the IGF (should not be the responsibility of 
>the chair alone), on identifying the main points 
>discussed. Map the points of divergence among stakeholders.
>
>- If possible, help to identify points of consensus in IGF discussions
>
>My 2 cents for now
>
>Marilia
>
>On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 9:48 AM, Izumi AIZU 
><<mailto:iza at anr.org>iza at anr.org> wrote:
>Here is my crude draft statement/comment for tomorrow's CSTD consultation
>meeting, in addition to the questionnaire already submitted, and I plan to
>distribute the copies there.
>
>Below is sort of sketchy draft of points I propose.
>
>----
>As the addition to the answer to the questionnaire:
>
>IGC would like to emphasize the importance of keeping and enhancing
>the secretariat functions of the past five years as follows:
>
>Keep the Multi-stakeholder approach in line with Tunis agenda for all
>exercises of IGF,
>- In the organizing of the IGF meeting, MAG and Consultation meetings,
>- pay attention to the balance of all stakeholders
>
>Keep the open and inclusive approach:
>- Receive and encourage the participation from all stakeholders from
>all different
>  parts of the world, gender balance, youth, giving no privileges to
>any particular group or stakeholders.
>
>- Give equal weight to all stakeholders (when making operational
>decisions) – governments, private sector,
>civil society, technical and academic communities, and IGOs.
>
>Keep all meetings open and transparent – full use of webcast, audio,
>video and transcripts
>  and other online tools in IGF meeting as well as all consultation
>and MAG meetings.
>
>Keep (enhance?) its independence from the influence of financial donors.
>
>Please add your comments and suggestions,
>
>izumi
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> 
><mailto:governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org>governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
>For all list information and functions, see:
> 
><http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance>http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>Translate this email: 
><http://translate.google.com/translate_t>http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>
>
>--
>Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
>FGV Direito Rio
>
>Center for Technology and Society
>Getulio Vargas Foundation
>Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
>For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101123/2f48440b/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From iza at anr.org  Tue Nov 23 08:52:07 2010
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 22:52:07 +0900
Subject: [governance] EuroDIG and MAG
Message-ID: <AANLkTikNPc_VrkDtv5_wkD-H2Qj2Y152g-=ObarV4DJw@mail.gmail.com>

I plan to attend EuroDIG meeting this afternoon, instead of staying in
IGF MAG meeting.

Yet, the connection in EuroDIG meeting is very week, not able to stay connected
so I came to the hallway to get connected. Two meeting rooms are 2 min
walk away,
not too far.

I was hoping to work on the draft statement for CSTD tomorrow, with interaction
online, but that may not work. In case, I may move back to MAG meeting
for the connection.

izumi
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From mariliamaciel at gmail.com  Tue Nov 23 09:18:45 2010
From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 12:18:45 -0200
Subject: [governance] EuroDIG planning meeting: participate remotely now
Message-ID: <AANLkTikumQq9w2haWcihEYQwKoYhJ6P5hY62+qEFKz6g@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all,

EuroDIG planning meeting is starting now (3:00 PM Geneva time) and there is
remote participation available through webex.
Instructions to join the meeting can be found here:
http://www.eurodig.org/important/eurodig-planning-meeting-23-nov-2010

Thanks very much to EuroDIG, IGF Secretariat, EBU, CoE, DiploFoundation and
Bernard Sadaka for making this possible.

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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101123/ba8876e4/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From sdkaaa at gmail.com  Tue Nov 23 09:47:46 2010
From: sdkaaa at gmail.com (Bernard Sadaka)
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 16:47:46 +0200
Subject: [governance] EuroDIG planning meeting: participate remotely now
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikumQq9w2haWcihEYQwKoYhJ6P5hY62+qEFKz6g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTikumQq9w2haWcihEYQwKoYhJ6P5hY62+qEFKz6g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTik+Q9ZON+_PW807VT1avfvp-mLzt-6N+69LZWzY@mail.gmail.com>

Thank you Marilia,
@All, If you are having problems connecting remotely to the EuroDIG planning
meeting just let me know in a separated thread.
All the best,
Bernard.
-
Bernard SADAKA
Mobile: +961 3 172377
Twitter: @sdkaaa
Website: http://evoliuvo.com
Email : sdkaaa at evoliuvo.com, sdkaaa at gmail.com
------------------------------------------------------
DiploFoundation Associate
Social Media & Remote Participation Consultant
BsE in Computer and Communication Engineer
Lebanon



On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 4:18 PM, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> EuroDIG planning meeting is starting now (3:00 PM Geneva time) and there is
> remote participation available through webex.
> Instructions to join the meeting can be found here:
> http://www.eurodig.org/important/eurodig-planning-meeting-23-nov-2010
>
> Thanks very much to EuroDIG, IGF Secretariat, EBU, CoE, DiploFoundation and
> Bernard Sadaka for making this possible.
>
> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101123/50f7eecc/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From miguel.alcaine at gmail.com  Tue Nov 23 10:49:54 2010
From: miguel.alcaine at gmail.com (Miguel Alcaine)
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 16:49:54 +0100
Subject: [governance] Additional points for tomorrow's CSTD
 consultation meeting
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikX9_Cd6KY9k06HDT+Bq9GmC_7o4xQp4UmjXmef@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTikX9_Cd6KY9k06HDT+Bq9GmC_7o4xQp4UmjXmef@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTikpNjwjsOO-xbgijN_sAMqKw+3ikc6WKJHaCM5w@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Izumi,

I suggest to use keep instead of improve at the end of the intervention. To
say otherwise, will suggest there has been already and undue influence,
which nobody should say, unless proof can be provided.

Best,

Miguel

On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 12:48 PM, Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org> wrote:

> Here is my crude draft statement/comment for tomorrow's CSTD consultation
> meeting, in addition to the questionnaire already submitted, and I plan to
> distribute the copies there.
>
> Below is sort of sketchy draft of points I propose.
>
> ----
> As the addition to the answer to the questionnaire:
>
> IGC would like to emphasize the importance of keeping and enhancing
> the secretariat functions of the past five years as follows:
>
> Keep the Multi-stakeholder approach in line with Tunis agenda for all
> exercises of IGF,
> - In the organizing of the IGF meeting, MAG and Consultation meetings,
> - pay attention to the balance of all stakeholders
>
> Keep the open and inclusive approach:
> - Receive and encourage the participation from all stakeholders from
> all different
>  parts of the world, gender balance, youth, giving no privileges to
> any particular group or stakeholders.
>
> - Give equal weight to all stakeholders (when making operational
> decisions) – governments, private sector,
> civil society, technical and academic communities, and IGOs.
>
> Keep all meetings open and transparent – full use of webcast, audio,
> video and transcripts
>  and other online tools in IGF meeting as well as all consultation
> and MAG meetings.
>
> Keep (enhance?) its independence from the influence of financial donors.
>
> Please add your comments and suggestions,
>
> izumi
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101123/bf6651a9/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From iza at anr.org  Tue Nov 23 11:02:08 2010
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 01:02:08 +0900
Subject: [governance] Additional points for tomorrow's CSTD
 consultation meeting
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikpNjwjsOO-xbgijN_sAMqKw+3ikc6WKJHaCM5w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTikX9_Cd6KY9k06HDT+Bq9GmC_7o4xQp4UmjXmef@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTikpNjwjsOO-xbgijN_sAMqKw+3ikc6WKJHaCM5w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTim7uz74uopQ47dVjZSzhyNFvf5_HOk9kE19veNf@mail.gmail.com>

Here's the new and hopefully improved version, taking helpful suggestions
made by Marilia, Hakikur and Miguel.

----------
9. Do you have any other comments?

As the addition to our answer to the questionnaire:

IGC would like to emphasize the importance of keeping the secretariat
function of the past five years that have been the key to the success
of IGF to date.

We also request to keep the Multi-stakeholder approach in line with
Tunis agenda in the organizing of the IGF, MAG and Consultations,
attention to the balance of all stakeholders

We strongly request that the new MAG/secretariat should keep the open
and inclusive approach. IGF should promote the participation from all
stakeholders from all different parts of the world, especially from
developing parts, pay sufficient attention to achieve gender balance,
involve youth, and not to give special privileges to any particular
group or stakeholders.

IGF should also give equal weight to all stakeholders when making
decisions – we mean to governments, private sector, civil society, and
technical and academic communities.

Again, we want to emphasize the importance of keeping all meetings and
the works open and transparent – full use of webcast and other online
tools in IGF meeting as well as all consultation meetings and MAG
meetings are essential.

We also request that IGF should keep its independence from the
influence of financial donors in open, transparent manner.

For the composition of the new MAG, we request to foster:

- Transparency on the elections or selections of its members
- More proactive role on producing the summary of the IGF. We believe
it should not rest to the responsibility of the chair alone, same goes
true on identifying the main points discussed.
MAG should also map the points of divergence among stakeholders.

And finally, if possible, we expect the new MAG to help identify
points of consensus in IGF discussions.

izumi


2010/11/24 Miguel Alcaine <miguel.alcaine at gmail.com>:
> Dear Izumi,
>
> I suggest to use keep instead of improve at the end of the intervention. To
> say otherwise, will suggest there has been already and undue influence,
> which nobody should say, unless proof can be provided.
>
> Best,
>
> Miguel
>
> On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 12:48 PM, Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org> wrote:
>>
>> Here is my crude draft statement/comment for tomorrow's CSTD consultation
>> meeting, in addition to the questionnaire already submitted, and I plan to
>> distribute the copies there.
>>
>> Below is sort of sketchy draft of points I propose.
>>
>> ----
>> As the addition to the answer to the questionnaire:
>>
>> IGC would like to emphasize the importance of keeping and enhancing
>> the secretariat functions of the past five years as follows:
>>
>> Keep the Multi-stakeholder approach in line with Tunis agenda for all
>> exercises of IGF,
>> - In the organizing of the IGF meeting, MAG and Consultation meetings,
>> - pay attention to the balance of all stakeholders
>>
>> Keep the open and inclusive approach:
>> - Receive and encourage the participation from all stakeholders from
>> all different
>>  parts of the world, gender balance, youth, giving no privileges to
>> any particular group or stakeholders.
>>
>> - Give equal weight to all stakeholders (when making operational
>> decisions) – governments, private sector,
>> civil society, technical and academic communities, and IGOs.
>>
>> Keep all meetings open and transparent – full use of webcast, audio,
>> video and transcripts
>>  and other online tools in IGF meeting as well as all consultation
>> and MAG meetings.
>>
>> Keep (enhance?) its independence from the influence of financial donors.
>>
>> Please add your comments and suggestions,
>>
>> izumi
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>



-- 
                        >> Izumi Aizu <<

          Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo

           Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,
                                  Japan
                                 * * * * *
           << Writing the Future of the History >>
                                www.anr.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 fsylla at gmail.com  Tue Nov 23 11:03:34 2010
From: fsylla at gmail.com (Fatimata Seye Sylla)
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 16:03:34 +0000
Subject: [governance] IGF consultation starting
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTint+9DtTiqxbNb7i1NbcWDdQ=4mySY7L713+7bN@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTimKHNtP1JVoWsAeUOdEXEQkMgGTwxXpw4FRAFY+@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTi=rFV58eS1b83ZK3KiMzWV3d_8_PvttdcRkzy4w@mail.gmail.com>
	<4CEA7CFD.5090209@paque.net>
	<AANLkTinOuhZ95bdg4Xr3s4Rhb8HuWZ3NeqDDVd8Wnz13@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTint+9DtTiqxbNb7i1NbcWDdQ=4mySY7L713+7bN@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTikMPPxVSNOj5YLkVmfD=CEKNAC1rZQ2AnU-owzj@mail.gmail.com>

Thank youi Izumi for keeping us informed!

Best,
Fatimata


On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 3:09 PM, Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org> wrote:

> Below is the text I read in the afternoon session, on IGF stocktaking
> and way forward.
>
> Agenda 2.   Taking stock of the Vilnius meeting (what worked well,
> what worked less well)
> What worked well – remote hub, transcripts in all rooms, roundtable
> Not well -
> Agenda 3.   Suggestions for the 2011 IGF meeting (provided the IGF
> mandate be extended)
>
> -------
>
> My name is Izumi Aizu, the newly elected co-coordinator of the
> Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus –
>
> We would like to extend our appreciation to the local host of IGF
> Vilnius, not only the government of Vilnius, but the private sector
> and civil society people there.
>
> On the future of IGF, we like to see improved, stronger link between
> workshops and main sessions – including the possibility of doing all
> or most workshops up front say in the first two days, and then
> feedback the outcomes to the main sessions later two days.
>
> We also like suggest to obligate more strictly that all workshop
> organisers to provide summaries that will be fed to main sessions and
> to the whole IGF outcome.
>
> We also like to point out that the MAG and the Secretariat are
> strongly encouraged to directly foster discussion and debate on
> difficult issues in the main session, instead of avoiding them.
>
> In this context, IGC also like to see that we try to come-up with
> “messages” or recommendations in certain areas where all stakeholders
> could reach [rough] consensus. They will not be binding, but could
> still function as a model or common framework. The working process
> towards achieving the consensus will create better and deeper
> understandings amongst different stakeholders.
>
> Let us give more weight to regional and national IGF meetings. Making
> more direct “links” to the main IGF meeting will help outreach to
> those who have not yet involved in IGF process. The same level of
> working framework of IGF, such as multi-stakeholder composition and
> inclusion of civil society groups (where such practice is relatively
> new or scarce) should be maintained.
>
> The remote hubs and moderators at the Vilnius IGF made good progress.
> We are proud to have our civil society members, Ginger and Marilia in
> particular, took strong leadership for the remote moderation, thus
> setting a good precedence to follow.
>
> Further more, we like to propose to try to organize some sessions
> completely online. This will create “level playing field” among all
> participants everyone becomes remote and there is no “center”, and may
> also demonstrate the effectiveness of these tools/technologies, and
> may also improve the quality of services in turn.
>
> Finally, we have another bold suggestion: That is to increase
> linguistic diversity. Currently, English is the only default working
> language, but we think it does not have to be so. How about using UN
> major languages other than English at certain meetings and occasions
> as main working language including, perhaps, the scripts (translated
> into other UN languages). This will increase the outreach to
> non-English speaking population globally and will give more sense of
> ownership.
> Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus would like to continue to
> work with other stakeholders to the improvement of IGF processes
> together with the enhanced cooperation processes.
>
> Thank you.
>
> ------
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>



-- 
Fatimata Seye Sylla
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101123/fcb3e23f/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From iza at anr.org  Tue Nov 23 11:26:08 2010
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 01:26:08 +0900
Subject: [governance] IGF consultation starting
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikMPPxVSNOj5YLkVmfD=CEKNAC1rZQ2AnU-owzj@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTimKHNtP1JVoWsAeUOdEXEQkMgGTwxXpw4FRAFY+@mail.gmail.com>
 <AANLkTi=rFV58eS1b83ZK3KiMzWV3d_8_PvttdcRkzy4w@mail.gmail.com>
 <4CEA7CFD.5090209@paque.net> <AANLkTinOuhZ95bdg4Xr3s4Rhb8HuWZ3NeqDDVd8Wnz13@mail.gmail.com>
 <AANLkTint+9DtTiqxbNb7i1NbcWDdQ=4mySY7L713+7bN@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTikMPPxVSNOj5YLkVmfD=CEKNAC1rZQ2AnU-owzj@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=wuACXGsCxNmx4m0uXe+0egmTmZ0UtBSR+=QGO@mail.gmail.com>

well, thanks for the support, but the actual MAG discussion right now
is getting into somewhat difficult areas for the selection of MAG members.

Markus is trying to persuade that "triage" approach of each stakeholder
making the final selection, instead of asking Secretary General to make
final decision, may end up breaking the regional balance, thus may
not be the recommended way forward.

Many CS members are trying to push CS will select its own members.

Let's see how they resolve this.

izumi

2010/11/24 Fatimata Seye Sylla <fsylla at gmail.com>:
> Thank youi Izumi for keeping us informed!
> Best,
> Fatimata
>
> On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 3:09 PM, Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org> wrote:
>>
>> Below is the text I read in the afternoon session, on IGF stocktaking
>> and way forward.
>>
>> Agenda 2.   Taking stock of the Vilnius meeting (what worked well,
>> what worked less well)
>> What worked well – remote hub, transcripts in all rooms, roundtable
>> Not well -
>> Agenda 3.   Suggestions for the 2011 IGF meeting (provided the IGF
>> mandate be extended)
>>
>> -------
>>
>> My name is Izumi Aizu, the newly elected co-coordinator of the
>> Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus –
>>
>> We would like to extend our appreciation to the local host of IGF
>> Vilnius, not only the government of Vilnius, but the private sector
>> and civil society people there.
>>
>> On the future of IGF, we like to see improved, stronger link between
>> workshops and main sessions – including the possibility of doing all
>> or most workshops up front say in the first two days, and then
>> feedback the outcomes to the main sessions later two days.
>>
>> We also like suggest to obligate more strictly that all workshop
>> organisers to provide summaries that will be fed to main sessions and
>> to the whole IGF outcome.
>>
>> We also like to point out that the MAG and the Secretariat are
>> strongly encouraged to directly foster discussion and debate on
>> difficult issues in the main session, instead of avoiding them.
>>
>> In this context, IGC also like to see that we try to come-up with
>> “messages” or recommendations in certain areas where all stakeholders
>> could reach [rough] consensus. They will not be binding, but could
>> still function as a model or common framework. The working process
>> towards achieving the consensus will create better and deeper
>> understandings amongst different stakeholders.
>>
>> Let us give more weight to regional and national IGF meetings. Making
>> more direct “links” to the main IGF meeting will help outreach to
>> those who have not yet involved in IGF process. The same level of
>> working framework of IGF, such as multi-stakeholder composition and
>> inclusion of civil society groups (where such practice is relatively
>> new or scarce) should be maintained.
>>
>> The remote hubs and moderators at the Vilnius IGF made good progress.
>> We are proud to have our civil society members, Ginger and Marilia in
>> particular, took strong leadership for the remote moderation, thus
>> setting a good precedence to follow.
>>
>> Further more, we like to propose to try to organize some sessions
>> completely online. This will create “level playing field” among all
>> participants everyone becomes remote and there is no “center”, and may
>> also demonstrate the effectiveness of these tools/technologies, and
>> may also improve the quality of services in turn.
>>
>> Finally, we have another bold suggestion: That is to increase
>> linguistic diversity. Currently, English is the only default working
>> language, but we think it does not have to be so. How about using UN
>> major languages other than English at certain meetings and occasions
>> as main working language including, perhaps, the scripts (translated
>> into other UN languages). This will increase the outreach to
>> non-English speaking population globally and will give more sense of
>> ownership.
>> Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus would like to continue to
>> work with other stakeholders to the improvement of IGF processes
>> together with the enhanced cooperation processes.
>>
>> Thank you.
>>
>> ------
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
> --
> Fatimata Seye Sylla
>
>
>



-- 
                        >> Izumi Aizu <<

          Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo

           Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,
                                  Japan
                                 * * * * *
           << Writing the Future of the History >>
                                www.anr.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 parminder at itforchange.net  Tue Nov 23 11:50:48 2010
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder at itforchange.net)
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 22:20:48 +0530 (IST)
Subject: [governance] Additional points for tomorrow's CSTD 
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikpNjwjsOO-xbgijN_sAMqKw+3ikc6WKJHaCM5w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTikX9_Cd6KY9k06HDT+Bq9GmC_7o4xQp4UmjXmef@mail.gmail.com>
    <AANLkTikpNjwjsOO-xbgijN_sAMqKw+3ikc6WKJHaCM5w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <2f3cf8917f1f826d3a40058d4fe5dd08.squirrel@www.itforchange.net>



in the list of stakeholders, just put CS before private sector

and, on the financial independence sentence

we can use the term

'ensure its independence ......'



>
> On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 12:48 PM, Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org> wrote:
>
>> Here is my crude draft statement/comment for tomorrow's CSTD
>> consultation
>> meeting, in addition to the questionnaire already submitted, and I plan
>> to
>> distribute the copies there.
>>
>> Below is sort of sketchy draft of points I propose.
>>
>> ----
>> As the addition to the answer to the questionnaire:
>>
>> IGC would like to emphasize the importance of keeping and enhancing
>> the secretariat functions of the past five years as follows:
>>
>> Keep the Multi-stakeholder approach in line with Tunis agenda for all
>> exercises of IGF,
>> - In the organizing of the IGF meeting, MAG and Consultation meetings,
>> - pay attention to the balance of all stakeholders
>>
>> Keep the open and inclusive approach:
>> - Receive and encourage the participation from all stakeholders from
>> all different
>>  parts of the world, gender balance, youth, giving no privileges to
>> any particular group or stakeholders.
>>
>> - Give equal weight to all stakeholders (when making operational
>> decisions) – governments, private sector,
>> civil society, technical and academic communities, and IGOs.
>>
>> Keep all meetings open and transparent – full use of webcast, audio,
>> video and transcripts
>>  and other online tools in IGF meeting as well as all consultation
>> and MAG meetings.
>>
>> Keep (enhance?) its independence from the influence of financial donors.
>>
>> Please add your comments and suggestions,
>>
>> izumi
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 miguel.alcaine at gmail.com  Tue Nov 23 12:01:20 2010
From: miguel.alcaine at gmail.com (Miguel Alcaine)
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 18:01:20 +0100
Subject: [governance] Additional points for tomorrow's CSTD
In-Reply-To: <2f3cf8917f1f826d3a40058d4fe5dd08.squirrel@www.itforchange.net>
References: <AANLkTikX9_Cd6KY9k06HDT+Bq9GmC_7o4xQp4UmjXmef@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTikpNjwjsOO-xbgijN_sAMqKw+3ikc6WKJHaCM5w@mail.gmail.com>
	<2f3cf8917f1f826d3a40058d4fe5dd08.squirrel@www.itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <AANLkTimJA4w3ZnauQ98VhBkwoPNTPDjeCgu97HqYMOY0@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Izumi:

Use both: Keep and ensure

Thanks,

Miguel

On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 5:50 PM, <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

>
>
> in the list of stakeholders, just put CS before private sector
>
> and, on the financial independence sentence
>
> we can use the term
>
> 'ensure its independence ......'
>
>
>
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 12:48 PM, Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org> wrote:
> >
> >> Here is my crude draft statement/comment for tomorrow's CSTD
> >> consultation
> >> meeting, in addition to the questionnaire already submitted, and I plan
> >> to
> >> distribute the copies there.
> >>
> >> Below is sort of sketchy draft of points I propose.
> >>
> >> ----
> >> As the addition to the answer to the questionnaire:
> >>
> >> IGC would like to emphasize the importance of keeping and enhancing
> >> the secretariat functions of the past five years as follows:
> >>
> >> Keep the Multi-stakeholder approach in line with Tunis agenda for all
> >> exercises of IGF,
> >> - In the organizing of the IGF meeting, MAG and Consultation meetings,
> >> - pay attention to the balance of all stakeholders
> >>
> >> Keep the open and inclusive approach:
> >> - Receive and encourage the participation from all stakeholders from
> >> all different
> >>  parts of the world, gender balance, youth, giving no privileges to
> >> any particular group or stakeholders.
> >>
> >> - Give equal weight to all stakeholders (when making operational
> >> decisions) – governments, private sector,
> >> civil society, technical and academic communities, and IGOs.
> >>
> >> Keep all meetings open and transparent – full use of webcast, audio,
> >> video and transcripts
> >>  and other online tools in IGF meeting as well as all consultation
> >> and MAG meetings.
> >>
> >> Keep (enhance?) its independence from the influence of financial donors.
> >>
> >> Please add your comments and suggestions,
> >>
> >> izumi
> >> ____________________________________________________________
> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> >> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> >>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> >>
> >> For all list information and functions, see:
> >>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> >>
> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> >
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101123/314eb33b/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From iza at anr.org  Tue Nov 23 11:58:10 2010
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 01:58:10 +0900
Subject: [governance] Additional points for tomorrow's CSTD
 consultation meeting
In-Reply-To: <2f3cf8917f1f826d3a40058d4fe5dd08.squirrel@www.itforchange.net>
References: <AANLkTikX9_Cd6KY9k06HDT+Bq9GmC_7o4xQp4UmjXmef@mail.gmail.com>
 <AANLkTikpNjwjsOO-xbgijN_sAMqKw+3ikc6WKJHaCM5w@mail.gmail.com> <2f3cf8917f1f826d3a40058d4fe5dd08.squirrel@www.itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <AANLkTimeDkbv6VotfxGzPdP6Q4FeLmw5O=JY-GhqdNif@mail.gmail.com>

Sure, Parminder, noted these.

Any other comments? I will wait more as we have time till tomorrow.

izumi

2010/11/24  <parminder at itforchange.net>:
>
>
> in the list of stakeholders, just put CS before private sector
>
> and, on the financial independence sentence
>
> we can use the term
>
> 'ensure its independence ......'
>
>
>
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 12:48 PM, Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Here is my crude draft statement/comment for tomorrow's CSTD
>>> consultation
>>> meeting, in addition to the questionnaire already submitted, and I plan
>>> to
>>> distribute the copies there.
>>>
>>> Below is sort of sketchy draft of points I propose.
>>>
>>> ----
>>> As the addition to the answer to the questionnaire:
>>>
>>> IGC would like to emphasize the importance of keeping and enhancing
>>> the secretariat functions of the past five years as follows:
>>>
>>> Keep the Multi-stakeholder approach in line with Tunis agenda for all
>>> exercises of IGF,
>>> - In the organizing of the IGF meeting, MAG and Consultation meetings,
>>> - pay attention to the balance of all stakeholders
>>>
>>> Keep the open and inclusive approach:
>>> - Receive and encourage the participation from all stakeholders from
>>> all different
>>>  parts of the world, gender balance, youth, giving no privileges to
>>> any particular group or stakeholders.
>>>
>>> - Give equal weight to all stakeholders (when making operational
>>> decisions) – governments, private sector,
>>> civil society, technical and academic communities, and IGOs.
>>>
>>> Keep all meetings open and transparent – full use of webcast, audio,
>>> video and transcripts
>>>  and other online tools in IGF meeting as well as all consultation
>>> and MAG meetings.
>>>
>>> Keep (enhance?) its independence from the influence of financial donors.
>>>
>>> Please add your comments and suggestions,
>>>
>>> izumi
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>>
>>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>>
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>
>
>



-- 
                        >> Izumi Aizu <<

          Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo

           Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,
                                  Japan
                                 * * * * *
           << Writing the Future of the History >>
                                www.anr.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 william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch  Tue Nov 23 12:10:07 2010
From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake)
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 18:10:07 +0100
Subject: [governance] Additional points for tomorrow's CSTD
 consultation meeting
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTim7uz74uopQ47dVjZSzhyNFvf5_HOk9kE19veNf@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTikX9_Cd6KY9k06HDT+Bq9GmC_7o4xQp4UmjXmef@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTikpNjwjsOO-xbgijN_sAMqKw+3ikc6WKJHaCM5w@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTim7uz74uopQ47dVjZSzhyNFvf5_HOk9kE19veNf@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <597554F7-A0ED-48C8-8ED3-73E4B514DE3E@graduateinstitute.ch>

Meanwhile the G77 + China are calling for a bureau, so it's not entirely clear quite to what extent all this complicated selection procedure will be used.  

I wonder whether "Multi-stakeholder approach in line with Tunis agenda" would be construed as WSIS MS or WGIG/IGF MS?

Personally I would not mix the MAG and secretariat issues, the relevant points re: the latter kind of get lost.  Would read better if addressed sequentially and fully.  Secretariat should be as open and interoperable with all stakeholder groups as its predecessor etc. and not follow conventional bureau type planning procedures etc. 
 

On Nov 23, 2010, at 5:02 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote:

> Here's the new and hopefully improved version, taking helpful suggestions
> made by Marilia, Hakikur and Miguel.
> 
> ----------
> 9. Do you have any other comments?
> 
> As the addition to our answer to the questionnaire:
> 
> IGC would like to emphasize the importance of keeping the secretariat
> function of the past five years that have been the key to the success
> of IGF to date.
> 
> We also request to keep the Multi-stakeholder approach in line with
> Tunis agenda in the organizing of the IGF, MAG and Consultations,
> attention to the balance of all stakeholders
> 
> We strongly request that the new MAG/secretariat should keep the open
> and inclusive approach. IGF should promote the participation from all
> stakeholders from all different parts of the world, especially from
> developing parts, pay sufficient attention to achieve gender balance,
> involve youth, and not to give special privileges to any particular
> group or stakeholders.
> 
> IGF should also give equal weight to all stakeholders when making
> decisions – we mean to governments, private sector, civil society, and
> technical and academic communities.
> 
> Again, we want to emphasize the importance of keeping all meetings and
> the works open and transparent – full use of webcast and other online
> tools in IGF meeting as well as all consultation meetings and MAG
> meetings are essential.
> 
> We also request that IGF should keep its independence from the
> influence of financial donors in open, transparent manner.
> 
> For the composition of the new MAG, we request to foster:
> 
> - Transparency on the elections or selections of its members
> - More proactive role on producing the summary of the IGF. We believe
> it should not rest to the responsibility of the chair alone, same goes
> true on identifying the main points discussed.
> MAG should also map the points of divergence among stakeholders.
> 
> And finally, if possible, we expect the new MAG to help identify
> points of consensus in IGF discussions.
> 
> izumi
> 
> 
> 2010/11/24 Miguel Alcaine <miguel.alcaine at gmail.com>:
>> Dear Izumi,
>> 
>> I suggest to use keep instead of improve at the end of the intervention. To
>> say otherwise, will suggest there has been already and undue influence,
>> which nobody should say, unless proof can be provided.
>> 
>> Best,
>> 
>> Miguel
>> 
>> On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 12:48 PM, Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Here is my crude draft statement/comment for tomorrow's CSTD consultation
>>> meeting, in addition to the questionnaire already submitted, and I plan to
>>> distribute the copies there.
>>> 
>>> Below is sort of sketchy draft of points I propose.
>>> 
>>> ----
>>> As the addition to the answer to the questionnaire:
>>> 
>>> IGC would like to emphasize the importance of keeping and enhancing
>>> the secretariat functions of the past five years as follows:
>>> 
>>> Keep the Multi-stakeholder approach in line with Tunis agenda for all
>>> exercises of IGF,
>>> - In the organizing of the IGF meeting, MAG and Consultation meetings,
>>> - pay attention to the balance of all stakeholders
>>> 
>>> Keep the open and inclusive approach:
>>> - Receive and encourage the participation from all stakeholders from
>>> all different
>>>  parts of the world, gender balance, youth, giving no privileges to
>>> any particular group or stakeholders.
>>> 
>>> - Give equal weight to all stakeholders (when making operational
>>> decisions) – governments, private sector,
>>> civil society, technical and academic communities, and IGOs.
>>> 
>>> Keep all meetings open and transparent – full use of webcast, audio,
>>> video and transcripts
>>>  and other online tools in IGF meeting as well as all consultation
>>> and MAG meetings.
>>> 
>>> Keep (enhance?) its independence from the influence of financial donors.
>>> 
>>> Please add your comments and suggestions,
>>> 
>>> izumi
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>> 
>>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>> 
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
>                         >> Izumi Aizu <<
> 
>           Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo
> 
>            Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,
>                                   Japan
>                                  * * * * *
>            << Writing the Future of the History >>
>                                 www.anr.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.williamdrake.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 ca at cafonso.ca  Tue Nov 23 13:23:33 2010
From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso)
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 16:23:33 -0200
Subject: [governance] IGF consultation starting
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=wuACXGsCxNmx4m0uXe+0egmTmZ0UtBSR+=QGO@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTimKHNtP1JVoWsAeUOdEXEQkMgGTwxXpw4FRAFY+@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTi=rFV58eS1b83ZK3KiMzWV3d_8_PvttdcRkzy4w@mail.gmail.com> <4CEA7CFD.5090209@paque.net> <AANLkTinOuhZ95bdg4Xr3s4Rhb8HuWZ3NeqDDVd8Wnz13@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTint+9DtTiqxbNb7i1NbcWDdQ=4mySY7L713+7bN@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTikMPPxVSNOj5YLkVmfD=CEKNAC1rZQ2AnU-owzj@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTi=wuACXGsCxNmx4m0uXe+0egmTmZ0UtBSR+=QGO@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4CEC06A5.80408@cafonso.ca>

On 11/23/2010 02:26 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote:
> well, thanks for the support, but the actual MAG discussion right now
> is getting into somewhat difficult areas for the selection of MAG members.
>
> Markus is trying to persuade that "triage" approach of each stakeholder
> making the final selection, instead of asking Secretary General to make
> final decision, may end up breaking the regional balance, thus may
> not be the recommended way forward.
>
> Many CS members are trying to push CS will select its own members.

Which should be obvious and natural, since this is basically how 
business community members have been selected, I think. If the idea is 
of a multistakeholder advisory group (hmm-hmmm, this is the *name* of 
the thing!), then the stakeholders should select their own participants. 
But...

--c.a.

-- 

Carlos A. Afonso
====================================
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 iza at anr.org  Tue Nov 23 16:49:23 2010
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 06:49:23 +0900
Subject: [governance] Additional points for tomorrow's CSTD
 consultation meeting
In-Reply-To: <597554F7-A0ED-48C8-8ED3-73E4B514DE3E@graduateinstitute.ch>
References: <AANLkTikX9_Cd6KY9k06HDT+Bq9GmC_7o4xQp4UmjXmef@mail.gmail.com>
 <AANLkTikpNjwjsOO-xbgijN_sAMqKw+3ikc6WKJHaCM5w@mail.gmail.com>
 <AANLkTim7uz74uopQ47dVjZSzhyNFvf5_HOk9kE19veNf@mail.gmail.com> <597554F7-A0ED-48C8-8ED3-73E4B514DE3E@graduateinstitute.ch>
Message-ID: <AANLkTinA0GgPKqk6JEw+QDvacP8GqbcTqa+AWew_oVQo@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks Bill, any other comments on these points?
Please.

izumi

2010/11/24 William Drake <william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch>:
> Meanwhile the G77 + China are calling for a bureau, so it's not entirely clear quite to what extent all this complicated selection procedure will be used.
>
> I wonder whether "Multi-stakeholder approach in line with Tunis agenda" would be construed as WSIS MS or WGIG/IGF MS?
>
> Personally I would not mix the MAG and secretariat issues, the relevant points re: the latter kind of get lost.  Would read better if addressed sequentially and fully.  Secretariat should be as open and interoperable with all stakeholder groups as its predecessor etc. and not follow conventional bureau type planning procedures etc.
>
>
> On Nov 23, 2010, at 5:02 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote:
>
>> Here's the new and hopefully improved version, taking helpful suggestions
>> made by Marilia, Hakikur and Miguel.
>>
>> ----------
>> 9. Do you have any other comments?
>>
>> As the addition to our answer to the questionnaire:
>>
>> IGC would like to emphasize the importance of keeping the secretariat
>> function of the past five years that have been the key to the success
>> of IGF to date.
>>
>> We also request to keep the Multi-stakeholder approach in line with
>> Tunis agenda in the organizing of the IGF, MAG and Consultations,
>> attention to the balance of all stakeholders
>>
>> We strongly request that the new MAG/secretariat should keep the open
>> and inclusive approach. IGF should promote the participation from all
>> stakeholders from all different parts of the world, especially from
>> developing parts, pay sufficient attention to achieve gender balance,
>> involve youth, and not to give special privileges to any particular
>> group or stakeholders.
>>
>> IGF should also give equal weight to all stakeholders when making
>> decisions – we mean to governments, private sector, civil society, and
>> technical and academic communities.
>>
>> Again, we want to emphasize the importance of keeping all meetings and
>> the works open and transparent – full use of webcast and other online
>> tools in IGF meeting as well as all consultation meetings and MAG
>> meetings are essential.
>>
>> We also request that IGF should keep its independence from the
>> influence of financial donors in open, transparent manner.
>>
>> For the composition of the new MAG, we request to foster:
>>
>> - Transparency on the elections or selections of its members
>> - More proactive role on producing the summary of the IGF. We believe
>> it should not rest to the responsibility of the chair alone, same goes
>> true on identifying the main points discussed.
>> MAG should also map the points of divergence among stakeholders.
>>
>> And finally, if possible, we expect the new MAG to help identify
>> points of consensus in IGF discussions.
>>
>> izumi
>>
>>
>> 2010/11/24 Miguel Alcaine <miguel.alcaine at gmail.com>:
>>> Dear Izumi,
>>>
>>> I suggest to use keep instead of improve at the end of the intervention. To
>>> say otherwise, will suggest there has been already and undue influence,
>>> which nobody should say, unless proof can be provided.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Miguel
>>>
>>> On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 12:48 PM, Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Here is my crude draft statement/comment for tomorrow's CSTD consultation
>>>> meeting, in addition to the questionnaire already submitted, and I plan to
>>>> distribute the copies there.
>>>>
>>>> Below is sort of sketchy draft of points I propose.
>>>>
>>>> ----
>>>> As the addition to the answer to the questionnaire:
>>>>
>>>> IGC would like to emphasize the importance of keeping and enhancing
>>>> the secretariat functions of the past five years as follows:
>>>>
>>>> Keep the Multi-stakeholder approach in line with Tunis agenda for all
>>>> exercises of IGF,
>>>> - In the organizing of the IGF meeting, MAG and Consultation meetings,
>>>> - pay attention to the balance of all stakeholders
>>>>
>>>> Keep the open and inclusive approach:
>>>> - Receive and encourage the participation from all stakeholders from
>>>> all different
>>>>  parts of the world, gender balance, youth, giving no privileges to
>>>> any particular group or stakeholders.
>>>>
>>>> - Give equal weight to all stakeholders (when making operational
>>>> decisions) – governments, private sector,
>>>> civil society, technical and academic communities, and IGOs.
>>>>
>>>> Keep all meetings open and transparent – full use of webcast, audio,
>>>> video and transcripts
>>>>  and other online tools in IGF meeting as well as all consultation
>>>> and MAG meetings.
>>>>
>>>> Keep (enhance?) its independence from the influence of financial donors.
>>>>
>>>> Please add your comments and suggestions,
>>>>
>>>> izumi
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>>>
>>>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>>>
>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>                         >> Izumi Aizu <<
>>
>>           Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo
>>
>>            Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,
>>                                   Japan
>>                                  * * * * *
>>            << Writing the Future of the History >>
>>                                 www.anr.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.williamdrake.org
> ***********************************************************
>
>
>



-- 
                        >> Izumi Aizu <<

          Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo

           Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,
                                  Japan
                                 * * * * *
           << Writing the Future of the History >>
                                www.anr.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 miguel.alcaine at gmail.com  Tue Nov 23 18:10:10 2010
From: miguel.alcaine at gmail.com (Miguel Alcaine)
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 00:10:10 +0100
Subject: [governance] Additional points for tomorrow's CSTD
 consultation meeting
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinA0GgPKqk6JEw+QDvacP8GqbcTqa+AWew_oVQo@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTikX9_Cd6KY9k06HDT+Bq9GmC_7o4xQp4UmjXmef@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTikpNjwjsOO-xbgijN_sAMqKw+3ikc6WKJHaCM5w@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTim7uz74uopQ47dVjZSzhyNFvf5_HOk9kE19veNf@mail.gmail.com>
	<597554F7-A0ED-48C8-8ED3-73E4B514DE3E@graduateinstitute.ch>
	<AANLkTinA0GgPKqk6JEw+QDvacP8GqbcTqa+AWew_oVQo@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=XqDT-adNpw_3u2Ci45cCH7H6QnF0F44cZUVPD@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Izumi:

As Bill points:

Not to follow conventional Bureau type, although this is what TA called for.
(Do not mention this last part)

MAG was the result of the open consultations for convening the IGF in
February 2006 and the final decision by the SG. Additionally, MAG has been
praised for its effectiveness and it has been able to tackle any issue and
advance discussions. We should envisage a MAG and not a traditional bureau
as understood in the UN.

Best,

Miguel

On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 10:49 PM, Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org> wrote:

> Thanks Bill, any other comments on these points?
> Please.
>
> izumi
>
> 2010/11/24 William Drake <william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch>:
> > Meanwhile the G77 + China are calling for a bureau, so it's not entirely
> clear quite to what extent all this complicated selection procedure will be
> used.
> >
> > I wonder whether "Multi-stakeholder approach in line with Tunis agenda"
> would be construed as WSIS MS or WGIG/IGF MS?
> >
> > Personally I would not mix the MAG and secretariat issues, the relevant
> points re: the latter kind of get lost.  Would read better if addressed
> sequentially and fully.  Secretariat should be as open and interoperable
> with all stakeholder groups as its predecessor etc. and not follow
> conventional bureau type planning procedures etc.
> >
> >
> > On Nov 23, 2010, at 5:02 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote:
> >
> >> Here's the new and hopefully improved version, taking helpful
> suggestions
> >> made by Marilia, Hakikur and Miguel.
> >>
> >> ----------
> >> 9. Do you have any other comments?
> >>
> >> As the addition to our answer to the questionnaire:
> >>
> >> IGC would like to emphasize the importance of keeping the secretariat
> >> function of the past five years that have been the key to the success
> >> of IGF to date.
> >>
> >> We also request to keep the Multi-stakeholder approach in line with
> >> Tunis agenda in the organizing of the IGF, MAG and Consultations,
> >> attention to the balance of all stakeholders
> >>
> >> We strongly request that the new MAG/secretariat should keep the open
> >> and inclusive approach. IGF should promote the participation from all
> >> stakeholders from all different parts of the world, especially from
> >> developing parts, pay sufficient attention to achieve gender balance,
> >> involve youth, and not to give special privileges to any particular
> >> group or stakeholders.
> >>
> >> IGF should also give equal weight to all stakeholders when making
> >> decisions – we mean to governments, private sector, civil society, and
> >> technical and academic communities.
> >>
> >> Again, we want to emphasize the importance of keeping all meetings and
> >> the works open and transparent – full use of webcast and other online
> >> tools in IGF meeting as well as all consultation meetings and MAG
> >> meetings are essential.
> >>
> >> We also request that IGF should keep its independence from the
> >> influence of financial donors in open, transparent manner.
> >>
> >> For the composition of the new MAG, we request to foster:
> >>
> >> - Transparency on the elections or selections of its members
> >> - More proactive role on producing the summary of the IGF. We believe
> >> it should not rest to the responsibility of the chair alone, same goes
> >> true on identifying the main points discussed.
> >> MAG should also map the points of divergence among stakeholders.
> >>
> >> And finally, if possible, we expect the new MAG to help identify
> >> points of consensus in IGF discussions.
> >>
> >> izumi
> >>
> >>
> >> 2010/11/24 Miguel Alcaine <miguel.alcaine at gmail.com>:
> >>> Dear Izumi,
> >>>
> >>> I suggest to use keep instead of improve at the end of the
> intervention. To
> >>> say otherwise, will suggest there has been already and undue influence,
> >>> which nobody should say, unless proof can be provided.
> >>>
> >>> Best,
> >>>
> >>> Miguel
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 12:48 PM, Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Here is my crude draft statement/comment for tomorrow's CSTD
> consultation
> >>>> meeting, in addition to the questionnaire already submitted, and I
> plan to
> >>>> distribute the copies there.
> >>>>
> >>>> Below is sort of sketchy draft of points I propose.
> >>>>
> >>>> ----
> >>>> As the addition to the answer to the questionnaire:
> >>>>
> >>>> IGC would like to emphasize the importance of keeping and enhancing
> >>>> the secretariat functions of the past five years as follows:
> >>>>
> >>>> Keep the Multi-stakeholder approach in line with Tunis agenda for all
> >>>> exercises of IGF,
> >>>> - In the organizing of the IGF meeting, MAG and Consultation meetings,
> >>>> - pay attention to the balance of all stakeholders
> >>>>
> >>>> Keep the open and inclusive approach:
> >>>> - Receive and encourage the participation from all stakeholders from
> >>>> all different
> >>>>  parts of the world, gender balance, youth, giving no privileges to
> >>>> any particular group or stakeholders.
> >>>>
> >>>> - Give equal weight to all stakeholders (when making operational
> >>>> decisions) – governments, private sector,
> >>>> civil society, technical and academic communities, and IGOs.
> >>>>
> >>>> Keep all meetings open and transparent – full use of webcast, audio,
> >>>> video and transcripts
> >>>>  and other online tools in IGF meeting as well as all consultation
> >>>> and MAG meetings.
> >>>>
> >>>> Keep (enhance?) its independence from the influence of financial
> donors.
> >>>>
> >>>> Please add your comments and suggestions,
> >>>>
> >>>> izumi
> >>>> ____________________________________________________________
> >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >>>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> >>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> >>>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> >>>>
> >>>> For all list information and functions, see:
> >>>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> >>>>
> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >>                         >> Izumi Aizu <<
> >>
> >>           Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo
> >>
> >>            Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,
> >>                                   Japan
> >>                                  * * * * *
> >>            << Writing the Future of the History >>
> >>                                 www.anr.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.williamdrake.org
> > ***********************************************************
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
>                         >> Izumi Aizu <<
>
>           Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo
>
>            Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,
>                                   Japan
>                                  * * * * *
>            << Writing the Future of the History >>
>                                 www.anr.org
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101124/e4c0ef1a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From iza at anr.org  Wed Nov 24 02:20:42 2010
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 16:20:42 +0900
Subject: [governance] Friendly reminder - 9 am at GICC, today for those in
 Geneva
Message-ID: <AANLkTikTTygEdoQkF_q86X4_T2Y5GJqZDBqp5onfW9+X@mail.gmail.com>

As agreed the other day, the IGC members still staying in Geneva
will meet at 9 am, shortly, at the GICC.

See you there,

izumi
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From miguel.alcaine at gmail.com  Wed Nov 24 02:56:30 2010
From: miguel.alcaine at gmail.com (Miguel Alcaine)
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 08:56:30 +0100
Subject: [governance] Friendly reminder - 9 am at GICC, today for those
 in Geneva
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikTTygEdoQkF_q86X4_T2Y5GJqZDBqp5onfW9+X@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTikTTygEdoQkF_q86X4_T2Y5GJqZDBqp5onfW9+X@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTikSqy+sLnyLDrkOsFD-v8+ddRF2218OMLs0Q=DX@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Izumi,

As I said, I will not be there.

All the best for all,

Miguel

On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 8:20 AM, Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org> wrote:

> As agreed the other day, the IGC members still staying in Geneva
> will meet at 9 am, shortly, at the GICC.
>
> See you there,
>
> izumi
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101124/372cf3e9/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From iza at anr.org  Wed Nov 24 04:29:07 2010
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 18:29:07 +0900
Subject: [governance] GA resolution
Message-ID: <AANLkTikxXxxj6NGpPHv9rXJwRk_1r4iD_HEtoGARJV4=@mail.gmail.com>

I have spoken to some people who have more knowledge about the UN negotiation
on IGF in NYC. Some said the final text is "more positive" than the original one
in relation to the Multi-stakeholder approach etc. Other guy also said even
it will be largely managed by DESA, headed by Mr Sha, they will keep the open
approach being exercised so far.

The original plan of limiting one speaker from one stakeholder group for the EC
consultation meeting was purely for logistical reason, size of the room,
and they were able to change that so that they can accommodate more people.

Whether these are really so remain to be seen, and the GA resolution will be
published likely today - we will see.

izumi



-- 
                        >> Izumi Aizu <<

          Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo

           Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,
                                  Japan
                                 * * * * *
           << Writing the Future of the History >>
                                www.anr.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 stephaniep at diplomacy.edu  Wed Nov 24 04:31:15 2010
From: stephaniep at diplomacy.edu (Stephanie Borg Psaila)
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 10:31:15 +0100
Subject: [governance] GA 2nd Committee expected to adopt text on November 30
Message-ID: <AANLkTinD+XZF=CkA3d1u35vXJw5bbdhWQUdAw5=mQ68_@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all,

The Second Committee is expected to adopt final text on November 30.

The final text of the draft resolution, dated November 19, can be viewed
here:
http://igbook.diplomacy.edu/2010/11/igf-renewal-a-step-closer-second-committee-to-approve-final-text-on-nov-30/

Your comments are most welcome.

Best,
Stephanie


--
Stephanie Borg Psaila
DiploFoundation
www.diplomacy.edu/ig
http://igbook.diplomacy.edu

*The latest from Diplo...*
Internet Governance tweets: follow @IGblogger<http://www.twitter.com/IGblogger>
Internet Governance blogs: visit IG Book blog <http://igbook.diplomacy.edu>



On 23 November 2010 10:29, Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org> wrote:

> I chatted this morning with one of the government members of MAG,
> and was told that the UN GA may pass the resolution as early as
> Wednesday, that's tomorrow. AND, since G77+ China has been
> very strong in pushing their position, it's likely that DESA will
> assume the Secretariat - that may change the nature of IGF
> to some extent.
>
> This is still an unconfirmed information at all, but don't be surprised
> if this happens.
>
> izumi
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101124/c8120459/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From iza at anr.org  Wed Nov 24 04:36:31 2010
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 18:36:31 +0900
Subject: [governance] CSTD Consultation attendance
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=2G81Mk9LNMkfPhNdPSCq5NvCjVsfZ0eBjZse4@mail.gmail.com>

The secretariat prepared the list of participants and handed out.
Among them, following government reps are printed.

Belarus
Belgium
Bulgaria
Canada
Columbia
Cyprus
Egypt (3)
Finland (2)
Germany
Hungary
Madagascar
Mauritius
Peru (3)
Portugal 82)
Switzerland (2)
Tunisia
USA

Majority of these are from Permanent Mission in Geneva.

--
ITU (2)
UNESCO
WIPO (2)

---
22 CS, business entities are also listed.

looks like some 50 people are attending.

izumi
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From iza at anr.org  Wed Nov 24 04:37:50 2010
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 18:37:50 +0900
Subject: [governance] Re: GA 2nd Committee expected to adopt text on
 November 30
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinD+XZF=CkA3d1u35vXJw5bbdhWQUdAw5=mQ68_@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTinD+XZF=CkA3d1u35vXJw5bbdhWQUdAw5=mQ68_@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTikst4V7fSL0XmwjqadPgVP62n45gxF3DbxE2gSn@mail.gmail.com>

Many thanks!

It says, among others,

"Our source in New York has also confirmed that unless there are any
last-minute interventions by Member States, the Second Committee is
expected to adopt the final text on November 30. Although anything is
possible, further amendments to the text are ‘highly unlikely’."

izumi


2010/11/24 Stephanie Borg Psaila <stephaniep at diplomacy.edu>:
> Dear all,
> The Second Committee is expected to adopt final text on November 30.
> The final text of the draft resolution, dated November 19, can be viewed
> here: http://igbook.diplomacy.edu/2010/11/igf-renewal-a-step-closer-second-committee-to-approve-final-text-on-nov-30/
> Your comments are most welcome.
> Best,
> Stephanie
>
> --
> Stephanie Borg Psaila
> DiploFoundation
> www.diplomacy.edu/ig
> http://igbook.diplomacy.edu
>
> The latest from Diplo...
> Internet Governance tweets: follow @IGblogger
> Internet Governance blogs: visit IG Book blog
>
>
> On 23 November 2010 10:29, Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org> wrote:
>>
>> I chatted this morning with one of the government members of MAG,
>> and was told that the UN GA may pass the resolution as early as
>> Wednesday, that's tomorrow. AND, since G77+ China has been
>> very strong in pushing their position, it's likely that DESA will
>> assume the Secretariat - that may change the nature of IGF
>> to some extent.
>>
>> This is still an unconfirmed information at all, but don't be surprised
>> if this happens.
>>
>> izumi
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>



-- 
                        >> Izumi Aizu <<

          Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo

           Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,
                                  Japan
                                 * * * * *
           << Writing the Future of the History >>
                                www.anr.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 iza at anr.org  Wed Nov 24 04:46:57 2010
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 18:46:57 +0900
Subject: [governance] Re: GA 2nd Committee expected to adopt text on
 November 30
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikst4V7fSL0XmwjqadPgVP62n45gxF3DbxE2gSn@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTinD+XZF=CkA3d1u35vXJw5bbdhWQUdAw5=mQ68_@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTikst4V7fSL0XmwjqadPgVP62n45gxF3DbxE2gSn@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=z9NgVF7EAxbTs=czvcWaC_bECBk=92PP5TGqv@mail.gmail.com>

Texts on the IGF extension from the PDF:

17. Decides to extend the mandate of the Internet Governance Forum for
a further five years, and in this regard, invites the
Secretary-General to continue with the convening of the Internet
Governance Forum for a multi-stakeholder policy dialogue on Internet
governance issues according to its mandate as set out in paragraph 72
of the Tunis Agenda for the Information Society,12 while recognizing
at the same time the need to improve it with a view to  linking it to
the broader dialogue on global internet governance;

 18. Welcomes the decision by ECOSOC in paragraph 30 of E/2010/2 to
invite the Chair of the Commission on Science and Technology for
Development to establish, in an open and inclusive manner, a working
group which would seek, compile and review inputs from all Member
States and all other stakeholders on improvements to the Internet
Governance Forum, in line with the mandate set out in the Tunis
Agenda13, and which would submit a report to the Commission at its
fourteenth session, in 2011, with recommendations, as appropriate,
that would constitute an input by the Commission to the General
Assembly, through the Economic and Social Council;

 19. Stresses that the consideration of IGF improvements should be
based on the inputs to be provided to the working group by all Member
States and all other stakeholders, including those comments received
during the online consultation and the consultation undertaken by the
Under Secretary General in the fourth meeting of the IGF held in Sharm
El-Sheikh, Egypt in November 2009 with particular consideration of,
inter
alia, enhancing participation from developing countries, exploring
further voluntary options for IGF financing and improving the
preparation process modalities, and the work and the functioning of
the Secretariat;

20. Also decides that the desirability of continuation of the Internet
Governance Forum be considered again by Member States at the General
Assembly within the context of a ten-year review of implementation of
the outcome of the World Summit on the Information Society in 2015;

21. Stresses the need for the enhanced participation of developing
countries, in particular from least developed countries, in all the
Internet Governance Forum meetings, and in this regard invites member
states as well as other  stakeholders to support the participation of
Governments and other stakeholders from developing countries to the
Forum itself as well as the preparatory meetings;

 22. Welcomes the decision by ECOSOC in paragraph 24 of E/2010/2 to
invite the Secretary-General to convene open and inclusive
consultations involving all Member States and all other stakeholders
with a view to assisting the process towards enhanced cooperation in
order to enable Governments on an equal footing to carry out their
roles and responsibilities in respect of international public policy
issues pertaining to the Internet, but not of the day-to-day technical
and operational matters that do not impact upon those issues, through
balanced participation of all stakeholders, especially developing
countries, in their respective roles and responsibilities, as stated
in paragraph 35 of the Tunis Agenda14, and requests the
Secretary-General to submit to the General Assembly for consideration
at its sixty- sixth session, through the Economic and Social Council,
a report on the outcome of these consultations and takes note of the
invitations circulated by the USG to
participate in the open consultations on enhanced cooperation on
international public policy issues pertaining to the internet;
-----
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From rafik.dammak at gmail.com  Wed Nov 24 04:58:26 2010
From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (rafik.dammak at gmail.com)
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 09:58:26 +0000
Subject: [governance] CSTD Consultation attendance
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=2G81Mk9LNMkfPhNdPSCq5NvCjVsfZ0eBjZse4@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTi=2G81Mk9LNMkfPhNdPSCq5NvCjVsfZ0eBjZse4@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <656545176-1290592565-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-2088250473-@b26.c2.bise3.blackberry>

Hi Aizu-san,

Thank you for the updates,
Is CSTD consultation meeting open to observers to attend?

Regards

Rafik
BlackBerry from DOCOMO

-----Original Message-----
From: Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org>
Sender: izumiaizu at gmail.com
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 18:36:31 
To: Governance List<governance at lists.cpsr.org>
Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org,Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org>
Subject: [governance] CSTD Consultation attendance

The secretariat prepared the list of participants and handed out.
Among them, following government reps are printed.

Belarus
Belgium
Bulgaria
Canada
Columbia
Cyprus
Egypt (3)
Finland (2)
Germany
Hungary
Madagascar
Mauritius
Peru (3)
Portugal 82)
Switzerland (2)
Tunisia
USA

Majority of these are from Permanent Mission in Geneva.

--
ITU (2)
UNESCO
WIPO (2)

---
22 CS, business entities are also listed.

looks like some 50 people are attending.

izumi
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 iza at anr.org  Wed Nov 24 05:06:10 2010
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 19:06:10 +0900
Subject: [governance] CSTD Consultation attendance
In-Reply-To: <656545176-1290592565-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-2088250473-@b26.c2.bise3.blackberry>
References: <AANLkTi=2G81Mk9LNMkfPhNdPSCq5NvCjVsfZ0eBjZse4@mail.gmail.com> <656545176-1290592565-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-2088250473-@b26.c2.bise3.blackberry>
Message-ID: <AANLkTimMq=fbj9UoCTvW3B9+sE+rLBqgFLQwnoaUS=ZS@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,
CSTD consultation meeting is an open meeting to all, no observers.

Any comment you want to make?

izumi


2010年11月24日18:58  <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>:
> Hi Aizu-san,
>
> Thank you for the updates,
> Is CSTD consultation meeting open to observers to attend?
>
> Regards
>
> Rafik
> BlackBerry from DOCOMO
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org>
> Sender: izumiaizu at gmail.com
> Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 18:36:31
> To: Governance List<governance at lists.cpsr.org>
> Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org,Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org>
> Subject: [governance] CSTD Consultation attendance
>
> The secretariat prepared the list of participants and handed out.
> Among them, following government reps are printed.
>
> Belarus
> Belgium
> Bulgaria
> Canada
> Columbia
> Cyprus
> Egypt (3)
> Finland (2)
> Germany
> Hungary
> Madagascar
> Mauritius
> Peru (3)
> Portugal 82)
> Switzerland (2)
> Tunisia
> USA
>
> Majority of these are from Permanent Mission in Geneva.
>
> --
> ITU (2)
> UNESCO
> WIPO (2)
>
> ---
> 22 CS, business entities are also listed.
>
> looks like some 50 people are attending.
>
> izumi
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>



-- 
                        >> Izumi Aizu <<

          Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo

           Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,
                                  Japan
                                 * * * * *
           << Writing the Future of the History >>
                                www.anr.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 iza at anr.org  Wed Nov 24 05:13:33 2010
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 19:13:33 +0900
Subject: [governance] Additional comment I made
Message-ID: <AANLkTinoz5p9s++p_J+9BQVzz61QxCWmfAW9bXvmJSxe@mail.gmail.com>

On Question 1, I just added the following (not precisely reading out
but as draft).

It's not the IGC's formal statement, but nevertheless I made it.

I/we will intervene more as the Agenda progresses.
As the chair is now taking comments on question by question.

Thanks,

izumi

----------

I would like to request to include all the regional and national IGF
initiatives in this synthesis document as input to the consultation
process which are not recorded too well yet.

This year, for example, the first attempt of Asia Pacific Regional IGF
was organized with the Hong Kong people’s strong initiative including
MAG members, but also with a wide range of AP IGF community people
involved in the organizing of the event. There were some shortages,
for example not sufficient out-reach, resources etc, but overall it
made a good impact.

Inspired by that, Japanese Internet community and like-minded people
also hosted a preliminary meeting in the end of October as a side
event to APEC Tel Min meeting in Okinawa, and we agreed to form IGF
Japan as not one-shot event, but also an ongoing place for dialogue of
national and regional public policy issues, that relates also to the
global public issues.

This is but just one example – we see more emergence of IGFs globally,
with the multi-stakeholder, open and inclusive process or approach,
spreading, or infecting policy makers, industry, and among us, the
Civil society and NGOs working in the field.

------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From parminder at itforchange.net  Wed Nov 24 05:27:37 2010
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder at itforchange.net)
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 15:57:37 +0530 (IST)
Subject: [governance] Additional comment I made
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinoz5p9s++p_J+9BQVzz61QxCWmfAW9bXvmJSxe@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTinoz5p9s++p_J+9BQVzz61QxCWmfAW9bXvmJSxe@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <79a75730cc30eb0924b90fc2bc558046.squirrel@www.itforchange.net>


as you know izumi, i have much reservation about the way Asia Pacific IGF
(??) was organised... I cant promote it as a model... so pl dont mention
that . thanks. parminder


> On Question 1, I just added the following (not precisely reading out
> but as draft).
>
> It's not the IGC's formal statement, but nevertheless I made it.
>
> I/we will intervene more as the Agenda progresses.
> As the chair is now taking comments on question by question.
>
> Thanks,
>
> izumi
>
> ----------
>
> I would like to request to include all the regional and national IGF
> initiatives in this synthesis document as input to the consultation
> process which are not recorded too well yet.
>
> This year, for example, the first attempt of Asia Pacific Regional IGF
> was organized with the Hong Kong people’s strong initiative including
> MAG members, but also with a wide range of AP IGF community people
> involved in the organizing of the event. There were some shortages,
> for example not sufficient out-reach, resources etc, but overall it
> made a good impact.
>
> Inspired by that, Japanese Internet community and like-minded people
> also hosted a preliminary meeting in the end of October as a side
> event to APEC Tel Min meeting in Okinawa, and we agreed to form IGF
> Japan as not one-shot event, but also an ongoing place for dialogue of
> national and regional public policy issues, that relates also to the
> global public issues.
>
> This is but just one example – we see more emergence of IGFs globally,
> with the multi-stakeholder, open and inclusive process or approach,
> spreading, or infecting policy makers, industry, and among us, the
> Civil society and NGOs working in the field.
>
> ------
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From parminder at itforchange.net  Wed Nov 24 05:29:50 2010
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder at itforchange.net)
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 15:59:50 +0530 (IST)
Subject: [governance] Additional comment I made
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinoz5p9s++p_J+9BQVzz61QxCWmfAW9bXvmJSxe@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTinoz5p9s++p_J+9BQVzz61QxCWmfAW9bXvmJSxe@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <3c585ec47ec6c4d45c2282aa2eaf7415.squirrel@www.itforchange.net>


as you know, Izumi, i have much reservation about the way Asia Pacific IGF
(??) was organised... I cant promote it as a model... so pl dont mention
that . thanks. parminder


> On Question 1, I just added the following (not precisely reading out
> but as draft).
>
> It's not the IGC's formal statement, but nevertheless I made it.
>
> I/we will intervene more as the Agenda progresses.
> As the chair is now taking comments on question by question.
>
> Thanks,
>
> izumi
>
> ----------
>
> I would like to request to include all the regional and national IGF
> initiatives in this synthesis document as input to the consultation
> process which are not recorded too well yet.
>
> This year, for example, the first attempt of Asia Pacific Regional IGF
> was organized with the Hong Kong people’s strong initiative including
> MAG members, but also with a wide range of AP IGF community people
> involved in the organizing of the event. There were some shortages,
> for example not sufficient out-reach, resources etc, but overall it
> made a good impact.
>
> Inspired by that, Japanese Internet community and like-minded people
> also hosted a preliminary meeting in the end of October as a side
> event to APEC Tel Min meeting in Okinawa, and we agreed to form IGF
> Japan as not one-shot event, but also an ongoing place for dialogue of
> national and regional public policy issues, that relates also to the
> global public issues.
>
> This is but just one example – we see more emergence of IGFs globally,
> with the multi-stakeholder, open and inclusive process or approach,
> spreading, or infecting policy makers, industry, and among us, the
> Civil society and NGOs working in the field.
>
> ------
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 rafik.dammak at gmail.com  Wed Nov 24 05:34:39 2010
From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (rafik.dammak at gmail.com)
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 10:34:39 +0000
Subject: [governance] Additional comment I made
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinoz5p9s++p_J+9BQVzz61QxCWmfAW9bXvmJSxe@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTinoz5p9s++p_J+9BQVzz61QxCWmfAW9bXvmJSxe@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <616646787-1290594740-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1734395858-@b26.c2.bise3.blackberry>

I support the adds, I think that those examples are relevant.

Rafik
BlackBerry from DOCOMO

-----Original Message-----
From: Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org>
Sender: izumiaizu at gmail.com
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 19:13:33 
To: Governance List<governance at lists.cpsr.org>
Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org,Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org>
Subject: [governance] Additional comment I made

On Question 1, I just added the following (not precisely reading out
but as draft).

It's not the IGC's formal statement, but nevertheless I made it.

I/we will intervene more as the Agenda progresses.
As the chair is now taking comments on question by question.

Thanks,

izumi

----------

I would like to request to include all the regional and national IGF
initiatives in this synthesis document as input to the consultation
process which are not recorded too well yet.

This year, for example, the first attempt of Asia Pacific Regional IGF
was organized with the Hong Kong people’s strong initiative including
MAG members, but also with a wide range of AP IGF community people
involved in the organizing of the event. There were some shortages,
for example not sufficient out-reach, resources etc, but overall it
made a good impact.

Inspired by that, Japanese Internet community and like-minded people
also hosted a preliminary meeting in the end of October as a side
event to APEC Tel Min meeting in Okinawa, and we agreed to form IGF
Japan as not one-shot event, but also an ongoing place for dialogue of
national and regional public policy issues, that relates also to the
global public issues.

This is but just one example  we see more emergence of IGFs globally,
with the multi-stakeholder, open and inclusive process or approach,
spreading, or infecting policy makers, industry, and among us, the
Civil society and NGOs working in the field.

------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 iza at anr.org  Wed Nov 24 05:37:50 2010
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 19:37:50 +0900
Subject: [governance] Additional comment I made
In-Reply-To: <3c585ec47ec6c4d45c2282aa2eaf7415.squirrel@www.itforchange.net>
References: <AANLkTinoz5p9s++p_J+9BQVzz61QxCWmfAW9bXvmJSxe@mail.gmail.com> <3c585ec47ec6c4d45c2282aa2eaf7415.squirrel@www.itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=1HZhaVgfxMOC+gd=Mo8T2gvF8echE_TwNCSAH@mail.gmail.com>

Sorry Parminr, I already made it, but with the following remakrs, taking India
into consideration, but did not want to expose that either.

"There were some shortages, for example not sufficient out-reach,
resources etc, but overall it made a good impact. "

I also spoke with your government people, Ravi Shankar, in Vilnius at
AP rIGF meeting
where they also expressed their disagreement, and we kind of promised
that we will not repeat the same mistakes again and he took that.

izumi

2010/11/24  <parminder at itforchange.net>:
>
> as you know, Izumi, i have much reservation about the way Asia Pacific IGF
> (??) was organised... I cant promote it as a model... so pl dont mention
> that . thanks. parminder
>
>
>> On Question 1, I just added the following (not precisely reading out
>> but as draft).
>>
>> It's not the IGC's formal statement, but nevertheless I made it.
>>
>> I/we will intervene more as the Agenda progresses.
>> As the chair is now taking comments on question by question.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> izumi
>>
>> ----------
>>
>> I would like to request to include all the regional and national IGF
>> initiatives in this synthesis document as input to the consultation
>> process which are not recorded too well yet.
>>
>> This year, for example, the first attempt of Asia Pacific Regional IGF
>> was organized with the Hong Kong people’s strong initiative including
>> MAG members, but also with a wide range of AP IGF community people
>> involved in the organizing of the event. There were some shortages,
>> for example not sufficient out-reach, resources etc, but overall it
>> made a good impact.
>>
>> Inspired by that, Japanese Internet community and like-minded people
>> also hosted a preliminary meeting in the end of October as a side
>> event to APEC Tel Min meeting in Okinawa, and we agreed to form IGF
>> Japan as not one-shot event, but also an ongoing place for dialogue of
>> national and regional public policy issues, that relates also to the
>> global public issues.
>>
>> This is but just one example – we see more emergence of IGFs globally,
>> with the multi-stakeholder, open and inclusive process or approach,
>> spreading, or infecting policy makers, industry, and among us, the
>> Civil society and NGOs working in the field.
>>
>> ------
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>



-- 
                        >> Izumi Aizu <<

          Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo

           Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,
                                  Japan
                                 * * * * *
           << Writing the Future of the History >>
                                www.anr.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 ajp at glocom.ac.jp  Wed Nov 24 06:01:08 2010
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 20:01:08 +0900
Subject: [governance] MAG meeting summary
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimMq=fbj9UoCTvW3B9+sE+rLBqgFLQwnoaUS=ZS@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTi=2G81Mk9LNMkfPhNdPSCq5NvCjVsfZ0eBjZse4@mail.gmail.com>
 <656545176-1290592565-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-2088250473-
 @b26.c2.bise3.blackberry>
 <AANLkTimMq=fbj9UoCTvW3B9+sE+rLBqgFLQwnoaUS=ZS@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <p0624081ec9129c0ad5e2@[192.168.1.160]>

Summary of yesterday's MAG meeting online 
<http://intgovforum.org/cms/2010/MAG.Summary.23.11.2010.pdf>

Would have liked to see more emphasis on the MAG as an entity 
required to base its recommendations on community comment. Not to 
ignore things as it has in the past. As described, all perhaps a 
little top-down.

And if the non-govt stakeholders are to select their own 
representatives (even with some 'triage' method), which is very good, 
then all should be required to use some transparent and open 
selection process.  The caucus has tried, it would be very good to 
see the private sector and technical community attempt the same.

And no mention of removing the Special Advisors to the Chair: MAG 
members by any other name.  They are a bit of an abomination when all 
the other efforts to transparency are considered.

Adam

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From iza at anr.org  Wed Nov 24 06:48:36 2010
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 20:48:36 +0900
Subject: [governance] another comment I made on the function, Chair,
 Secretariat works
Message-ID: <AANLkTinFHUXRN9kR415mZ=Dz1smP6HTLni6NXkGLPQvt@mail.gmail.com>

I prepared the followings and read out now, after the coffee break.
I did not attribute this to CS IGC, but hope you all agree.

izumi


-----
Additionally, since the questionnaire did not ask this directly – it
is somewhere in between Q2 and Q3, I would like to mention the
following and seek for your support as an formal input to the CSTD
consultation.
That is the question of what should be preserved and enhanced from the
IGF works so far. In addition to what should be improved or added, as
new mechanisms.

I think that the success and achievements of innovative implementation
of multi-stakeholder works of IGF in the traditional UN context which
are not really easy I am sure, were very much driven by the Chair, Mr.
Nitin Desai and also the secretariat team, headed by Mr. Markus
Kummer. I think no one disagrees with this.

We feel this should also be included in the report not for any
diplomatic reasons per se, for certain practical reasons as well. In
view of coming new Chair and Executive Secretariat as Nitin and Marks
already indicated their retirement from IGF works, we like to identify
elements of IGF to be carried on by the new team. Extensive use of
online tools, webcast, audio and visual, transcripts, other tools for
remote participation, are all important parts of IGF. Today, for
example, we do not have remote participation, webcast which we had
thought it’s there. Seating arrangements, registration practices are
also all part of implementation for multi-stakeholder.

I am sure that the new secretariat will be given opportunity to
receive briefings from the existing team members before they leave so
that all the experiences and skills will not be lost and we start over
from scratch.
As the language of the questionnaire, and also that of text of UN GA
Resolution on IGF do not quite include the accomplishment of Nitin,
Markus and his team, I think it is more than appropriate to recognize
these.

-------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From iza at anr.org  Wed Nov 24 07:10:47 2010
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 21:10:47 +0900
Subject: [governance] CSTD consultation to lunch break
Message-ID: <AANLkTimXXn2i_M9k2nmxzYT=Wsvdd31hXfK_=nSduSnu@mail.gmail.com>

Now, we are suspending for lunch, and resume at 3 pm.
Unfortunately, I have to leave for the airport at 3 pm or so.

So folks who can stay till the end, could you please carry on the IGC
flag, please make interventions.

Thank you all,

izumi
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From ajp at glocom.ac.jp  Wed Nov 24 07:14:30 2010
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 21:14:30 +0900
Subject: [governance] CSTD consultation to lunch break
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimXXn2i_M9k2nmxzYT=Wsvdd31hXfK_=nSduSnu@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTimXXn2i_M9k2nmxzYT=Wsvdd31hXfK_=nSduSnu@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <p06240821c912b1d6f1c6@[192.168.1.160]>

Izumi, thanks for keeping us so well informed.

Adam


>Now, we are suspending for lunch, and resume at 3 pm.
>Unfortunately, I have to leave for the airport at 3 pm or so.
>
>So folks who can stay till the end, could you please carry on the IGC
>flag, please make interventions.
>
>Thank you all,
>
>izumi
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 iza at anr.org  Wed Nov 24 07:13:16 2010
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 21:13:16 +0900
Subject: [governance] more comments?
Message-ID: <AANLkTimQWyJhS5HprTTbLhSrtRQjhA1EBUahutnNx+AN@mail.gmail.com>

Here is the text I prepared to bring in to the session, but as I mentioned
I have to leave shortly. If any of members here can say something from these,
either under IGC or on your own, that will be very much appreciated.

IF not, we will work on these more for the coming CSTD consultation in December.

izumi

----------

We request strongly to keep the Multi-stakeholder approach in all the
organizing works of the IGF, including MAG, Consultations and CSTD
working groups, attention to the balance of all stakeholders.

IGC would like to emphasize the importance of keeping the secretariat
function and working methodology achieved through the past five years
that have been the key to the success of IGF to date.

We strongly request that the new MAG/secretariat should keep the open
and inclusive approach. IGF should promote the participation from all
stakeholders from all different parts of the world, especially from
developing parts, pay sufficient attention to achieve gender balance,
involve youth, and not to give special privileges to any particular
group or stakeholders.

IGF should also give equal weight to all stakeholders when making
decisions – we mean to governments, civil society, private sector, and
technical and academic communities.

Again, we want to emphasize the importance of keeping all meetings and
the works open and transparent – full use of webcast and other online
tools in IGF meeting as well as all consultation meetings and MAG
meetings are essential.

We also request that IGF should ensure its independence from the
influence of financial donors in open, transparent manner.

For the composition of the new MAG, we request to foster:

- Transparency on the elections or selections of its members
- More proactive role on producing the summary of the IGF. We believe
it should not rest to the responsibility of the chair alone, same goes
true on identifying the main points discussed.
MAG should also map the points of divergence among stakeholders and
finally, if possible, we expect the new MAG to help identify points of
consensus in IGF discussions.
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From email at hakik.org  Wed Nov 24 07:31:35 2010
From: email at hakik.org (Hakikur Rahman)
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 12:31:35 +0000
Subject: [governance] MAG meeting summary
In-Reply-To: <p0624081ec9129c0ad5e2@[192.168.1.160]>
References: <AANLkTi=2G81Mk9LNMkfPhNdPSCq5NvCjVsfZ0eBjZse4@mail.gmail.com>
 <656545176-1290592565-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-2088250473- @b26.c2.bise3.blackberry>
 <AANLkTimMq=fbj9UoCTvW3B9+sE+rLBqgFLQwnoaUS=ZS@mail.gmail.com>
 <p0624081ec9129c0ad5e2@[192.168.1.160]>
Message-ID: <20101124123230.C2426912BD@npogroups.org>

Thanks Adam for sharing your thoughts.

A nicely illustrated summary. Agreed  on the transparency approach, 
but about the contribution of the overall MAG, and especially at the 
individual level, there need further discussion.  It is expected that 
there would be opportunity for further interactions while the 
rotation and a new MAG takes up.

Best regards,
Hakikur

At 11:01 AM 11/24/2010, Adam Peake wrote:
>Summary of yesterday's MAG meeting online 
><http://intgovforum.org/cms/2010/MAG.Summary.23.11.2010.pdf>
>
>Would have liked to see more emphasis on the MAG as an entity 
>required to base its recommendations on community comment. Not to 
>ignore things as it has in the past. As described, all perhaps a 
>little top-down.
>
>And if the non-govt stakeholders are to select their own 
>representatives (even with some 'triage' method), which is very 
>good, then all should be required to use some transparent and open 
>selection process.  The caucus has tried, it would be very good to 
>see the private sector and technical community attempt the same.
>
>And no mention of removing the Special Advisors to the Chair: MAG 
>members by any other name.  They are a bit of an abomination when 
>all the other efforts to transparency are considered.
>
>Adam
>
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 iza at anr.org  Wed Nov 24 08:11:08 2010
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 22:11:08 +0900
Subject: [governance] Result of IGF negotiation - one observation
Message-ID: <AANLkTinOz1oydUYqey8v_C=s+w=9+y0r8vaMjROP8PKK@mail.gmail.com>

I asked the person involved with the negotiation at UN
if I can share the following annotated observation, and I
got the positive reply.

The draft text is in the "silent" status until the final discussion,
not supposed to be disclosed, but it's already leaked.

izumi

-------------

This text taken as a whole is a fairly satisfactory result:
IGF renewal without any major changes. In the to-ing and fro-ing of the
last three weeks'
informal negotiations in New York, we didn't get every change to the
G77 draft that we
wanted. In particular, I think it is good that the text:

- recognises the "importance of the IGF and its mandate as a
multi-stakeholder dialogue.....
in order to foster the sustainability, robustness, security, stability
and development of the Internet" ;

- states that the enhanced cooperation and IGF tracks of WSIS "may be
complementary";

- states that the Sharm consultation "generally welcomed" renewal of the
IGF mandate: this is more accurate and positive language than that of
the SG report;

- renews the mandate for 5 years according to the TA72 mandate, i.e.
without any change
and not contingent on CSTD WG recommendations on improving the IGF: so
our core objective has been met;

- advocates support for developing country "enhanced participation",
thereby advocating t he relevance of the IGF and its preparatory
meetings to the interests of developing countries - and helps our
message that "the IGF is for you: so make use of it" ;

- does not seek radically to restructure or re-organise the IGF;

- in particular does not create a new traditional UN bureau to run it
and there are no references at all to such radical options, despite
China tabling such language;

- maintains voluntary funding principle for the Secretariat (though
there may be more options) ;

- underscores the ECOSOC decision to set up a CSTD working group on
improvements which involves all stakeholders, to report mid-2011;

- stresses the need for national public policy process to include
multi-stakeholder approaches;

- generally promotes national, regional and international
multi-stakeholder partnerships which help institutionalise the IGF model
at all layers.

One other item that is worth mentioning: there was an attempt throughout
the negotiations to create a new reporting track, calling for the
Secretary General in the context of reporting on the progress made
towards ICT for Development to focus on progress in the "improvement" of
the IGF. This ran the risk of turning the ICT for Development Resolution
into an annual IGF resolution. We succeeded in countering that proposal
so that there is no specific reference in the text to 2nd Committee
reporting on the IGF.

However, in negotiations of this nature, while our key objectives were
secured, we could not win on every point. In particular, it is
regrettable that the text does not do more to talk up the successes of
the IGF to balance the negative thread of "acknowledging the calls for
improvements" (though happily diluted from "many calls" in the original
text), "recogniz(ing) the need for further discussion on the improvement
of its working methods" and "consideration of IGF
improvements....particular(ly) improving the preparation process
modalities and the work and the functioning of the Secretariat". These
several references to improvements in the text could for those with no
direct experience of the IGF give the erroneous impression of something
needing major change or even that the IGF is inherently flawed which is
clearly not the case.

The last reference to the IGF Secretariat was particularly
disappointing; we had tried to remove it because there had been no
comments in the formal consultations either in Sharm or online directly
criticising the work and the functioning of the Secretariat: rather the
opposite in fact in view of the many plaudits for the dedication and
achievements of both Nitin Desai and Markus Kummer.

We undertook a round of briefings of G77 missions at the UN before
the 2nd Committee met - including the G77 drafters and the lead for the
Least Developed Countries - to ensure they understood fully what the IGF
is, the strong level of support of stakeholders from all regions
including developing countries, its track record and successes, its open
preparatory consultation processes and how the IGF has evolved and
self-improved over the 5 years since the WSIS. These were also key
messages at the ICC/ISOC briefing on 21 October.

END
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From b.schombe at gmail.com  Wed Nov 24 08:45:31 2010
From: b.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin SCHOMBE)
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 14:45:31 +0100
Subject: [governance] Result of IGF negotiation - one observation
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinOz1oydUYqey8v_C=s+w=9+y0r8vaMjROP8PKK@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTinOz1oydUYqey8v_C=s+w=9+y0r8vaMjROP8PKK@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTimUDYuC00LpKHwTpGirqj_NW=MtuH3eeKPt5YM_@mail.gmail.com>

Hello everyone,

Congrats anyway to all of you and Izumi mainly because we are very well
informed of the progress of all its activities.
Predictably. We could not succeed on all lines but our voice has been
expected.


SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN
*COORDONNATEUR DU CENTRE AFRICAIN D'ECHANGE CULTUREL (CAFEC)
 ACADEMIE DES TIC
*COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC
*MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE
*NCUC/GNSO MEMBER (ICANN)

Téléphone mobile: +243998983491/+243811980914
email:                   b.schombe at gmail.com
blog:                     http://akimambo.unblog.fr



2010/11/24 Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org>

> I asked the person involved with the negotiation at UN
> if I can share the following annotated observation, and I
> got the positive reply.
>
> The draft text is in the "silent" status until the final discussion,
> not supposed to be disclosed, but it's already leaked.
>
> izumi
>
> -------------
>
> This text taken as a whole is a fairly satisfactory result:
> IGF renewal without any major changes. In the to-ing and fro-ing of the
> last three weeks'
> informal negotiations in New York, we didn't get every change to the
> G77 draft that we
> wanted. In particular, I think it is good that the text:
>
> - recognises the "importance of the IGF and its mandate as a
> multi-stakeholder dialogue.....
> in order to foster the sustainability, robustness, security, stability
> and development of the Internet" ;
>
> - states that the enhanced cooperation and IGF tracks of WSIS "may be
> complementary";
>
> - states that the Sharm consultation "generally welcomed" renewal of the
> IGF mandate: this is more accurate and positive language than that of
> the SG report;
>
> - renews the mandate for 5 years according to the TA72 mandate, i.e.
> without any change
> and not contingent on CSTD WG recommendations on improving the IGF: so
> our core objective has been met;
>
> - advocates support for developing country "enhanced participation",
> thereby advocating t he relevance of the IGF and its preparatory
> meetings to the interests of developing countries - and helps our
> message that "the IGF is for you: so make use of it" ;
>
> - does not seek radically to restructure or re-organise the IGF;
>
> - in particular does not create a new traditional UN bureau to run it
> and there are no references at all to such radical options, despite
> China tabling such language;
>
> - maintains voluntary funding principle for the Secretariat (though
> there may be more options) ;
>
> - underscores the ECOSOC decision to set up a CSTD working group on
> improvements which involves all stakeholders, to report mid-2011;
>
> - stresses the need for national public policy process to include
> multi-stakeholder approaches;
>
> - generally promotes national, regional and international
> multi-stakeholder partnerships which help institutionalise the IGF model
> at all layers.
>
> One other item that is worth mentioning: there was an attempt throughout
> the negotiations to create a new reporting track, calling for the
> Secretary General in the context of reporting on the progress made
> towards ICT for Development to focus on progress in the "improvement" of
> the IGF. This ran the risk of turning the ICT for Development Resolution
> into an annual IGF resolution. We succeeded in countering that proposal
> so that there is no specific reference in the text to 2nd Committee
> reporting on the IGF.
>
> However, in negotiations of this nature, while our key objectives were
> secured, we could not win on every point. In particular, it is
> regrettable that the text does not do more to talk up the successes of
> the IGF to balance the negative thread of "acknowledging the calls for
> improvements" (though happily diluted from "many calls" in the original
> text), "recogniz(ing) the need for further discussion on the improvement
> of its working methods" and "consideration of IGF
> improvements....particular(ly) improving the preparation process
> modalities and the work and the functioning of the Secretariat". These
> several references to improvements in the text could for those with no
> direct experience of the IGF give the erroneous impression of something
> needing major change or even that the IGF is inherently flawed which is
> clearly not the case.
>
> The last reference to the IGF Secretariat was particularly
> disappointing; we had tried to remove it because there had been no
> comments in the formal consultations either in Sharm or online directly
> criticising the work and the functioning of the Secretariat: rather the
> opposite in fact in view of the many plaudits for the dedication and
> achievements of both Nitin Desai and Markus Kummer.
>
> We undertook a round of briefings of G77 missions at the UN before
> the 2nd Committee met - including the G77 drafters and the lead for the
> Least Developed Countries - to ensure they understood fully what the IGF
> is, the strong level of support of stakeholders from all regions
> including developing countries, its track record and successes, its open
> preparatory consultation processes and how the IGF has evolved and
> self-improved over the 5 years since the WSIS. These were also key
> messages at the ICC/ISOC briefing on 21 October.
>
> END
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101124/0fc8970f/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From mariliamaciel at gmail.com  Wed Nov 24 09:04:06 2010
From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 12:04:06 -0200
Subject: [governance] more comments?
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimQWyJhS5HprTTbLhSrtRQjhA1EBUahutnNx+AN@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTimQWyJhS5HprTTbLhSrtRQjhA1EBUahutnNx+AN@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTinj46+B85JpxUiUhL10TggJ3kNgLQdRR7LSyPdi@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks Izumi for drafting this good contribution in such a short time.
Do we have an online repository where we can archive our previous
statements? I am sure this would make the life of the coordinators easier,
would help us map the evolution of our positions and to strengthen the
coherence of our contributions.



Do we have such a space?



Thank you

Marília


On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 10:13 AM, Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org> wrote:

> Here is the text I prepared to bring in to the session, but as I mentioned
> I have to leave shortly. If any of members here can say something from
> these,
> either under IGC or on your own, that will be very much appreciated.
>
> IF not, we will work on these more for the coming CSTD consultation in
> December.
>
> izumi
>
> ----------
>
> We request strongly to keep the Multi-stakeholder approach in all the
> organizing works of the IGF, including MAG, Consultations and CSTD
> working groups, attention to the balance of all stakeholders.
>
> IGC would like to emphasize the importance of keeping the secretariat
> function and working methodology achieved through the past five years
> that have been the key to the success of IGF to date.
>
> We strongly request that the new MAG/secretariat should keep the open
> and inclusive approach. IGF should promote the participation from all
> stakeholders from all different parts of the world, especially from
> developing parts, pay sufficient attention to achieve gender balance,
> involve youth, and not to give special privileges to any particular
> group or stakeholders.
>
> IGF should also give equal weight to all stakeholders when making
> decisions – we mean to governments, civil society, private sector, and
> technical and academic communities.
>
> Again, we want to emphasize the importance of keeping all meetings and
> the works open and transparent – full use of webcast and other online
> tools in IGF meeting as well as all consultation meetings and MAG
> meetings are essential.
>
> We also request that IGF should ensure its independence from the
> influence of financial donors in open, transparent manner.
>
> For the composition of the new MAG, we request to foster:
>
> - Transparency on the elections or selections of its members
> - More proactive role on producing the summary of the IGF. We believe
> it should not rest to the responsibility of the chair alone, same goes
> true on identifying the main points discussed.
> MAG should also map the points of divergence among stakeholders and
> finally, if possible, we expect the new MAG to help identify points of
> consensus in IGF discussions.
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t




-- 
Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
FGV Direito Rio

Center for Technology and Society
Getulio Vargas Foundation
Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101124/18975e07/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From mariliamaciel at gmail.com  Wed Nov 24 09:12:21 2010
From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 12:12:21 -0200
Subject: [governance] CSTD consultation to lunch break
In-Reply-To: <p06240821c912b1d6f1c6@192.168.1.160>
References: <AANLkTimXXn2i_M9k2nmxzYT=Wsvdd31hXfK_=nSduSnu@mail.gmail.com>
	<p06240821c912b1d6f1c6@192.168.1.160>
Message-ID: <AANLkTim3o82KnibC+VL3TC1jZoynuYYm5mRtsy0_nudh@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks, Izumi! You have been great!

On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 10:14 AM, Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:

> Izumi, thanks for keeping us so well informed.
>
> Adam
>
>
>
>  Now, we are suspending for lunch, and resume at 3 pm.
>> Unfortunately, I have to leave for the airport at 3 pm or so.
>>
>> So folks who can stay till the end, could you please carry on the IGC
>> flag, please make interventions.
>>
>> Thank you all,
>>
>> izumi
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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
>



-- 
Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
FGV Direito Rio

Center for Technology and Society
Getulio Vargas Foundation
Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101124/b5edf4b7/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From ajp at glocom.ac.jp  Wed Nov 24 09:18:25 2010
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 23:18:25 +0900
Subject: [governance] Result of IGF negotiation - one observation
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinOz1oydUYqey8v_C=s+w=9+y0r8vaMjROP8PKK@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTinOz1oydUYqey8v_C=s+w=9+y0r8vaMjROP8PKK@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTikApAw5ZmEp_MZ5XGnQWkSpEAmPzV_oxKb3Jbj3@mail.gmail.com>

Regarding this comment:

"The last reference to the IGF Secretariat was particularly
disappointing; we had tried to remove it because there had been no
comments in the formal consultations either in Sharm or online directly
criticising the work and the functioning of the Secretariat: rather the
opposite in fact in view of the many plaudits for the dedication and
achievements of both Nitin Desai and Markus Kummer."

Are they referring to para 19
<http://igbook.diplomacy.edu/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/ga65-ICTs-resol-19-Nov-clean-text1.pdf>
which is talking about the comments in Sharm and the process run by
Mr. Sha, specifically:

That "particular consideration of, inter alia, enhancing participation
from developing countries, exploring further voluntary options for IGF
financing and improving the preparation process modalities, and the
work and the functioning of the Secretariat;"

Fair enough. As all comments about the function of the Secretariat
were positive (except asking that it be better funded), that's what we
and other say during the ongoing CSTD process.  Remind the
consultation that the Secretariat (Desai/Kummer) has been consistently
praised.  CSTD doesn't have to recommend improvements where none are
judged necessary.

Adam



On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 10:11 PM, Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org> wrote:
> I asked the person involved with the negotiation at UN
> if I can share the following annotated observation, and I
> got the positive reply.
>
> The draft text is in the "silent" status until the final discussion,
> not supposed to be disclosed, but it's already leaked.
>
> izumi
>
> -------------
>
> This text taken as a whole is a fairly satisfactory result:
> IGF renewal without any major changes. In the to-ing and fro-ing of the
> last three weeks'
> informal negotiations in New York, we didn't get every change to the
> G77 draft that we
> wanted. In particular, I think it is good that the text:
>
> - recognises the "importance of the IGF and its mandate as a
> multi-stakeholder dialogue.....
> in order to foster the sustainability, robustness, security, stability
> and development of the Internet" ;
>
> - states that the enhanced cooperation and IGF tracks of WSIS "may be
> complementary";
>
> - states that the Sharm consultation "generally welcomed" renewal of the
> IGF mandate: this is more accurate and positive language than that of
> the SG report;
>
> - renews the mandate for 5 years according to the TA72 mandate, i.e.
> without any change
> and not contingent on CSTD WG recommendations on improving the IGF: so
> our core objective has been met;
>
> - advocates support for developing country "enhanced participation",
> thereby advocating t he relevance of the IGF and its preparatory
> meetings to the interests of developing countries - and helps our
> message that "the IGF is for you: so make use of it" ;
>
> - does not seek radically to restructure or re-organise the IGF;
>
> - in particular does not create a new traditional UN bureau to run it
> and there are no references at all to such radical options, despite
> China tabling such language;
>
> - maintains voluntary funding principle for the Secretariat (though
> there may be more options) ;
>
> - underscores the ECOSOC decision to set up a CSTD working group on
> improvements which involves all stakeholders, to report mid-2011;
>
> - stresses the need for national public policy process to include
> multi-stakeholder approaches;
>
> - generally promotes national, regional and international
> multi-stakeholder partnerships which help institutionalise the IGF model
> at all layers.
>
> One other item that is worth mentioning: there was an attempt throughout
> the negotiations to create a new reporting track, calling for the
> Secretary General in the context of reporting on the progress made
> towards ICT for Development to focus on progress in the "improvement" of
> the IGF. This ran the risk of turning the ICT for Development Resolution
> into an annual IGF resolution. We succeeded in countering that proposal
> so that there is no specific reference in the text to 2nd Committee
> reporting on the IGF.
>
> However, in negotiations of this nature, while our key objectives were
> secured, we could not win on every point. In particular, it is
> regrettable that the text does not do more to talk up the successes of
> the IGF to balance the negative thread of "acknowledging the calls for
> improvements" (though happily diluted from "many calls" in the original
> text), "recogniz(ing) the need for further discussion on the improvement
> of its working methods" and "consideration of IGF
> improvements....particular(ly) improving the preparation process
> modalities and the work and the functioning of the Secretariat". These
> several references to improvements in the text could for those with no
> direct experience of the IGF give the erroneous impression of something
> needing major change or even that the IGF is inherently flawed which is
> clearly not the case.
>
> The last reference to the IGF Secretariat was particularly
> disappointing; we had tried to remove it because there had been no
> comments in the formal consultations either in Sharm or online directly
> criticising the work and the functioning of the Secretariat: rather the
> opposite in fact in view of the many plaudits for the dedication and
> achievements of both Nitin Desai and Markus Kummer.
>
> We undertook a round of briefings of G77 missions at the UN before
> the 2nd Committee met - including the G77 drafters and the lead for the
> Least Developed Countries - to ensure they understood fully what the IGF
> is, the strong level of support of stakeholders from all regions
> including developing countries, its track record and successes, its open
> preparatory consultation processes and how the IGF has evolved and
> self-improved over the 5 years since the WSIS. These were also key
> messages at the ICC/ISOC briefing on 21 October.
>
> END
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From mariliamaciel at gmail.com  Wed Nov 24 09:22:36 2010
From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 12:22:36 -0200
Subject: [governance] another comment I made on the function, Chair,
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinFHUXRN9kR415mZ=Dz1smP6HTLni6NXkGLPQvt@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTinFHUXRN9kR415mZ=Dz1smP6HTLni6NXkGLPQvt@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=HaKfoRCHh4xdU9ZUcRmZMEkjuPOPRVLV5sisR@mail.gmail.com>

Excellent contribution.

We discussed in the workshop about remote participation that took place in
Vilnius that our achievements in terms of democratizing the process (remote
participation is a good example) are built on fragile grounds.

There is no formal document that recognizes that remote participation and
IGF hubs are an integral part of the IGF. The opportunity that CS was given
to foster these bottom-up arrangenments is based on personal trust developed
throughout the years with Markus. We need to make sure that these
achievements are preserved by the next members of the Secretariat.

Best,

Marília

On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 9:48 AM, Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org> wrote:

> I prepared the followings and read out now, after the coffee break.
> I did not attribute this to CS IGC, but hope you all agree.
>
> izumi
>
>
> -----
> Additionally, since the questionnaire did not ask this directly – it
> is somewhere in between Q2 and Q3, I would like to mention the
> following and seek for your support as an formal input to the CSTD
> consultation.
> That is the question of what should be preserved and enhanced from the
> IGF works so far. In addition to what should be improved or added, as
> new mechanisms.
>
> I think that the success and achievements of innovative implementation
> of multi-stakeholder works of IGF in the traditional UN context which
> are not really easy I am sure, were very much driven by the Chair, Mr.
> Nitin Desai and also the secretariat team, headed by Mr. Markus
> Kummer. I think no one disagrees with this.
>
> We feel this should also be included in the report not for any
> diplomatic reasons per se, for certain practical reasons as well. In
> view of coming new Chair and Executive Secretariat as Nitin and Marks
> already indicated their retirement from IGF works, we like to identify
> elements of IGF to be carried on by the new team. Extensive use of
> online tools, webcast, audio and visual, transcripts, other tools for
> remote participation, are all important parts of IGF. Today, for
> example, we do not have remote participation, webcast which we had
> thought it’s there. Seating arrangements, registration practices are
> also all part of implementation for multi-stakeholder.
>
> I am sure that the new secretariat will be given opportunity to
> receive briefings from the existing team members before they leave so
> that all the experiences and skills will not be lost and we start over
> from scratch.
> As the language of the questionnaire, and also that of text of UN GA
> Resolution on IGF do not quite include the accomplishment of Nitin,
> Markus and his team, I think it is more than appropriate to recognize
> these.
>
> -------
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t




-- 
Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
FGV Direito Rio

Center for Technology and Society
Getulio Vargas Foundation
Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101124/eb3c7795/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From b.schombe at gmail.com  Wed Nov 24 09:25:43 2010
From: b.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin SCHOMBE)
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 15:25:43 +0100
Subject: [governance] another comment I made on the function, Chair,
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinFHUXRN9kR415mZ=Dz1smP6HTLni6NXkGLPQvt@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTinFHUXRN9kR415mZ=Dz1smP6HTLni6NXkGLPQvt@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=G99bLyyG72RFJeHcgusDzgu5PiAKVZstxAadp@mail.gmail.com>

Basically the text is good, I think it must be emphasized the intensive use
of online tools, webcast, audio and video, transcripts, other tools for
remote participation.

But it will also enhance this experience by providing a multi-linguistic
approach to enable remote participants to contribute to debates.
Experience DiploFoundation and Cisco were 95% very good success at Vilnius
IGF.
Moreover, it will also, for the developing countries, seeking to involve UN
Agencies  both in national and regional level collaborating with  maximum
pana instititions like African Union for Africa, ECA, ADB (African
Development Bank) etc. ..
Sub regional IGFs may serve as platform for restitution with the
participation of sub-regional organizations like SADC, ECCAS, ECOWAS,
COMESA, etc. ...


 BAUDOUIN



2010/11/24 Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org>

> I prepared the followings and read out now, after the coffee break.
> I did not attribute this to CS IGC, but hope you all agree.
>
> izumi
>
>
> -----
> Additionally, since the questionnaire did not ask this directly – it
> is somewhere in between Q2 and Q3, I would like to mention the
> following and seek for your support as an formal input to the CSTD
> consultation.
> That is the question of what should be preserved and enhanced from the
> IGF works so far. In addition to what should be improved or added, as
> new mechanisms.
>
> I think that the success and achievements of innovative implementation
> of multi-stakeholder works of IGF in the traditional UN context which
> are not really easy I am sure, were very much driven by the Chair, Mr.
> Nitin Desai and also the secretariat team, headed by Mr. Markus
> Kummer. I think no one disagrees with this.
>
> We feel this should also be included in the report not for any
> diplomatic reasons per se, for certain practical reasons as well. In
> view of coming new Chair and Executive Secretariat as Nitin and Marks
> already indicated their retirement from IGF works, we like to identify
> elements of IGF to be carried on by the new team. Extensive use of
> online tools, webcast, audio and visual, transcripts, other tools for
> remote participation, are all important parts of IGF. Today, for
> example, we do not have remote participation, webcast which we had
> thought it’s there. Seating arrangements, registration practices are
> also all part of implementation for multi-stakeholder.
>
> I am sure that the new secretariat will be given opportunity to
> receive briefings from the existing team members before they leave so
> that all the experiences and skills will not be lost and we start over
> from scratch.
> As the language of the questionnaire, and also that of text of UN GA
> Resolution on IGF do not quite include the accomplishment of Nitin,
> Markus and his team, I think it is more than appropriate to recognize
> these.
>
> -------
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101124/ba8cd3d0/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From meryem at marzouki.info  Wed Nov 24 09:27:58 2010
From: meryem at marzouki.info (Meryem Marzouki)
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 15:27:58 +0100
Subject: [governance] Re: GA 2nd Committee expected to adopt text on
 November 30
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=z9NgVF7EAxbTs=czvcWaC_bECBk=92PP5TGqv@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTinD+XZF=CkA3d1u35vXJw5bbdhWQUdAw5=mQ68_@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTikst4V7fSL0XmwjqadPgVP62n45gxF3DbxE2gSn@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTi=z9NgVF7EAxbTs=czvcWaC_bECBk=92PP5TGqv@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <44F83997-5B33-4C74-8751-02743A3EB452@marzouki.info>

Thanks Stephanie for the text and a big thank to Izumi for keeping us  
informed in details! Regarding the resolution to be adopted, I think  
we should have a closer look at its entirety, not only at the  
provisions of IGF extension. And, inter alia, what I read from the  
3rd paragraph of the resolution is really worrying:

"Noting that cultural diversity is the common heritage of humankind  
and that the information society should be founded on and stimulate  
respect for cultural identity, cultural and linguistic diversity,  
traditions and religions, and foster dialogue among cultures and  
civilizations, and noting also that the promotion, affirmation and  
preservation of diverse cultural identities and languages as  
reflected in relevant agreed United Nations documents, including the  
Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity of the United Nations  
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, will further  
enrich the information society"

The mention of "traditions and religions" is particularly concerning  
here. As is the lack of *any* mention of rights or freedoms.

I'm wondering what others think of the implications of this  
provision, and the general vision conveyed by this resolution?

Best,
Meryem

--
Meryem Marzouki - Paris, France
Email: meryem at marzouki.info
Lab. LIP6/CNRS/UPMC - www-polytic.lip6.fr
IRIS (Imaginons un réseau Internet solidaire) - www.iris.sgdg.org
EDRI (European Digital Rights) - www.edri.org


Le 24 nov. 10 à 10:46, Izumi AIZU a écrit :

> Texts on the IGF extension from the PDF:
>
> 17. Decides to extend the mandate of the Internet Governance Forum for
> a further five years, and in this regard, invites the
> Secretary-General to continue with the convening of the Internet
> Governance Forum for a multi-stakeholder policy dialogue on Internet
> governance issues according to its mandate as set out in paragraph 72
> of the Tunis Agenda for the Information Society,12 while recognizing
> at the same time the need to improve it with a view to  linking it to
> the broader dialogue on global internet governance;
>
>  18. Welcomes the decision by ECOSOC in paragraph 30 of E/2010/2 to
> invite the Chair of the Commission on Science and Technology for
> Development to establish, in an open and inclusive manner, a working
> group which would seek, compile and review inputs from all Member
> States and all other stakeholders on improvements to the Internet
> Governance Forum, in line with the mandate set out in the Tunis
> Agenda13, and which would submit a report to the Commission at its
> fourteenth session, in 2011, with recommendations, as appropriate,
> that would constitute an input by the Commission to the General
> Assembly, through the Economic and Social Council;
>
>  19. Stresses that the consideration of IGF improvements should be
> based on the inputs to be provided to the working group by all Member
> States and all other stakeholders, including those comments received
> during the online consultation and the consultation undertaken by the
> Under Secretary General in the fourth meeting of the IGF held in Sharm
> El-Sheikh, Egypt in November 2009 with particular consideration of,
> inter
> alia, enhancing participation from developing countries, exploring
> further voluntary options for IGF financing and improving the
> preparation process modalities, and the work and the functioning of
> the Secretariat;
>
> 20. Also decides that the desirability of continuation of the Internet
> Governance Forum be considered again by Member States at the General
> Assembly within the context of a ten-year review of implementation of
> the outcome of the World Summit on the Information Society in 2015;
>
> 21. Stresses the need for the enhanced participation of developing
> countries, in particular from least developed countries, in all the
> Internet Governance Forum meetings, and in this regard invites member
> states as well as other  stakeholders to support the participation of
> Governments and other stakeholders from developing countries to the
> Forum itself as well as the preparatory meetings;
>
>  22. Welcomes the decision by ECOSOC in paragraph 24 of E/2010/2 to
> invite the Secretary-General to convene open and inclusive
> consultations involving all Member States and all other stakeholders
> with a view to assisting the process towards enhanced cooperation in
> order to enable Governments on an equal footing to carry out their
> roles and responsibilities in respect of international public policy
> issues pertaining to the Internet, but not of the day-to-day technical
> and operational matters that do not impact upon those issues, through
> balanced participation of all stakeholders, especially developing
> countries, in their respective roles and responsibilities, as stated
> in paragraph 35 of the Tunis Agenda14, and requests the
> Secretary-General to submit to the General Assembly for consideration
> at its sixty- sixth session, through the Economic and Social Council,
> a report on the outcome of these consultations and takes note of the
> invitations circulated by the USG to
> participate in the open consultations on enhanced cooperation on
> international public policy issues pertaining to the internet;
> -----
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 stephaniep at diplomacy.edu  Wed Nov 24 10:05:57 2010
From: stephaniep at diplomacy.edu (Stephanie Borg Psaila)
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 16:05:57 +0100
Subject: [governance] Re: GA 2nd Committee - Update
Message-ID: <AANLkTikmYUwg2v3xzKt8tnjkzZENdnPD0Rd4vGSukO_W@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all,

There has been an update: Second Committee to adopt text 'in a few
hours'<http://igbook.diplomacy.edu>

Best,
Stephanie

--
Stephanie Borg Psaila
DiploFoundation
www.diplomacy.edu/ig
http://igbook.diplomacy.edu

*The latest from Diplo...*
Internet Governance tweets: follow @IGblogger<http://www.twitter.com/IGblogger>
Internet Governance blogs: visit IG Book blog <http://igbook.diplomacy.edu>



On 24 November 2010 15:27, Meryem Marzouki <meryem at marzouki.info> wrote:

> Thanks Stephanie for the text and a big thank to Izumi for keeping us
> informed in details! Regarding the resolution to be adopted, I think we
> should have a closer look at its entirety, not only at the provisions of IGF
> extension. And, inter alia, what I read from the 3rd paragraph of the
> resolution is really worrying:
>
> "Noting that cultural diversity is the common heritage of humankind and
> that the information society should be founded on and stimulate respect for
> cultural identity, cultural and linguistic diversity, traditions and
> religions, and foster dialogue among cultures and civilizations, and noting
> also that the promotion, affirmation and preservation of diverse cultural
> identities and languages as reflected in relevant agreed United Nations
> documents, including the Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity of the
> United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, will
> further enrich the information society"
>
> The mention of "traditions and religions" is particularly concerning here.
> As is the lack of *any* mention of rights or freedoms.
>
> I'm wondering what others think of the implications of this provision, and
> the general vision conveyed by this resolution?
>
> Best,
> Meryem
>
> --
> Meryem Marzouki - Paris, France
> Email: meryem at marzouki.info
> Lab. LIP6/CNRS/UPMC - www-polytic.lip6.fr
> IRIS (Imaginons un réseau Internet solidaire) - www.iris.sgdg.org
> EDRI (European Digital Rights) - www.edri.org
>
>
> Le 24 nov. 10 à 10:46, Izumi AIZU a écrit :
>
>
>  Texts on the IGF extension from the PDF:
>>
>> 17. Decides to extend the mandate of the Internet Governance Forum for
>> a further five years, and in this regard, invites the
>> Secretary-General to continue with the convening of the Internet
>> Governance Forum for a multi-stakeholder policy dialogue on Internet
>> governance issues according to its mandate as set out in paragraph 72
>> of the Tunis Agenda for the Information Society,12 while recognizing
>> at the same time the need to improve it with a view to  linking it to
>> the broader dialogue on global internet governance;
>>
>>  18. Welcomes the decision by ECOSOC in paragraph 30 of E/2010/2 to
>> invite the Chair of the Commission on Science and Technology for
>> Development to establish, in an open and inclusive manner, a working
>> group which would seek, compile and review inputs from all Member
>> States and all other stakeholders on improvements to the Internet
>> Governance Forum, in line with the mandate set out in the Tunis
>> Agenda13, and which would submit a report to the Commission at its
>> fourteenth session, in 2011, with recommendations, as appropriate,
>> that would constitute an input by the Commission to the General
>> Assembly, through the Economic and Social Council;
>>
>>  19. Stresses that the consideration of IGF improvements should be
>> based on the inputs to be provided to the working group by all Member
>> States and all other stakeholders, including those comments received
>> during the online consultation and the consultation undertaken by the
>> Under Secretary General in the fourth meeting of the IGF held in Sharm
>> El-Sheikh, Egypt in November 2009 with particular consideration of,
>> inter
>> alia, enhancing participation from developing countries, exploring
>> further voluntary options for IGF financing and improving the
>> preparation process modalities, and the work and the functioning of
>> the Secretariat;
>>
>> 20. Also decides that the desirability of continuation of the Internet
>> Governance Forum be considered again by Member States at the General
>> Assembly within the context of a ten-year review of implementation of
>> the outcome of the World Summit on the Information Society in 2015;
>>
>> 21. Stresses the need for the enhanced participation of developing
>> countries, in particular from least developed countries, in all the
>> Internet Governance Forum meetings, and in this regard invites member
>> states as well as other  stakeholders to support the participation of
>> Governments and other stakeholders from developing countries to the
>> Forum itself as well as the preparatory meetings;
>>
>>  22. Welcomes the decision by ECOSOC in paragraph 24 of E/2010/2 to
>> invite the Secretary-General to convene open and inclusive
>> consultations involving all Member States and all other stakeholders
>> with a view to assisting the process towards enhanced cooperation in
>> order to enable Governments on an equal footing to carry out their
>> roles and responsibilities in respect of international public policy
>> issues pertaining to the Internet, but not of the day-to-day technical
>> and operational matters that do not impact upon those issues, through
>> balanced participation of all stakeholders, especially developing
>> countries, in their respective roles and responsibilities, as stated
>> in paragraph 35 of the Tunis Agenda14, and requests the
>> Secretary-General to submit to the General Assembly for consideration
>> at its sixty- sixth session, through the Economic and Social Council,
>> a report on the outcome of these consultations and takes note of the
>> invitations circulated by the USG to
>> participate in the open consultations on enhanced cooperation on
>> international public policy issues pertaining to the internet;
>> -----
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101124/fe073309/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From iza at anr.org  Wed Nov 24 10:20:24 2010
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 15:20:24 +0000
Subject: [governance] more comments?
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinj46+B85JpxUiUhL10TggJ3kNgLQdRR7LSyPdi@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTimQWyJhS5HprTTbLhSrtRQjhA1EBUahutnNx+AN@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTinj46+B85JpxUiUhL10TggJ3kNgLQdRR7LSyPdi@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTincmH1gOrvmGbcnMZjYFAnLvvQ3qXuT4Gy43j=b@mail.gmail.com>

Thank you Marilia and yes our Caucus home page has such archive
for the statement. As soon as I go back to work in Japan, after another
work on Friday in Japan perhaps, I can do that.

Many thanks for the support and engagement here in Geneva as well as there
on the globe.

izumi now at geneva airport


2010/11/24 Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>:
> Thanks Izumi for drafting this good contribution in such a short time.
> Do we have an online repository where we can archive our previous
> statements? I am sure this would make the life of the coordinators easier,
> would help us map the evolution of our positions and to strengthen the
> coherence of our contributions.
>
>
>
> Do we have such a space?
>
>
>
> Thank you
>
> Marília
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From iza at anr.org  Wed Nov 24 10:26:59 2010
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 15:26:59 +0000
Subject: [governance] CSTD WG Setup could be very late
Message-ID: <AANLkTik=kRzWGb2Dkz5A-7HyV5da56R6Fzu=Yn_yAV=e@mail.gmail.com>

While the consultation is still ongoing there, I like to share some info around
CSTD Working Group setup. It seems that even UN GA adops the resolution that
approves the WG, there might have some obstacles to actually nominate the
final slate of WG members. They say some governments are opposting to WG
and request for just open consultation. So the announcement of appointment
of WG members may come quite late: it could be just before the Dec 17
consultation
meeting.

Tha of course will impose logistical challneges for those who are selected
to actuallz attend the consultatin meeting. Not productive at all.

izumi
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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 Nov 24 12:12:02 2010
From: vanda at uol.com.br (Vanda UOL)
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 15:12:02 -0200
Subject: [governance] to whom Thanksgiving is an important celebration
Message-ID: <059401cb8bfa$b83ef650$28bce2f0$@uol.com.br>

-Joy and fun, wish fulfillment and blessing, come to your home and the ones
you love this Thanksgiving! 

Descrição: Descrição: cid:image001.jpg at 01CB8BE8.2769CDB0

 

 

Vanda Scartezini

Polo Consultores Associados

IT Trend

Alameda Santos 1470 – 1407,8

01418-903 São Paulo,SP, Brasil

Tel + 5511 3266.6253

Mob + 55118181.1464

 

 

-----Mensagem original-----
De: izumiaizu at gmail.com [mailto:izumiaizu at gmail.com] Em nome de Izumi AIZU
Enviada em: sexta-feira, 19 de novembro de 2010 13:42
Para: Governance List
Assunto: [governance] Fwd: Answers to the CSTD Questionnaire on improvements
to the IGF

 

Just sent to the CSTD Secretariat and received the confirmation of their
receipt.

 

Jeremy, please put it to our website when you have time to work.

 

Thanks all,

 

izumi

 

 

---------- Forwarded message ----------

From: Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org>

Date: 2010/11/20

Subject: Answers to the CSTD Questionnaire on improvements to the IGF

To: cstdwg-igf at unctad.org

Cc: Mongi Hamdi <Mongi.Hamdi at unctad.org>, Thomas.Schneider at bakom.admin.ch,
frederic.riehl at bakom.admin.ch, Franziska Klopfer
<Franziska.Klopfer at unctad.org>, Anne Miroux <Anne.Miroux at unctad.org>, Dong
Wu <Dong.Wu at unctad.org>, Malou Pasinos <Malou.Pasinos at unctad.org>, Jeremy
Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org>

 

 

Nov 19 2010

 

Dear CSTD,

 

Here attached and following is the Answers to the CSTD Questionnaire on
improvements to the IGF.

 

On behalf of the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus, we submit them
for the input to the coming consultation process.

 

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to participate in the process and we
look forward to working with you in the coming consultation meeting on Nov
24 in Geneva and beyond.

 

Sincerely,

 

Izumi Aizu

Jeremy Malcolm

 

Co-coordinators,

Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC)

 

-----------------

 

Answers to the CSTD Questionnaire on improvements to the IGF

 

Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus Nov 19 2010

 

1. What do you consider the most important achievements of the first five
IGF meetings?

 

IGF created the space for dialogue by all stakeholders in an open, inclusive
manner. These emergence and development of the multistakeholder principle
and practice are perhaps the biggest contribution IGF has achieved so far.
It helped many participants to understand the issues of their interest, as
well as to understand how other actors understand, act and accept their
issues. Emergence of Regional and National IGF with multistakeholder
approach is another achievement.

 

 

2. How satisfied are you with the delivery of the results of discussions at
the IGF and the impact they have had on developments in national, regional
or international Internet governance?

 

IGF has made a reasonable advancement of the understanding of the issues.
Yet, at national, regional and international levels, we have mixed
assessment for the impact it brought.

 

 

3. Which, if any, new mechanisms would you propose to improve the impact of
the IGF discussions, in particular as regards the interaction between the
IGF and other stakeholders? Please specify the kind of mechanism (e.g.
reporting, exchanges, recommendations, concrete advice, etc.) and the
stakeholders (e.g. intergovernmental bodies, other fora dealing with
Internet Governance, etc.).

 

a) One mechanism we can suggest is to come up with some form of
recommendations or messages where all stakeholders have [rough] consensus.
They will not be binding, but could still function as model, reference or
common framework. Working process towards achieving these rough consensus
will create better and deeper understandings amongst different stakeholders.

 

 

b) The Secretariat and MAG should be strongly encouraged to directly foster
discussion and debate of difficult issues in main sessions, instead of
avoiding them.

 

4. In your view, what important new issues or themes concerning Internet
governance have emerged or become important since the Tunis phase of the
Summit, which deserve more attention in the next five years?

 

IGC feels that attention to the development agenda, issues concerning the
marginalized groups or actors, have yet gained sufficient level of work at
IGF and its outcome. These may not be the “new” issues, but we strongly feel
they are very important.

 

Besides them, emergence of new technologies, tools and services, such as
cloud computing; user-generated, SNS and online sharing services such as
wiki, YouTube, Ustream, twitter and Facebook; DPI and behavioral targeting
advertisements; wide deployment of mobile services including smart phones
and tablet computers pose all kind of new challenges for governance.

 

 

5. What do you think should be the priority themes and areas of work of the
IGF during the next five years?

 

Followings will be the areas of themes and works that have priorities we
think.

 

a) Enhancing multi-stakeholder framework within IGF.

b) Promote capacity building for developmental agenda of governance

c) Balancing the interests – to empower those of marginalized and
under-developed in all organizations and fora dealing with Internet
governance – such as ICANN, W3C, IETF, RIRs, ITU, WIPO, CoE, OECD,
UNCTAD/CSTD and United Nations itself.

 

6. How can the capacity of those groups that are not yet well represented at
the IGF be improved? In particular, what could be done to improve the
capacity of representatives from developing countries?

 

a) Establish special funding mechanism by IGF itself to help actors from
developing countries to continuously engage in IGF and related organizations
and meetings. Fellowship works carried out by DiploFoundation, dDotAsia
Oorganizsation, Interne Society [other reference, please] and other
institutions offer good reference for this, but they should be expanded in
larger scale. Targeting youth groups or younger generation in profession,
will have, in the long run, effective impact.

 

b) Providing technical training to policy makers and policy training to
engineers will also help close the gap(s) within the under-represented and
also even well-represented.

 

 

7. How do you think more awareness of Internet governance issues and the IGF
process can be raised amongst groups whose lives are affected by Internet
governance but who are not yet part of the IGF process?

 

a) Giving more weight to regional and national IGF meetings, making more
direct “links” to the main IGF meeting will help outreach to those who have
not yet involved in IGF process. Securing the same level of working
framework of IGF, such as multi-stakeholder composition and inclusion of
civil society groups (where such practice is relatively new or scarce)
should be maintained.

 

b) Ensuring a plurality of civil society voices be heard in Internet
governance processes will also be effective in reaching out to those yet to
participate.

 

c) Online meetings are most effective when provision is made for
participation both synchronously (ie. in real time) and asynchronously. The
remote hubs and moderators at the Vilnius IGF made good progress towards
this direction. Using such tools as blogs, Twitter, mailing lists, Facebook
and so on over an extended period may also increase the awareness.

 

d) Organizing some sessions completely online will create “level playing
field” among all participants, and may also demonstrate the effectiveness of
these tools/technologies, and may also improve the quality of services in
turn.

 

e) Increase linguistic diversity. Using UN major languages other than
English at certain meetings and occasions as main working language
(translated into other UN languages) will increase the outreach to
non-English speaking population of the globe and will give more sense of
ownership. Currently, English is the only default working language, but we
think it does not have to be so.

 

 

8. How, if at all, do you think that the IGF process (including the format
of the meeting, the preparatory process, the development of the agenda,
etc.) needs to change to meet changing circumstances and priorities?

 

As we replied to the MAG questionnaire, the organizing work of IGF primarily
by MAG should be improved. More outcome oriented direction might improve the
quality and value of IGF, but this should be carefully exercised so as not
to lose the open and free spirit of IGF which contributed a great deal.

 

9. Do you have any other comments?

 

Since we are still in the early stage of the consultation process, our
comments include some tentative ideas. We will closely follow the WG process
and will provide more comments and suggestions accordingly.

 

-----------------

____________________________________________________________

You received this message as a subscriber on the list:

      <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org> governance at lists.cpsr.org

To be removed from the list, send any message to:

      <mailto:governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org>
governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

 

For all list information and functions, see:

      <http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance>
http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

 

Translate this email:  <http://translate.google.com/translate_t>
http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101124/b4dc1035/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 3684 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101124/b4dc1035/attachment.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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  Wed Nov 24 12:58:22 2010
From: shailam at yahoo.com (shaila mistry)
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 09:58:22 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [governance] to whom Thanksgiving is an important celebration
In-Reply-To: <059401cb8bfa$b83ef650$28bce2f0$@uol.com.br>
References: <059401cb8bfa$b83ef650$28bce2f0$@uol.com.br>
Message-ID: <196819.19095.qm@web55205.mail.re4.yahoo.com>

Happy Thanksgiving to you!

I like Thanksgiving because it is one celebration that we can all celebrate 
together . 


 
Love and peace 
 
Shaila
 Life is too short ....challenge the rules
Forgive quickly ... love truly ...and tenderly
Laugh constantly.....and never stop dreaming! 



________________________________
From: Vanda UOL <vanda at uol.com.br>
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Sent: Wed, November 24, 2010 9:12:02 AM
Subject: [governance] to whom Thanksgiving is an important celebration


-Joy and fun, wish fulfillment and blessing, come to your home and the ones you 
love this Thanksgiving! 

 
 
Vanda Scartezini
Polo Consultores Associados
IT Trend
Alameda Santos 1470 – 1407,8
01418-903 São Paulo,SP, Brasil
Tel + 5511 3266.6253
Mob + 55118181.1464
 
 
-----Mensagem original-----
De: izumiaizu at gmail.com [mailto:izumiaizu at gmail.com] Em nome de Izumi AIZU
Enviada em: sexta-feira, 19 de novembro de 2010 13:42
Para: Governance List
Assunto: [governance] Fwd: Answers to the CSTD Questionnaire on improvements to 
the IGF
 
Just sent to the CSTD Secretariat and received the confirmation of their 
receipt.
 
Jeremy, please put it to our website when you have time to work.
 
Thanks all,
 
izumi
 
 
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org>
Date: 2010/11/20
Subject: Answers to the CSTD Questionnaire on improvements to the IGF
To: cstdwg-igf at unctad.org
Cc: Mongi Hamdi <Mongi.Hamdi at unctad.org>, Thomas.Schneider at bakom.admin.ch, 
frederic.riehl at bakom.admin.ch, Franziska Klopfer <Franziska.Klopfer at unctad.org>, 
Anne Miroux <Anne.Miroux at unctad.org>, Dong Wu <Dong.Wu at unctad.org>, Malou 
Pasinos <Malou.Pasinos at unctad.org>, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org>
 
 
Nov 19 2010
 
Dear CSTD,
 
Here attached and following is the Answers to the CSTD Questionnaire on 
improvements to the IGF.
 
On behalf of the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus, we submit them for 
the input to the coming consultation process.
 
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to participate in the process and we 
look forward to working with you in the coming consultation meeting on Nov 24 in 
Geneva and beyond.
 
Sincerely,
 
Izumi Aizu
Jeremy Malcolm
 
Co-coordinators,
Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC)
 
-----------------
 
Answers to the CSTD Questionnaire on improvements to the IGF
 
Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus Nov 19 2010
 
1. What do you consider the most important achievements of the first five IGF 
meetings?
 
IGF created the space for dialogue by all stakeholders in an open, inclusive 
manner. These emergence and development of the multistakeholder principle and 
practice are perhaps the biggest contribution IGF has achieved so far. It helped 
many participants to understand the issues of their interest, as well as to 
understand how other actors understand, act and accept their issues. Emergence 
of Regional and National IGF with multistakeholder approach is another 
achievement.
 
 
2. How satisfied are you with the delivery of the results of discussions at the 
IGF and the impact they have had on developments in national, regional or 
international Internet governance?
 
IGF has made a reasonable advancement of the understanding of the issues. Yet, 
at national, regional and international levels, we have mixed assessment for the 
impact it brought.
 
 
3. Which, if any, new mechanisms would you propose to improve the impact of the 
IGF discussions, in particular as regards the interaction between the IGF and 
other stakeholders? Please specify the kind of mechanism (e.g. reporting, 
exchanges, recommendations, concrete advice, etc.) and the stakeholders (e.g. 
intergovernmental bodies, other fora dealing with Internet Governance, etc.).
 
a) One mechanism we can suggest is to come up with some form of recommendations 
or messages where all stakeholders have [rough] consensus. They will not be 
binding, but could still function as model, reference or common framework. 
Working process towards achieving these rough consensus will create better and 
deeper understandings amongst different stakeholders.
 
 
b) The Secretariat and MAG should be strongly encouraged to directly foster 
discussion and debate of difficult issues in main sessions, instead of avoiding 
them.
 
4. In your view, what important new issues or themes concerning Internet 
governance have emerged or become important since the Tunis phase of the Summit, 
which deserve more attention in the next five years?
 
IGC feels that attention to the development agenda, issues concerning the 
marginalized groups or actors, have yet gained sufficient level of work at IGF 
and its outcome. These may not be the “new” issues, but we strongly feel they 
are very important.
 
Besides them, emergence of new technologies, tools and services, such as cloud 
computing; user-generated, SNS and online sharing services such as wiki, 
YouTube, Ustream, twitter and Facebook; DPI and behavioral targeting 
advertisements; wide deployment of mobile services including smart phones and 
tablet computers pose all kind of new challenges for governance.
 
 
5. What do you think should be the priority themes and areas of work of the IGF 
during the next five years?
 
Followings will be the areas of themes and works that have priorities we think.
 
a) Enhancing multi-stakeholder framework within IGF.
b) Promote capacity building for developmental agenda of governance
c) Balancing the interests – to empower those of marginalized and 
under-developed in all organizations and fora dealing with Internet governance – 
such as ICANN, W3C, IETF, RIRs, ITU, WIPO, CoE, OECD, UNCTAD/CSTD and United 
Nations itself.
 
6. How can the capacity of those groups that are not yet well represented at the 
IGF be improved? In particular, what could be done to improve the capacity of 
representatives from developing countries?
 
a) Establish special funding mechanism by IGF itself to help actors from 
developing countries to continuously engage in IGF and related organizations and 
meetings. Fellowship works carried out by DiploFoundation, dDotAsia 
Oorganizsation, Interne Society [other reference, please] and other institutions 
offer good reference for this, but they should be expanded in larger scale. 
Targeting youth groups or younger generation in profession, will have, in the 
long run, effective impact.
 
b) Providing technical training to policy makers and policy training to 
engineers will also help close the gap(s) within the under-represented and also 
even well-represented.
 
 
7. How do you think more awareness of Internet governance issues and the IGF 
process can be raised amongst groups whose lives are affected by Internet 
governance but who are not yet part of the IGF process?
 
a) Giving more weight to regional and national IGF meetings, making more direct 
“links” to the main IGF meeting will help outreach to those who have not yet 
involved in IGF process. Securing the same level of working framework of IGF, 
such as multi-stakeholder composition and inclusion of civil society groups 
(where such practice is relatively new or scarce) should be maintained.
 
b) Ensuring a plurality of civil society voices be heard in Internet governance 
processes will also be effective in reaching out to those yet to participate.
 
c) Online meetings are most effective when provision is made for participation 
both synchronously (ie. in real time) and asynchronously. The remote hubs and 
moderators at the Vilnius IGF made good progress towards this direction. Using 
such tools as blogs, Twitter, mailing lists, Facebook and so on over an extended 
period may also increase the awareness.
 
d) Organizing some sessions completely online will create “level playing field” 
among all participants, and may also demonstrate the effectiveness of these 
tools/technologies, and may also improve the quality of services in turn.
 
e) Increase linguistic diversity. Using UN major languages other than English at 
certain meetings and occasions as main working language (translated into other 
UN languages) will increase the outreach to non-English speaking population of 
the globe and will give more sense of ownership. Currently, English is the only 
default working language, but we think it does not have to be so.
 
 
8. How, if at all, do you think that the IGF process (including the format of 
the meeting, the preparatory process, the development of the agenda, etc.) needs 
to change to meet changing circumstances and priorities?
 
As we replied to the MAG questionnaire, the organizing work of IGF primarily by 
MAG should be improved. More outcome oriented direction might improve the 
quality and value of IGF, but this should be carefully exercised so as not to 
lose the open and free spirit of IGF which contributed a great deal.
 
9. Do you have any other comments?
 
Since we are still in the early stage of the consultation process, our comments 
include some tentative ideas. We will closely follow the WG process and will 
provide more comments and suggestions accordingly.
 
-----------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
 
For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
 
Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101124/df73c3d7/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 3684 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101124/df73c3d7/attachment.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From iza at anr.org  Wed Nov 24 13:08:26 2010
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2010 03:08:26 +0900
Subject: [governance] Resolution passed Second Commission, now to GA
Message-ID: <AANLkTikF0SM7tMKwXUZ=rWN+2jfRJOPtBWJO0h-OPxxw@mail.gmail.com>

FYI, just came in from a gov friend:

------
I've just heard that the Draft Resolution, Nov 19 version has been
adopted by the 2nd
Committee in plenary - next step should be formal approval by the
General Assembly next month - should be a rubberstamping exercise
without any debate.
---------

izumi @ Munich Airport lounge heading back for Tokyo
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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  Wed Nov 24 14:00:14 2010
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2010 06:00:14 +1100
Subject: [governance] CSTD consultation to lunch break
In-Reply-To: <p06240821c912b1d6f1c6@[192.168.1.160]>
Message-ID: <C913ABEE.13D1C%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>

Agree - this has been great for those of us unable to attend. Thanks, Izumi!




> From: Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp>
> Reply-To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>, Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp>
> Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 21:14:30 +0900
> To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>
> Subject: Re: [governance] CSTD consultation to lunch break
> 
> Izumi, thanks for keeping us so well informed.
> 
> Adam
> 
> 
>> Now, we are suspending for lunch, and resume at 3 pm.
>> Unfortunately, I have to leave for the airport at 3 pm or so.
>> 
>> So folks who can stay till the end, could you please carry on the IGC
>> flag, please make interventions.
>> 
>> Thank you all,
>> 
>> izumi
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>> 
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> 
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From mueller at syr.edu  Wed Nov 24 17:49:15 2010
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 17:49:15 -0500
Subject: [governance] Re: GA 2nd Committee expected to adopt text on
In-Reply-To: <44F83997-5B33-4C74-8751-02743A3EB452@marzouki.info>
References: <AANLkTinD+XZF=CkA3d1u35vXJw5bbdhWQUdAw5=mQ68_@mail.gmail.com>
 <AANLkTikst4V7fSL0XmwjqadPgVP62n45gxF3DbxE2gSn@mail.gmail.com>
 <AANLkTi=z9NgVF7EAxbTs=czvcWaC_bECBk=92PP5TGqv@mail.gmail.com>
 <44F83997-5B33-4C74-8751-02743A3EB452@marzouki.info>
Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC108DCFC@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>

I had the same reaction to this resolution as Meryem. Indeed, I could barely make it through to the part about IGF the resolution was so full of bloated rhetoric, for which I have very little patience. While I found the language in the resolution objectionable for the same reasons as Meryem, I must confess I did not take it all that seriously, viewing it as typical UN blah-blah.  

--MM

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Meryem Marzouki [mailto:meryem at marzouki.info]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2010 9:28 AM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] Re: GA 2nd Committee expected to adopt text on
> November 30
> 
> Thanks Stephanie for the text and a big thank to Izumi for keeping us
> informed in details! Regarding the resolution to be adopted, I think
> we should have a closer look at its entirety, not only at the
> provisions of IGF extension. And, inter alia, what I read from the
> 3rd paragraph of the resolution is really worrying:
> 
> "Noting that cultural diversity is the common heritage of humankind
> and that the information society should be founded on and stimulate
> respect for cultural identity, cultural and linguistic diversity,
> traditions and religions, and foster dialogue among cultures and
> civilizations, and noting also that the promotion, affirmation and
> preservation of diverse cultural identities and languages as
> reflected in relevant agreed United Nations documents, including the
> Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity of the United Nations
> Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, will further
> enrich the information society"
> 
> The mention of "traditions and religions" is particularly concerning
> here. As is the lack of *any* mention of rights or freedoms.
> 
> I'm wondering what others think of the implications of this
> provision, and the general vision conveyed by this resolution?
> 
> Best,
> Meryem
> 
> --
> Meryem Marzouki - Paris, France
> Email: meryem at marzouki.info
> Lab. LIP6/CNRS/UPMC - www-polytic.lip6.fr
> IRIS (Imaginons un réseau Internet solidaire) - www.iris.sgdg.org
> EDRI (European Digital Rights) - www.edri.org
> 
> 
> Le 24 nov. 10 à 10:46, Izumi AIZU a écrit :
> 
> > Texts on the IGF extension from the PDF:
> >
> > 17. Decides to extend the mandate of the Internet Governance Forum for
> > a further five years, and in this regard, invites the
> > Secretary-General to continue with the convening of the Internet
> > Governance Forum for a multi-stakeholder policy dialogue on Internet
> > governance issues according to its mandate as set out in paragraph 72
> > of the Tunis Agenda for the Information Society,12 while recognizing
> > at the same time the need to improve it with a view to  linking it to
> > the broader dialogue on global internet governance;
> >
> >  18. Welcomes the decision by ECOSOC in paragraph 30 of E/2010/2 to
> > invite the Chair of the Commission on Science and Technology for
> > Development to establish, in an open and inclusive manner, a working
> > group which would seek, compile and review inputs from all Member
> > States and all other stakeholders on improvements to the Internet
> > Governance Forum, in line with the mandate set out in the Tunis
> > Agenda13, and which would submit a report to the Commission at its
> > fourteenth session, in 2011, with recommendations, as appropriate,
> > that would constitute an input by the Commission to the General
> > Assembly, through the Economic and Social Council;
> >
> >  19. Stresses that the consideration of IGF improvements should be
> > based on the inputs to be provided to the working group by all Member
> > States and all other stakeholders, including those comments received
> > during the online consultation and the consultation undertaken by the
> > Under Secretary General in the fourth meeting of the IGF held in Sharm
> > El-Sheikh, Egypt in November 2009 with particular consideration of,
> > inter
> > alia, enhancing participation from developing countries, exploring
> > further voluntary options for IGF financing and improving the
> > preparation process modalities, and the work and the functioning of
> > the Secretariat;
> >
> > 20. Also decides that the desirability of continuation of the Internet
> > Governance Forum be considered again by Member States at the General
> > Assembly within the context of a ten-year review of implementation of
> > the outcome of the World Summit on the Information Society in 2015;
> >
> > 21. Stresses the need for the enhanced participation of developing
> > countries, in particular from least developed countries, in all the
> > Internet Governance Forum meetings, and in this regard invites member
> > states as well as other  stakeholders to support the participation of
> > Governments and other stakeholders from developing countries to the
> > Forum itself as well as the preparatory meetings;
> >
> >  22. Welcomes the decision by ECOSOC in paragraph 24 of E/2010/2 to
> > invite the Secretary-General to convene open and inclusive
> > consultations involving all Member States and all other stakeholders
> > with a view to assisting the process towards enhanced cooperation in
> > order to enable Governments on an equal footing to carry out their
> > roles and responsibilities in respect of international public policy
> > issues pertaining to the Internet, but not of the day-to-day technical
> > and operational matters that do not impact upon those issues, through
> > balanced participation of all stakeholders, especially developing
> > countries, in their respective roles and responsibilities, as stated
> > in paragraph 35 of the Tunis Agenda14, and requests the
> > Secretary-General to submit to the General Assembly for consideration
> > at its sixty- sixth session, through the Economic and Social Council,
> > a report on the outcome of these consultations and takes note of the
> > invitations circulated by the USG to
> > participate in the open consultations on enhanced cooperation on
> > international public policy issues pertaining to the internet;
> > -----
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> >      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> >
> > For all list information and functions, see:
> >      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> >
> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From mueller at syr.edu  Wed Nov 24 17:59:18 2010
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 17:59:18 -0500
Subject: [governance] Result of IGF negotiation - one observation
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinOz1oydUYqey8v_C=s+w=9+y0r8vaMjROP8PKK@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTinOz1oydUYqey8v_C=s+w=9+y0r8vaMjROP8PKK@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC108DCFD@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>

Izumi
I have a bit of trouble understanding your statements in this section:

> -----Original Message-----
> However, in negotiations of this nature, while our key objectives were
> secured, we could not win on every point. In particular, it is
> regrettable that the text does not do more to talk up the successes of
> the IGF to balance the negative thread of "acknowledging the calls for
> improvements" (though happily diluted from "many calls" in the original
> text), 

Is it your position that the IGF is an unqualified success that needs no improvement? 
That is certainly not my position, or even the position of the many people within this caucus that I know and talk to. 

>"recogniz(ing) the need for further discussion on the improvement
> of its working methods" and "consideration of IGF
> improvements....particular(ly) improving the preparation process
> modalities and the work and the functioning of the Secretariat". These
> several references to improvements in the text could for those with no
> direct experience of the IGF give the erroneous impression of something
> needing major change or even that the IGF is inherently flawed which is
> clearly not the case.

I do not understand the need for such a defensive approach to the IGF. 
The idea that any criticism or drive for improvement means that it is inherently flawed seems to reproduce the kind of polarization we saw when ICANN was challenged during the WSIS process. There were those who believed - quite erroneously, it turned out -  that one must either defend it uncritically, or else one was supporting the ITU and a "UN takeover of the Internet." Those are false dichotomies and I see the same pattern being recreated here. Why?

--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 ca at cafonso.ca  Wed Nov 24 18:07:51 2010
From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso)
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 21:07:51 -0200
Subject: [governance] Result of IGF negotiation - one observation
In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC108DCFD@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
References: <AANLkTinOz1oydUYqey8v_C=s+w=9+y0r8vaMjROP8PKK@mail.gmail.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC108DCFD@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <4CED9AC7.2080700@cafonso.ca>

Good points, Milton!

--c.a.

On 11/24/2010 08:59 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> Izumi
> I have a bit of trouble understanding your statements in this section:
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> However, in negotiations of this nature, while our key objectives were
>> secured, we could not win on every point. In particular, it is
>> regrettable that the text does not do more to talk up the successes of
>> the IGF to balance the negative thread of "acknowledging the calls for
>> improvements" (though happily diluted from "many calls" in the original
>> text),
>
> Is it your position that the IGF is an unqualified success that needs no improvement?
> That is certainly not my position, or even the position of the many people within this caucus that I know and talk to.
>
>> "recogniz(ing) the need for further discussion on the improvement
>> of its working methods" and "consideration of IGF
>> improvements....particular(ly) improving the preparation process
>> modalities and the work and the functioning of the Secretariat". These
>> several references to improvements in the text could for those with no
>> direct experience of the IGF give the erroneous impression of something
>> needing major change or even that the IGF is inherently flawed which is
>> clearly not the case.
>
> I do not understand the need for such a defensive approach to the IGF.
> The idea that any criticism or drive for improvement means that it is inherently flawed seems to reproduce the kind of polarization we saw when ICANN was challenged during the WSIS process. There were those who believed - quite erroneously, it turned out -  that one must either defend it uncritically, or else one was supporting the ITU and a "UN takeover of the Internet." Those are false dichotomies and I see the same pattern being recreated here. Why?
>
> --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

-- 

Carlos A. Afonso
====================================
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 salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com  Wed Nov 24 18:12:37 2010
From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro)
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2010 11:12:37 +1200
Subject: [governance] Fwd: requested resolution
In-Reply-To: <78E4ADC4-D688-436D-BF54-42E3013A172C@fijiprun.org>
References: <AANLkTik92eNGgvRpXxR7a=BrQRmh3Hpiy0vrg2C9M9jq@mail.gmail.com>
	<78E4ADC4-D688-436D-BF54-42E3013A172C@fijiprun.org>
Message-ID: <AANLkTiniCOrbWEGJzfC2NHYouhNevE9hUvK7_tBpni7-@mail.gmail.com>

Dear All,

This is that Draft Resolution.

Warm Regards from Fiji,

Sala

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Luke Daunivalu <ldaunivalu at fijiprun.org>
Date: Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 11:06 AM
Subject: Fwd: requested resolution
To: "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com>


 Hi Sala,

The Internet governance resolution is attached and the email below is also
instructive in that regard.

Luke Daunivalu

Sent from my iPhone

Begin forwarded message:

 *From:* Stine Agthe <stine.agthe at islandsfirst.org>
*Date:* November 24, 2010 2:31:51 PM CST
*To:* Luke Daunivalu <ldaunivalu at fijiprun.org>
*Subject:* *requested resolution*

 DPR,

I hope you have successful and pleasant time in Cancun. Mr. Nayasi asked me
to send to the resolution concerning Information and communications
technologies for development.
This morning the Second Committee adopted the text by consensus and
therefore concluded its work on Agenda item 17.

All the best,

Stine






-- 
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."
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101125/5dabb49f/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: N1064728.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 55134 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101125/5dabb49f/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From meryem at marzouki.info  Wed Nov 24 20:18:14 2010
From: meryem at marzouki.info (Meryem Marzouki)
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2010 02:18:14 +0100
Subject: [governance] Re: GA 2nd Committee expected to adopt text on
In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC108DCFC@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
References: <AANLkTinD+XZF=CkA3d1u35vXJw5bbdhWQUdAw5=mQ68_@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTikst4V7fSL0XmwjqadPgVP62n45gxF3DbxE2gSn@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTi=z9NgVF7EAxbTs=czvcWaC_bECBk=92PP5TGqv@mail.gmail.com> <44F83997-5B33-4C74-8751-02743A3EB452@marzouki.info> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC108DCFC@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <E775EF7D-2C86-48B7-9B3B-4B3E152B8E9F@marzouki.info>

Well, the future will tell us if this was blah-blah or not.. As far  
as I'm concerned, I consider that the wordings of this resolution  
shape pretty clearly the next post-WSIS 5 years and I relate this to  
the institutionalization of the "WSIS Forum". On another issue, I  
find it rather interesting that CS (well, the IGC..) seems only  
concerned with its paras 17-20.
Best,
Meryem

Le 24 nov. 10 à 23:49, Milton L Mueller a écrit :

> I had the same reaction to this resolution as Meryem. Indeed, I  
> could barely make it through to the part about IGF the resolution  
> was so full of bloated rhetoric, for which I have very little  
> patience. While I found the language in the resolution  
> objectionable for the same reasons as Meryem, I must confess I did  
> not take it all that seriously, viewing it as typical UN blah-blah.
>
> --MM
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Meryem Marzouki [mailto:meryem at marzouki.info]
>> Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2010 9:28 AM
>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> Subject: Re: [governance] Re: GA 2nd Committee expected to adopt  
>> text on
>> November 30
>>
>> Thanks Stephanie for the text and a big thank to Izumi for keeping us
>> informed in details! Regarding the resolution to be adopted, I think
>> we should have a closer look at its entirety, not only at the
>> provisions of IGF extension. And, inter alia, what I read from the
>> 3rd paragraph of the resolution is really worrying:
>>
>> "Noting that cultural diversity is the common heritage of humankind
>> and that the information society should be founded on and stimulate
>> respect for cultural identity, cultural and linguistic diversity,
>> traditions and religions, and foster dialogue among cultures and
>> civilizations, and noting also that the promotion, affirmation and
>> preservation of diverse cultural identities and languages as
>> reflected in relevant agreed United Nations documents, including the
>> Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity of the United Nations
>> Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, will further
>> enrich the information society"
>>
>> The mention of "traditions and religions" is particularly concerning
>> here. As is the lack of *any* mention of rights or freedoms.
>>
>> I'm wondering what others think of the implications of this
>> provision, and the general vision conveyed by this resolution?
>>
>> Best,
>> Meryem
>>
>> --
>> Meryem Marzouki - Paris, France
>> Email: meryem at marzouki.info
>> Lab. LIP6/CNRS/UPMC - www-polytic.lip6.fr
>> IRIS (Imaginons un réseau Internet solidaire) - www.iris.sgdg.org
>> EDRI (European Digital Rights) - www.edri.org
>>
>>
>> Le 24 nov. 10 à 10:46, Izumi AIZU a écrit :
>>
>>> Texts on the IGF extension from the PDF:
>>>
>>> 17. Decides to extend the mandate of the Internet Governance  
>>> Forum for
>>> a further five years, and in this regard, invites the
>>> Secretary-General to continue with the convening of the Internet
>>> Governance Forum for a multi-stakeholder policy dialogue on Internet
>>> governance issues according to its mandate as set out in  
>>> paragraph 72
>>> of the Tunis Agenda for the Information Society,12 while recognizing
>>> at the same time the need to improve it with a view to  linking  
>>> it to
>>> the broader dialogue on global internet governance;
>>>
>>>  18. Welcomes the decision by ECOSOC in paragraph 30 of E/2010/2 to
>>> invite the Chair of the Commission on Science and Technology for
>>> Development to establish, in an open and inclusive manner, a working
>>> group which would seek, compile and review inputs from all Member
>>> States and all other stakeholders on improvements to the Internet
>>> Governance Forum, in line with the mandate set out in the Tunis
>>> Agenda13, and which would submit a report to the Commission at its
>>> fourteenth session, in 2011, with recommendations, as appropriate,
>>> that would constitute an input by the Commission to the General
>>> Assembly, through the Economic and Social Council;
>>>
>>>  19. Stresses that the consideration of IGF improvements should be
>>> based on the inputs to be provided to the working group by all  
>>> Member
>>> States and all other stakeholders, including those comments received
>>> during the online consultation and the consultation undertaken by  
>>> the
>>> Under Secretary General in the fourth meeting of the IGF held in  
>>> Sharm
>>> El-Sheikh, Egypt in November 2009 with particular consideration of,
>>> inter
>>> alia, enhancing participation from developing countries, exploring
>>> further voluntary options for IGF financing and improving the
>>> preparation process modalities, and the work and the functioning of
>>> the Secretariat;
>>>
>>> 20. Also decides that the desirability of continuation of the  
>>> Internet
>>> Governance Forum be considered again by Member States at the General
>>> Assembly within the context of a ten-year review of  
>>> implementation of
>>> the outcome of the World Summit on the Information Society in 2015;
>>>
>>> 21. Stresses the need for the enhanced participation of developing
>>> countries, in particular from least developed countries, in all the
>>> Internet Governance Forum meetings, and in this regard invites  
>>> member
>>> states as well as other  stakeholders to support the  
>>> participation of
>>> Governments and other stakeholders from developing countries to the
>>> Forum itself as well as the preparatory meetings;
>>>
>>>  22. Welcomes the decision by ECOSOC in paragraph 24 of E/2010/2 to
>>> invite the Secretary-General to convene open and inclusive
>>> consultations involving all Member States and all other stakeholders
>>> with a view to assisting the process towards enhanced cooperation in
>>> order to enable Governments on an equal footing to carry out their
>>> roles and responsibilities in respect of international public policy
>>> issues pertaining to the Internet, but not of the day-to-day  
>>> technical
>>> and operational matters that do not impact upon those issues,  
>>> through
>>> balanced participation of all stakeholders, especially developing
>>> countries, in their respective roles and responsibilities, as stated
>>> in paragraph 35 of the Tunis Agenda14, and requests the
>>> Secretary-General to submit to the General Assembly for  
>>> consideration
>>> at its sixty- sixth session, through the Economic and Social  
>>> Council,
>>> a report on the outcome of these consultations and takes note of the
>>> invitations circulated by the USG to
>>> participate in the open consultations on enhanced cooperation on
>>> international public policy issues pertaining to the internet;
>>> -----
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 kichango at gmail.com  Wed Nov 24 20:26:17 2010
From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango)
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 20:26:17 -0500
Subject: [governance] Result of IGF negotiation - one observation
In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC108DCFD@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
References: <AANLkTinOz1oydUYqey8v_C=s+w=9+y0r8vaMjROP8PKK@mail.gmail.com>
	<75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC108DCFD@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <AANLkTimBJxQ2xjzk6cprM92Jc5HfMmgc_e_cVuOkGcEk@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks Izumi for the reporting...

On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 5:59 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:

> Izumi
> I have a bit of trouble understanding your statements in this section:
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > However, in negotiations of this nature, while our key objectives were
> > secured, we could not win on every point. In particular, it is
> > regrettable that the text does not do more to talk up the successes of
> > the IGF to balance the negative thread of "acknowledging the calls for
> > improvements" (though happily diluted from "many calls" in the original
> > text),
>
> Is it your position that the IGF is an unqualified success that needs no
> improvement?
> That is certainly not my position, or even the position of the many people
> within this caucus that I know and talk to.
>
> >"recogniz(ing) the need for further discussion on the improvement
> > of its working methods" and "consideration of IGF
> > improvements....particular(ly) improving the preparation process
> > modalities and the work and the functioning of the Secretariat". These
> > several references to improvements in the text could for those with no
> > direct experience of the IGF give the erroneous impression of something
> > needing major change or even that the IGF is inherently flawed which is
> > clearly not the case.
>
> I do not understand the need for such a defensive approach to the IGF.
> The idea that any criticism or drive for improvement means that it is
> inherently flawed seems to reproduce the kind of polarization we saw when
> ICANN was challenged during the WSIS process. There were those who believed
> - quite erroneously, it turned out -  that one must either defend it
> uncritically, or else one was supporting the ITU and a "UN takeover of the
> Internet." Those are false dichotomies and I see the same pattern being
> recreated here. Why?
>


Agreed.
Why? Isn't this how all constitutional moments eventually start an
ossification career towards a new set of vested interests?
This is a constant challenge. However it is a bit unsettling if we are to
reject calls for improvements only on the simple basis that they are asking
for improvements, and not because we do not agree that the substance of what
they are asking brings actual improvement.

mc.


>
> --MM
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101124/5559291b/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From jefsey at jefsey.com  Wed Nov 24 21:50:33 2010
From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin)
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2010 03:50:33 +0100
Subject: [governance] Re: GA 2nd Committee expected to adopt text
In-Reply-To: <44F83997-5B33-4C74-8751-02743A3EB452@marzouki.info>
References: <AANLkTinD+XZF=CkA3d1u35vXJw5bbdhWQUdAw5=mQ68_@mail.gmail.com>
 <AANLkTikst4V7fSL0XmwjqadPgVP62n45gxF3DbxE2gSn@mail.gmail.com>
 <AANLkTi=z9NgVF7EAxbTs=czvcWaC_bECBk=92PP5TGqv@mail.gmail.com>
 <44F83997-5B33-4C74-8751-02743A3EB452@marzouki.info>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20101125034617.0b456210@jefsey.com>

At 15:27 24/11/2010, Meryem Marzouki wrote:
>The mention of "traditions and religions" is particularly concerning 
>here. As is the lack of *any* mention of rights or freedoms.

Could you explain your two concerns?
(1) seems to be "technically" pretty neat and mandatory?
(2) which rights and freedom would introduce into such a categorization?
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 katitza at eff.org  Thu Nov 25 00:39:20 2010
From: katitza at eff.org (katitza)
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2010 05:39:20 +0000
Subject: [governance] CSTD WG Setup could be very late
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTik=kRzWGb2Dkz5A-7HyV5da56R6Fzu=Yn_yAV=e@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTik=kRzWGb2Dkz5A-7HyV5da56R6Fzu=Yn_yAV=e@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1353260843-1290663562-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1807806416-@bda2481.bisx.prod.on.blackberry>

I think, we have move from this. It is ok to have a working group with limited participant selected by a transparent process. Avoid the blackbox approach. The last thing I learned at the end of the meeting was that now some countries (arab ones?)?? prefer a intergov. Process. we need to make sure that is multi-stakeholder. I do not have additional info. 
Sent via BlackBerry 

-----Original Message-----
From: Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org>
Sender: izumiaizu at gmail.com
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 15:26:59 
To: Governance List<governance at lists.cpsr.org>
Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org,Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org>
Subject: [governance] CSTD WG Setup could be very late

While the consultation is still ongoing there, I like to share some info around
CSTD Working Group setup. It seems that even UN GA adops the resolution that
approves the WG, there might have some obstacles to actually nominate the
final slate of WG members. They say some governments are opposting to WG
and request for just open consultation. So the announcement of appointment
of WG members may come quite late: it could be just before the Dec 17
consultation
meeting.

Tha of course will impose logistical challneges for those who are selected
to actuallz attend the consultatin meeting. Not productive at all.

izumi
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 iza at anr.org  Thu Nov 25 02:03:43 2010
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2010 16:03:43 +0900
Subject: [governance] Result of IGF negotiation - one observation
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimBJxQ2xjzk6cprM92Jc5HfMmgc_e_cVuOkGcEk@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTinOz1oydUYqey8v_C=s+w=9+y0r8vaMjROP8PKK@mail.gmail.com>
	<75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC108DCFD@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
	<AANLkTimBJxQ2xjzk6cprM92Jc5HfMmgc_e_cVuOkGcEk@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTimimvz1-EH0Ut9LfcJE+_TUzVms3CBY0jXKJX3P@mail.gmail.com>

Milton and all,

The text I intrduced in the email is NOT our statement at all.

It was an exert from a private email from a government folk who has
been involved in the UN GA negotiations and given his permission I
sent to the list for purely informational reference only, not giving
any position of mine or ours.

Sorry for the confusion and hope this clarifies the question.

Izumi just arrived at Tokyo airport

2010/11/25, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com>:
> Thanks Izumi for the reporting...
>
> On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 5:59 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
>
>> Izumi
>> I have a bit of trouble understanding your statements in this section:
>>
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > However, in negotiations of this nature, while our key objectives were
>> > secured, we could not win on every point. In particular, it is
>> > regrettable that the text does not do more to talk up the successes of
>> > the IGF to balance the negative thread of "acknowledging the calls for
>> > improvements" (though happily diluted from "many calls" in the original
>> > text),
>>
>> Is it your position that the IGF is an unqualified success that needs no
>> improvement?
>> That is certainly not my position, or even the position of the many people
>> within this caucus that I know and talk to.
>>
>> >"recogniz(ing) the need for further discussion on the improvement
>> > of its working methods" and "consideration of IGF
>> > improvements....particular(ly) improving the preparation process
>> > modalities and the work and the functioning of the Secretariat". These
>> > several references to improvements in the text could for those with no
>> > direct experience of the IGF give the erroneous impression of something
>> > needing major change or even that the IGF is inherently flawed which is
>> > clearly not the case.
>>
>> I do not understand the need for such a defensive approach to the IGF.
>> The idea that any criticism or drive for improvement means that it is
>> inherently flawed seems to reproduce the kind of polarization we saw when
>> ICANN was challenged during the WSIS process. There were those who
>> believed
>> - quite erroneously, it turned out -  that one must either defend it
>> uncritically, or else one was supporting the ITU and a "UN takeover of the
>> Internet." Those are false dichotomies and I see the same pattern being
>> recreated here. Why?
>>
>
>
> Agreed.
> Why? Isn't this how all constitutional moments eventually start an
> ossification career towards a new set of vested interests?
> This is a constant challenge. However it is a bit unsettling if we are to
> reject calls for improvements only on the simple basis that they are asking
> for improvements, and not because we do not agree that the substance of what
> they are asking brings actual improvement.
>
> mc.
>
>
>>
>> --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
>>
>


-- 
                        >> Izumi Aizu <<

          Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo

           Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,
                                  Japan
                                 * * * * *
           << Writing the Future of the History >>
                                www.anr.org
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From katitza at eff.org  Thu Nov 25 02:55:17 2010
From: katitza at eff.org (katitza)
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2010 07:55:17 +0000
Subject: [governance] Result of IGF negotiation - one observation
In-Reply-To: <4CED9AC7.2080700@cafonso.ca>
References: <AANLkTinOz1oydUYqey8v_C=s+w=9+y0r8vaMjROP8PKK@mail.gmail.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC108DCFD@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu><4CED9AC7.2080700@cafonso.ca>
Message-ID: <1713633439-1290671759-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-651624541-@bda2481.bisx.prod.on.blackberry>

Hi Milton,

I met with a few permanent mission reps, and those govs. who have been negotiating the resolution from different groups/allies, and I've got the impression that those two extremes positions (too good/too bad) where the thoughts of one gov. groups, or the other one. 

I've got the same impression from some permanent mission reps in geneva, who are very active on the WSIS follow up, but no in IGF, and some of them have similar impressions as described by izumi.   

My impression, at the end of the CSTD meeting is  that there is a better understanding, between some of the few govs present in the meeting, that many of the  IGF people do like the IGF, but we  want to see further improvements.  
 
The IGF has been successful, and based on those experience we should build upon it to make further improvement. During the meeting I keep reminding myself that we should  keep in the records what we have achieved (including remote participation - which is also essential for future messages/ recommendations), and we should keep pushing for making further improvement.

Note 1: we need to remember that G77 has different diverse voices, and civil society might have some govs. reps there that we can talk with, as well as we can deal with some  developed countries! I think we can pla a good role on this. Of course as long as we know who are the reps govs. In each country, and that we can approach them. 

Katitza on my way back home, and with very negative thoughts on the overall discussion/meetings. I have been with fever and flu during the meeting, and with less energy than usual. 

Sent via BlackBerry 

-----Original Message-----
From: "Carlos A. Afonso" <ca at cafonso.ca>
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 21:07:51 
To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>; Milton L Mueller<mueller at syr.edu>
Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org,"Carlos A. Afonso" <ca at cafonso.ca>
Cc: Izumi AIZU<iza at anr.org>
Subject: Re: [governance] Result of IGF negotiation - one observation

Good points, Milton!

--c.a.

On 11/24/2010 08:59 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> Izumi
> I have a bit of trouble understanding your statements in this section:
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> However, in negotiations of this nature, while our key objectives were
>> secured, we could not win on every point. In particular, it is
>> regrettable that the text does not do more to talk up the successes of
>> the IGF to balance the negative thread of "acknowledging the calls for
>> improvements" (though happily diluted from "many calls" in the original
>> text),
>
> Is it your position that the IGF is an unqualified success that needs no improvement?
> That is certainly not my position, or even the position of the many people within this caucus that I know and talk to.
>
>> "recogniz(ing) the need for further discussion on the improvement
>> of its working methods" and "consideration of IGF
>> improvements....particular(ly) improving the preparation process
>> modalities and the work and the functioning of the Secretariat". These
>> several references to improvements in the text could for those with no
>> direct experience of the IGF give the erroneous impression of something
>> needing major change or even that the IGF is inherently flawed which is
>> clearly not the case.
>
> I do not understand the need for such a defensive approach to the IGF.
> The idea that any criticism or drive for improvement means that it is inherently flawed seems to reproduce the kind of polarization we saw when ICANN was challenged during the WSIS process. There were those who believed - quite erroneously, it turned out -  that one must either defend it uncritically, or else one was supporting the ITU and a "UN takeover of the Internet." Those are false dichotomies and I see the same pattern being recreated here. Why?
>
> --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

-- 

Carlos A. Afonso
====================================
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
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From katitza at eff.org  Thu Nov 25 02:55:52 2010
From: katitza at eff.org (katitza)
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2010 07:55:52 +0000
Subject: [governance] Result of IGF negotiation - one observation
In-Reply-To: <4CED9AC7.2080700@cafonso.ca>
References: <AANLkTinOz1oydUYqey8v_C=s+w=9+y0r8vaMjROP8PKK@mail.gmail.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC108DCFD@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu><4CED9AC7.2080700@cafonso.ca>
Message-ID: <1713633439-1290671764-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1567087824-@bda2481.bisx.prod.on.blackberry>

Hi Milton,

I met with a few permanent mission reps, and those govs. who have been negotiating the resolution from different groups/allies, and I've got the impression that those two extremes positions (too good/too bad) where the thoughts of one gov. groups, or the other one. 

I've got the same impression from some permanent mission reps in geneva, who are very active on the WSIS follow up, but no in IGF, and some of them have similar impressions as described by izumi.   

My impression, at the end of the CSTD meeting is  that there is a better understanding, between some of the few govs present in the meeting, that many of the  IGF people do like the IGF, but we  want to see further improvements.  
 
The IGF has been successful, and based on those experience we should build upon it to make further improvement. During the meeting I keep reminding myself that we should  keep in the records what we have achieved (including remote participation - which is also essential for future messages/ recommendations), and we should keep pushing for making further improvement.

Note 1: we need to remember that G77 has different diverse voices, and civil society might have some govs. reps there that we can talk with, as well as we can deal with some  developed countries! I think we can pla a good role on this. Of course as long as we know who are the reps govs. In each country, and that we can approach them. 

Katitza on my way back home, and with very negative thoughts on the overall discussion/meetings. I have been with fever and flu during the meeting, and with less energy than usual. 

Sent via BlackBerry 

-----Original Message-----
From: "Carlos A. Afonso" <ca at cafonso.ca>
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 21:07:51 
To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>; Milton L Mueller<mueller at syr.edu>
Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org,"Carlos A. Afonso" <ca at cafonso.ca>
Cc: Izumi AIZU<iza at anr.org>
Subject: Re: [governance] Result of IGF negotiation - one observation

Good points, Milton!

--c.a.

On 11/24/2010 08:59 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> Izumi
> I have a bit of trouble understanding your statements in this section:
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> However, in negotiations of this nature, while our key objectives were
>> secured, we could not win on every point. In particular, it is
>> regrettable that the text does not do more to talk up the successes of
>> the IGF to balance the negative thread of "acknowledging the calls for
>> improvements" (though happily diluted from "many calls" in the original
>> text),
>
> Is it your position that the IGF is an unqualified success that needs no improvement?
> That is certainly not my position, or even the position of the many people within this caucus that I know and talk to.
>
>> "recogniz(ing) the need for further discussion on the improvement
>> of its working methods" and "consideration of IGF
>> improvements....particular(ly) improving the preparation process
>> modalities and the work and the functioning of the Secretariat". These
>> several references to improvements in the text could for those with no
>> direct experience of the IGF give the erroneous impression of something
>> needing major change or even that the IGF is inherently flawed which is
>> clearly not the case.
>
> I do not understand the need for such a defensive approach to the IGF.
> The idea that any criticism or drive for improvement means that it is inherently flawed seems to reproduce the kind of polarization we saw when ICANN was challenged during the WSIS process. There were those who believed - quite erroneously, it turned out -  that one must either defend it uncritically, or else one was supporting the ITU and a "UN takeover of the Internet." Those are false dichotomies and I see the same pattern being recreated here. Why?
>
> --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

-- 

Carlos A. Afonso
====================================
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
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From katitza at eff.org  Thu Nov 25 03:40:04 2010
From: katitza at eff.org (katitza)
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2010 08:40:04 +0000
Subject: [governance] Result of IGF negotiation - one observation
In-Reply-To: <4CED9AC7.2080700@cafonso.ca>
References: <AANLkTinOz1oydUYqey8v_C=s+w=9+y0r8vaMjROP8PKK@mail.gmail.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC108DCFD@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu><4CED9AC7.2080700@cafonso.ca>
Message-ID: <1713633439-1290674406-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-32069442-@bda2481.bisx.prod.on.blackberry>

Hi Milton,

I met with a few permanent mission reps, and those govs. who have been negotiating the resolution from different groups/allies, and I've got the impression that those two extremes positions (too good/too bad) where the thoughts of one gov. groups, or the other one. 

I've got the same impression from some permanent mission reps in geneva, who are very active on the WSIS follow up, but no in IGF, and some of them have similar impressions as described by izumi.   

My impression, at the end of the CSTD meeting is  that there is a better understanding, between some of the few govs present in the meeting, that many of the  IGF people do like the IGF, but we  want to see further improvements.  
 
The IGF has been successful, and based on those experience we should build upon it to make further improvement. During the meeting I keep reminding myself that we should  keep in the records what we have achieved (including remote participation - which is also essential for future messages/ recommendations), and we should keep pushing for making further improvement.

Note 1: we need to remember that G77 has different diverse voices, and civil society might have some govs. reps there that we can talk with, as well as we can deal with some  developed countries! I think we can pla a good role on this. Of course as long as we know who are the reps govs. In each country, and that we can approach them. 

Katitza on my way back home, and with very negative thoughts on the overall discussion/meetings. I have been with fever and flu during the meeting, and with less energy than usual. 

Sent via BlackBerry 

-----Original Message-----
From: "Carlos A. Afonso" <ca at cafonso.ca>
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 21:07:51 
To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>; Milton L Mueller<mueller at syr.edu>
Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org,"Carlos A. Afonso" <ca at cafonso.ca>
Cc: Izumi AIZU<iza at anr.org>
Subject: Re: [governance] Result of IGF negotiation - one observation

Good points, Milton!

--c.a.

On 11/24/2010 08:59 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> Izumi
> I have a bit of trouble understanding your statements in this section:
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> However, in negotiations of this nature, while our key objectives were
>> secured, we could not win on every point. In particular, it is
>> regrettable that the text does not do more to talk up the successes of
>> the IGF to balance the negative thread of "acknowledging the calls for
>> improvements" (though happily diluted from "many calls" in the original
>> text),
>
> Is it your position that the IGF is an unqualified success that needs no improvement?
> That is certainly not my position, or even the position of the many people within this caucus that I know and talk to.
>
>> "recogniz(ing) the need for further discussion on the improvement
>> of its working methods" and "consideration of IGF
>> improvements....particular(ly) improving the preparation process
>> modalities and the work and the functioning of the Secretariat". These
>> several references to improvements in the text could for those with no
>> direct experience of the IGF give the erroneous impression of something
>> needing major change or even that the IGF is inherently flawed which is
>> clearly not the case.
>
> I do not understand the need for such a defensive approach to the IGF.
> The idea that any criticism or drive for improvement means that it is inherently flawed seems to reproduce the kind of polarization we saw when ICANN was challenged during the WSIS process. There were those who believed - quite erroneously, it turned out -  that one must either defend it uncritically, or else one was supporting the ITU and a "UN takeover of the Internet." Those are false dichotomies and I see the same pattern being recreated here. Why?
>
> --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

-- 

Carlos A. Afonso
====================================
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
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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  Thu Nov 25 05:26:35 2010
From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen)
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2010 12:26:35 +0200
Subject: [governance] Result of IGF negotiation - one observation
In-Reply-To: <1713633439-1290674406-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-32069442-@bda2481.bisx.prod.on.blackberry>
References: <AANLkTinOz1oydUYqey8v_C=s+w=9+y0r8vaMjROP8PKK@mail.gmail.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC108DCFD@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu><4CED9AC7.2080700@cafonso.ca> <1713633439-1290674406-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-32069442-@bda2481.bisx.prod.on.blackberry>
Message-ID: <4CEE39DB.3020402@apc.org>

Hi all

Katitza really was very sick but bravely continued to work hard 
throughout her time here. Well done Katitza. Y


On 25/11/10 10:40, katitza wrote
> My impression, at the end of the CSTD meeting is  that there is a better understanding, between some of the few govs present in the meeting, that many of the  IGF people do like the IGF, but we  want to see further improvements.
>
> The IGF has been successful, and based on those experience we should build upon it to make further improvement. During the meeting I keep reminding myself that we should  keep in the records what we have achieved (including remote participation - which is also essential for future messages/ recommendations), and we should keep pushing for making further improvement.
>
> Note 1: we need to remember that G77 has different diverse voices, and civil society might have some govs. reps there that we can talk with, as well as we can deal with some  developed countries! I think we can pla a good role on this. Of course as long as we know who are the reps govs. In each country, and that we can approach them.
>
> Katitza on my way back home, and with very negative thoughts on the overall discussion/meetings. I have been with fever and flu during the meeting, and with less energy than usual.
>    
Yes, we should remember that there are diverse opinions among developing 
country governments. Teasing out this diversity is not going to happen 
if we continue to project this perspective of the IGF being an 
unqualified success. I  agree with Milton when he says:

"I do not understand the need for such a defensive approach to the IGF. 
The idea that any criticism or drive for improvement means that it is 
inherently flawed seems to reproduce the kind of polarization we saw 
when ICANN was challenged during the WSIS process. There were those who 
believed - quite erroneously, it turned out - that one must either 
defend it uncritically, or else one was supporting the ITU and a "UN 
takeover of the Internet." Those are false dichotomies and I see the 
same pattern being recreated here. Why?"

This defensive approach is driving precisely this polarisation. 
Countries that criticize the IGF are not engaging with the improvement 
discussion in a constructive manner. The polarisation was very clearly 
'visible' in yesterday's meeting as most developing country governments 
made a decision to either not attend, or not to speak. Only one 
developing country spoke during the entire day: Brazil.  Well done Brazil.

The sad and rather scary thing is that what should be a constructive 
discussion on improving the IGF has become so politicised.

I feel very disappointed in the lack of participation from the 
'critical' governments. My government (South Africa) was one of them. 
Who gave them a mandate to do this?  Certainly not me as a citizen.

At the same time I find the persistent praise of the IGF evangelists 
counter-productive. They are filling the record, and the transcripts of 
consultations. But they are not succeeding in making the political gains 
we need so badly to protect and extend civil society participation in 
policy spaces.

I propose we stick to the fundamentals by not compromising on civil 
society participation, but also being open about the weaknesses of the 
IGF and creative about improvements.  Many of the improvements being 
discussed will strengthen CS participation, and can make the IGF more 
relevant to CS, particularly CS in developing countries.

Anriette





____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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 Nov 25 11:23:38 2010
From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker)
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2010 08:23:38 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [governance] Result of IGF negotiation - one observation
In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC108DCFD@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
References: <AANLkTinOz1oydUYqey8v_C=s+w=9+y0r8vaMjROP8PKK@mail.gmail.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC108DCFD@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <843179.17504.qm@web83907.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>

I always get nervous when a debate or dialogue turns to criticism of anyone who 
criticizes. There is no point in objecting to a stated need for improvements. 
And as we see here it is self perpetuating. As someone could conceivably object 
to my objection of A's objection, to B's objection about objections.




________________________________
From: Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu>
To: "governance at lists.cpsr.org" <governance at lists.cpsr.org>; Izumi AIZU 
<iza at anr.org>
Sent: Wed, November 24, 2010 2:59:18 PM
Subject: RE: [governance] Result of IGF negotiation - one observation

Izumi
I have a bit of trouble understanding your statements in this section:

> -----Original Message-----
> However, in negotiations of this nature, while our key objectives were
> secured, we could not win on every point. In particular, it is
> regrettable that the text does not do more to talk up the successes of
> the IGF to balance the negative thread of "acknowledging the calls for
> improvements" (though happily diluted from "many calls" in the original
> text), 

Is it your position that the IGF is an unqualified success that needs no 
improvement? 

That is certainly not my position, or even the position of the many people 
within this caucus that I know and talk to. 


>"recogniz(ing) the need for further discussion on the improvement
> of its working methods" and "consideration of IGF
> improvements....particular(ly) improving the preparation process
> modalities and the work and the functioning of the Secretariat". These
> several references to improvements in the text could for those with no
> direct experience of the IGF give the erroneous impression of something
> needing major change or even that the IGF is inherently flawed which is
> clearly not the case.

I do not understand the need for such a defensive approach to the IGF. 
The idea that any criticism or drive for improvement means that it is inherently 
flawed seems to reproduce the kind of polarization we saw when ICANN was 
challenged during the WSIS process. There were those who believed - quite 
erroneously, it turned out -  that one must either defend it uncritically, or 
else one was supporting the ITU and a "UN takeover of the Internet." Those are 
false dichotomies and I see the same pattern being recreated here. Why?

--MM
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
    governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101125/4e513d8e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From jlfullsack at orange.fr  Thu Nov 25 16:42:31 2010
From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK)
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2010 13:42:31 -0800 (PST)
Subject: AW: [governance] Consensus Call for CSTD IGF Questionnaire -
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimGJAYtQQon4_iK4Lias4xnfOdaAtvgOJNZmz_e@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTinyo=oKJoJiz2wVHikpv7-nYBwgq+cf7p6qrj16@mail.gmail.com>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07448@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <4CE66370.40506@itforchange.net>
 <AANLkTi=sDZiaxeD6R0=vrZVpaHmHMJn_s_y=D=EbWBqg@mail.gmail.com>
 <4CE66F81.8040404@itforchange.net>
 <AANLkTimGFznj-YCZ923NrnWkxDyd4UYvD8T4S_JRVkCH@mail.gmail.com>
 <26908398.99509.1290182685343.JavaMail.www@wwinf1d14>
 <AANLkTimsOF5ppr22HaN_wM2ZXqvkUPVC1ranht+bLT_g@mail.gmail.com>
 <AANLkTimGJAYtQQon4_iK4Lias4xnfOdaAtvgOJNZmz_e@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <27910420.40445.1290721311490.JavaMail.www@wwinf1j33>

I'm not sure if you really understood my opinion about the "waste", dear Fatimata. 

As a telecoms Engineer with more than forty years of experience and medium to highest responsibilities from network design to network operation through financing, in France, Europe and Africa, I fairly know what is at stake in this continent and what are the resources -financial, economic and human- available to face the heavy challenges i.a. in the telecoms sector.

IMHO when you have about one dozen cables along the same route, where let's say three ones -perfectly engineered and operated-could face the traffic flow up to 2015, there is at least a big waste of money. Instead of wasting money for "competing" rather than for "carrying traffic" we could spend these saved resources in building a regional telecoms network interlinking the capitals (both economical and political) as well a the major network nodes, and link this network in a reliable and survivable topology and architecture to the selected landing stations. This is the very model of a regional network, which is to be replicated in every region (of the five ones) of the continent. 

And for being more concrete : for the ECOWAS Region you'd just need a part of the money wasted in extra redundant submarine cables, for completing existing OF cables (as far as they are on the relevant route and quality compliant for being a segment of the regional backbone) as to build the ECOWAS Backbone network. This is an explanation of my statement. 

I hope that there is not anymore a misunderstanding between us.

Best regards
Jean-Louis Fullsack
Ex ITU Project leader of IntelCom I, the ECOWAS first interconnection network (mostly microwave, some cables and a dozen or so Satellite Earth Stations, including gateway exchanges and switches), 1980-1984. With my grateful and fiendliest memories to my colleagues and friends from ECOWAS : Yao (Côte d'Ivoire) and Pobi (Ghana) ... if they happen to read these lines! 



> Message du 20/11/10 10:37
> De : "Fatimata Seye Sylla" 
> A : governance at lists.cpsr.org, "McTim" 
> Copie à : "Jean-Louis FULLSACK" , "Baudouin SCHOMBE" 
> Objet : Re: AW: [governance] Consensus Call for CSTD IGF Questionnaire -
> 
> Thank you Jean-Louis for making the point about the specific needs for Africa.  You are right.   We need to participate to the IG policy but without appropriate access to internet, it will be very difficult to do so.  The investment being made to put the right infrastructure in place is necessary for African development and can't be considered as a waste.  I completely agree wiith the answers provided by McTim on the subject.  Again, access is a major issue for Africa.
> 
> Fatimata
> 
> 
> On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 7:52 PM, McTim  wrote:
> 
> 
> On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 7:05 PM, Jean-Louis FULLSACK  wrote:
> 
> > And what are 12 submarine cables along the African coasts doing for
> > exchanging coms in Central Africa for instance ? Who is caring about that
> > waste of money (some 7 billions dollars) ?
> 
> Landing those cables is a big step, it took many years.  Once coastal connectivity is established, inland fiber comes quite quickly due to commercial pressure.
> 
> Why is it a waste of money? It's mostly international investors who believe they will get a return. I doubt they see this as "waste".  
> 
> There are 15 cables that land in the NYC metro area, Shouldn't Africa's Billion people have the same access as New Yorkers? 
> 
> 
> > We aren't far from Internet governance when we are speaking of such issues :
> > for Internet to be "governed" correctly it first of all needs to be 
> > implemented ! I.e. there must be relevant traffic nodes (exchanges, GIX,
> > PoP, ...) and a resilient network for interconnecting them on the continent
> 
> These are being built (and in some cases operational).
> 
> > ! In Africa, IG is first of all about the topology of the continental
> > backbone, i.e. the location of IXPs, GIXes and PoPs for holding the "
> > domestic African" traffic wthin the continent and useing the shortest or
> > most economical links.
> 
> Without the cables you decry, the shortest and cheapest route would often be overseas and back. 
> 
> 
>  This topology needs a relevant Internet architecture
> > : here IG is to be at work ! Moreover, the insertion of Africa in the
> > international traffic flow needs selected landing stations (and satellite
> > hubs) to be the gateway stations to the global optical fiber routes that
> > really connects Africa to the World. 
> 
> We have these.
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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
> 
> 

> -- 
> Fatimata Seye Sylla
> 
>       
> 
>
> [ message-footer.txt (0.4 Ko) ]
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101125/b5569309/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From jlfullsack at orange.fr  Fri Nov 26 03:04:33 2010
From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK)
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2010 00:04:33 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [governance] Result of IGF negotiation - one observation
In-Reply-To: <4CED9AC7.2080700@cafonso.ca>
References: <AANLkTinOz1oydUYqey8v_C=s+w=9+y0r8vaMjROP8PKK@mail.gmail.com>
 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC108DCFD@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
 <4CED9AC7.2080700@cafonso.ca>
Message-ID: <15132237.42483.1290758525392.JavaMail.www@wwinf1g32>

Good points, indeed, for both Milton and Meryem.
Thanks for that.
I'd also thank Izumi for his efforts to keep us well informed in the whole course of these events, although I'don't share all the statements made.. Anyway, there will be a(nother) life after Geneva November 2010 ...

All the best
Jean-Louis Fullsack
CSDPTT 




> Message du 25/11/10 00:08
> De : "Carlos A. Afonso" 
> A : governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Milton L Mueller" 
> Copie à : "Izumi AIZU" 
> Objet : Re: [governance] Result of IGF negotiation - one observation
> 
> Good points, Milton!
> 
> --c.a.
> 
> On 11/24/2010 08:59 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> > Izumi
> > I have a bit of trouble understanding your statements in this section:
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> However, in negotiations of this nature, while our key objectives were
> >> secured, we could not win on every point. In particular, it is
> >> regrettable that the text does not do more to talk up the successes of
> >> the IGF to balance the negative thread of "acknowledging the calls for
> >> improvements" (though happily diluted from "many calls" in the original
> >> text),
> >
> > Is it your position that the IGF is an unqualified success that needs no improvement?
> > That is certainly not my position, or even the position of the many people within this caucus that I know and talk to.
> >
> >> "recogniz(ing) the need for further discussion on the improvement
> >> of its working methods" and "consideration of IGF
> >> improvements....particular(ly) improving the preparation process
> >> modalities and the work and the functioning of the Secretariat". These
> >> several references to improvements in the text could for those with no
> >> direct experience of the IGF give the erroneous impression of something
> >> needing major change or even that the IGF is inherently flawed which is
> >> clearly not the case.
> >
> > I do not understand the need for such a defensive approach to the IGF.
> > The idea that any criticism or drive for improvement means that it is inherently flawed seems to reproduce the kind of polarization we saw when ICANN was challenged during the WSIS process. There were those who believed - quite erroneously, it turned out - that one must either defend it uncritically, or else one was supporting the ITU and a "UN takeover of the Internet." Those are false dichotomies and I see the same pattern being recreated here. Why?
> >
> > --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
> 
> -- 
> 
> Carlos A. Afonso
> ====================================
> new/nuevo/novo e-mail: ca at cafonso.ca
> ====================================
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101126/092066dc/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From katitza at eff.org  Fri Nov 26 10:54:45 2010
From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez)
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2010 07:54:45 -0800
Subject: [governance] Result of IGF negotiation - one observation
In-Reply-To: <15132237.42483.1290758525392.JavaMail.www@wwinf1g32>
References: <AANLkTinOz1oydUYqey8v_C=s+w=9+y0r8vaMjROP8PKK@mail.gmail.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC108DCFD@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4CED9AC7.2080700@cafonso.ca> <15132237.42483.1290758525392.JavaMail.www@wwinf1g32>
Message-ID: <4CEFD845.8050107@eff.org>

This is NOT Izumi's comment. This was the comment of some government who 
negotiated the UN GA Resolution, and his/her/they vision on it.

On 11/26/10 12:04 AM, Jean-Louis FULLSACK wrote:
> Good points, indeed, for both Milton and Meryem.
> Thanks for that.
> I'd also thank Izumi for his efforts to keep us well informed in the 
> whole course of these events, although I'don't share all the 
> statements made.. Anyway, there will be a(nother) life after Geneva 
> November 2010 ...
>
> All the best
> Jean-Louis Fullsack
> CSDPTT
>
>
>
>
>     > Message du 25/11/10 00:08
>     > De : "Carlos A. Afonso"
>     > A : governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Milton L Mueller"
>     > Copie à : "Izumi AIZU"
>     > Objet : Re: [governance] Result of IGF negotiation - one observation
>     >
>     > Good points, Milton!
>     >
>     > --c.a.
>     >
>     > On 11/24/2010 08:59 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>     > > Izumi
>     > > I have a bit of trouble understanding your statements in this
>     section:
>     > >
>     > >> -----Original Message-----
>     > >> However, in negotiations of this nature, while our key
>     objectives were
>     > >> secured, we could not win on every point. In particular, it is
>     > >> regrettable that the text does not do more to talk up the
>     successes of
>     > >> the IGF to balance the negative thread of "acknowledging the
>     calls for
>     > >> improvements" (though happily diluted from "many calls" in
>     the original
>     > >> text),
>     > >
>     > > Is it your position that the IGF is an unqualified success
>     that needs no improvement?
>     > > That is certainly not my position, or even the position of the
>     many people within this caucus that I know and talk to.
>     > >
>     > >> "recogniz(ing) the need for further discussion on the improvement
>     > >> of its working methods" and "consideration of IGF
>     > >> improvements....particular(ly) improving the preparation process
>     > >> modalities and the work and the functioning of the
>     Secretariat". These
>     > >> several references to improvements in the text could for
>     those with no
>     > >> direct experience of the IGF give the erroneous impression of
>     something
>     > >> needing major change or even that the IGF is inherently
>     flawed which is
>     > >> clearly not the case.
>     > >
>     > > I do not understand the need for such a defensive approach to
>     the IGF.
>     > > The idea that any criticism or drive for improvement means
>     that it is inherently flawed seems to reproduce the kind of
>     polarization we saw when ICANN was challenged during the WSIS
>     process. There were those who believed - quite erroneously, it
>     turned out - that one must either defend it uncritically, or else
>     one was supporting the ITU and a "UN takeover of the Internet."
>     Those are false dichotomies and I see the same pattern being
>     recreated here. Why?
>     > >
>     > > --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
>     >
>     > --
>     >
>     > Carlos A. Afonso
>     > ====================================
>     > 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
>     >
>


-- 
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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101126/c3c84dd0/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From katitza at eff.org  Fri Nov 26 11:05:10 2010
From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez)
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2010 08:05:10 -0800
Subject: [governance] Re: GA 2nd Committee expected to adopt text on
In-Reply-To: <E775EF7D-2C86-48B7-9B3B-4B3E152B8E9F@marzouki.info>
References: <AANLkTinD+XZF=CkA3d1u35vXJw5bbdhWQUdAw5=mQ68_@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTikst4V7fSL0XmwjqadPgVP62n45gxF3DbxE2gSn@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTi=z9NgVF7EAxbTs=czvcWaC_bECBk=92PP5TGqv@mail.gmail.com> <44F83997-5B33-4C74-8751-02743A3EB452@marzouki.info> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC108DCFC@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <E775EF7D-2C86-48B7-9B3B-4B3E152B8E9F@marzouki.info>
Message-ID: <4CEFDAB6.5090909@eff.org>

Hola Meryem,

That paragraph belongs to the Geneva-WSIS Declaration of Principles. 
"Building the Information Society: a global challenge in the new 
Millennium" Unfortunately, no one realize the importance of highlight 
human rights within this framework, indeed. It has been said that some 
controversial paragraphs that can chill freedom of expression were 
included on previous versions of the G77 draft, but were at the not 
accepted by other democratic govs. inside the G77.

There might be people who did not associate that article with the 
importance on human rights. Civil society we weren't able to inform 
policy makers to get better policy outcomes within the negotiations of 
this UN GA resolution.

And yes, the WSIS follow up is crucial in this overall broad picture 
discussion. WSIS follow has indeed a mandate that has also been 
extended, and may be a struggle of power among UN institutions on these 
issues..

Best, K


On 11/24/10 5:18 PM, Meryem Marzouki wrote:
> Well, the future will tell us if this was blah-blah or not.. As far as 
> I'm concerned, I consider that the wordings of this resolution shape 
> pretty clearly the next post-WSIS 5 years and I relate this to the 
> institutionalization of the "WSIS Forum". On another issue, I find it 
> rather interesting that CS (well, the IGC..) seems only concerned with 
> its paras 17-20.
> Best,
> Meryem
>
> Le 24 nov. 10 à 23:49, Milton L Mueller a écrit :
>
>> I had the same reaction to this resolution as Meryem. Indeed, I could 
>> barely make it through to the part about IGF the resolution was so 
>> full of bloated rhetoric, for which I have very little patience. 
>> While I found the language in the resolution objectionable for the 
>> same reasons as Meryem, I must confess I did not take it all that 
>> seriously, viewing it as typical UN blah-blah.
>>
>> --MM
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Meryem Marzouki [mailto:meryem at marzouki.info]
>>> Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2010 9:28 AM
>>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>> Subject: Re: [governance] Re: GA 2nd Committee expected to adopt 
>>> text on
>>> November 30
>>>
>>> Thanks Stephanie for the text and a big thank to Izumi for keeping us
>>> informed in details! Regarding the resolution to be adopted, I think
>>> we should have a closer look at its entirety, not only at the
>>> provisions of IGF extension. And, inter alia, what I read from the
>>> 3rd paragraph of the resolution is really worrying:
>>>
>>> "Noting that cultural diversity is the common heritage of humankind
>>> and that the information society should be founded on and stimulate
>>> respect for cultural identity, cultural and linguistic diversity,
>>> traditions and religions, and foster dialogue among cultures and
>>> civilizations, and noting also that the promotion, affirmation and
>>> preservation of diverse cultural identities and languages as
>>> reflected in relevant agreed United Nations documents, including the
>>> Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity of the United Nations
>>> Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, will further
>>> enrich the information society"
>>>
>>> The mention of "traditions and religions" is particularly concerning
>>> here. As is the lack of *any* mention of rights or freedoms.
>>>
>>> I'm wondering what others think of the implications of this
>>> provision, and the general vision conveyed by this resolution?
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Meryem
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> Meryem Marzouki - Paris, France
>>> Email: meryem at marzouki.info
>>> Lab. LIP6/CNRS/UPMC - www-polytic.lip6.fr
>>> IRIS (Imaginons un réseau Internet solidaire) - www.iris.sgdg.org
>>> EDRI (European Digital Rights) - www.edri.org
>>>
>>>
>>> Le 24 nov. 10 à 10:46, Izumi AIZU a écrit :
>>>
>>>> Texts on the IGF extension from the PDF:
>>>>
>>>> 17. Decides to extend the mandate of the Internet Governance Forum for
>>>> a further five years, and in this regard, invites the
>>>> Secretary-General to continue with the convening of the Internet
>>>> Governance Forum for a multi-stakeholder policy dialogue on Internet
>>>> governance issues according to its mandate as set out in paragraph 72
>>>> of the Tunis Agenda for the Information Society,12 while recognizing
>>>> at the same time the need to improve it with a view to  linking it to
>>>> the broader dialogue on global internet governance;
>>>>
>>>>  18. Welcomes the decision by ECOSOC in paragraph 30 of E/2010/2 to
>>>> invite the Chair of the Commission on Science and Technology for
>>>> Development to establish, in an open and inclusive manner, a working
>>>> group which would seek, compile and review inputs from all Member
>>>> States and all other stakeholders on improvements to the Internet
>>>> Governance Forum, in line with the mandate set out in the Tunis
>>>> Agenda13, and which would submit a report to the Commission at its
>>>> fourteenth session, in 2011, with recommendations, as appropriate,
>>>> that would constitute an input by the Commission to the General
>>>> Assembly, through the Economic and Social Council;
>>>>
>>>>  19. Stresses that the consideration of IGF improvements should be
>>>> based on the inputs to be provided to the working group by all Member
>>>> States and all other stakeholders, including those comments received
>>>> during the online consultation and the consultation undertaken by the
>>>> Under Secretary General in the fourth meeting of the IGF held in Sharm
>>>> El-Sheikh, Egypt in November 2009 with particular consideration of,
>>>> inter
>>>> alia, enhancing participation from developing countries, exploring
>>>> further voluntary options for IGF financing and improving the
>>>> preparation process modalities, and the work and the functioning of
>>>> the Secretariat;
>>>>
>>>> 20. Also decides that the desirability of continuation of the Internet
>>>> Governance Forum be considered again by Member States at the General
>>>> Assembly within the context of a ten-year review of implementation of
>>>> the outcome of the World Summit on the Information Society in 2015;
>>>>
>>>> 21. Stresses the need for the enhanced participation of developing
>>>> countries, in particular from least developed countries, in all the
>>>> Internet Governance Forum meetings, and in this regard invites member
>>>> states as well as other  stakeholders to support the participation of
>>>> Governments and other stakeholders from developing countries to the
>>>> Forum itself as well as the preparatory meetings;
>>>>
>>>>  22. Welcomes the decision by ECOSOC in paragraph 24 of E/2010/2 to
>>>> invite the Secretary-General to convene open and inclusive
>>>> consultations involving all Member States and all other stakeholders
>>>> with a view to assisting the process towards enhanced cooperation in
>>>> order to enable Governments on an equal footing to carry out their
>>>> roles and responsibilities in respect of international public policy
>>>> issues pertaining to the Internet, but not of the day-to-day technical
>>>> and operational matters that do not impact upon those issues, through
>>>> balanced participation of all stakeholders, especially developing
>>>> countries, in their respective roles and responsibilities, as stated
>>>> in paragraph 35 of the Tunis Agenda14, and requests the
>>>> Secretary-General to submit to the General Assembly for consideration
>>>> at its sixty- sixth session, through the Economic and Social Council,
>>>> a report on the outcome of these consultations and takes note of the
>>>> invitations circulated by the USG to
>>>> participate in the open consultations on enhanced cooperation on
>>>> international public policy issues pertaining to the internet;
>>>> -----
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>>>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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


-- 
Katitza Rodriguez
International Rights Director
Electronic Frontier Foundation
katitza at eff.org
katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email)

Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From jshtern at ryerson.ca  Fri Nov 26 13:31:08 2010
From: jshtern at ryerson.ca (Jeremy Shtern)
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2010 13:31:08 -0500
Subject: [governance] FW: New book: Digital Solidarities... The Legacy of
 the WSIS
In-Reply-To: <DEA949C2E8F3EF4EA95AF1FD12377FBF07A421CE16@EXMBXVS2.campus.mcgill.ca>
Message-ID: <C915671C.29CD%jshtern@ryerson.ca>

Dear colleagues,

We are proud to announce the publication of our new book: Digital
Solidarities, Communication Policy and Multi-stakeholder Global Governance:
The Legacy of the World Summit on the Information Society.

Digital Solidarities (New York: Peter Lang, 2010) is written by Marc Raboy,
Normand Landry and Jeremy Shtern. The book examines the actors, structures
and themes that shaped the 2003-2005 World Summit on the Information Society
(WSIS), with a particular focus on the role played by civil society. The
book investigates how civil society self-organization has continued
post-WSIS through the formation of the UN-sponsored Internet Governance
Forum (IGF) and other policymaking venues, and reflects on what the WSIS
experience reveals about the challenges and opportunities embedded in the
notion of multi-stakeholder governance and its implications for
understanding global communication.

The book can be purchased on Amazon or directly from the publisher:
http://www.peterlang.com/index.cfm?event=cmp.ccc.seitenstruktur.detailseiten
&seitentyp=produkt&pk=54123&cid=537

You can also access a free read-only copy of the entire book here:
http://media.mcgill.ca/files/DigitalSolidarities.pdf


For anyone in the Montréal area, Media at McGill (www.media.mcgill.ca
<http://www.media.mcgill.ca> ) is organizing a book launch to celebrate two
releases -  Digital Solidarities and Media Divides: Communication Rights and
the Right to Communicate in Canada (by Marc Raboy and Jeremy Shtern, with
William J. McIver Jr., Laura J. Murray, Sean O Siochru, and Leslie Regan
Shade. Vancouver: UBC Press, 2010).
 
The book launch will be held on Thursday, 2 December, from 7:00 to 8:30 p.m.
in Room W220, in the Department of Art History and Communication Studies,
McGill University, Arts Building, 853 Sherbrooke Street West, Montreal (see
http://media.mcgill.ca/en/double_book_launch for map and more info). 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101126/b788efa8/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From katitza at eff.org  Fri Nov 26 14:22:36 2010
From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez)
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2010 11:22:36 -0800
Subject: [governance] Nominet plans to take down domains suspected of being
 used for criminal activity
Message-ID: <4CF008FC.8090305@eff.org>

"We believe that formal policy advice is needed to underpin proposals 
for a change to Nominet’s Terms and Conditions to give a contractual 
basis to suspend domains where Nominet has reasonable grounds to believe 
they are being used to commit a crime (e.g. a request from an identified 
UK Law Enforcement Agency)."

"What is current practice?
There are increasing expectations from Law Enforcement Agencies that 
Nominet and its members will respond quickly to reasonable requests to 
suspend domain names being used in association with criminal activity 
and Nominet has been working with them in response to formal requests. 
Experience has been developed by working with key Law Enforcement 
Agencies in a trusted relationship. This led to the suspension of over 
1,200 domain names being used for criminal activity, working on a 
request from the Police Central eCrime Unit in December 2009. We expect 
action to be taken by the registrar in the first instance. Action at the 
registry level would only be required if the incident was urgent or the 
registrar failed to comply. Nominet provide registrars with a lock which 
can be used in the case of criminal activity."

http://www.nominet.org.uk/digitalAssets/45676_Dealing-with-domains-associated-with-criminal-activity.pdf


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From fm-lists at st-kilda.org  Fri Nov 26 16:06:34 2010
From: fm-lists at st-kilda.org (Fearghas McKay)
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2010 21:06:34 +0000
Subject: [governance] Nominet plans to take down domains suspected of
 being used for criminal activity
In-Reply-To: <4CF008FC.8090305@eff.org>
References: <4CF008FC.8090305@eff.org>
Message-ID: <EF731DB2-6351-4895-8FAA-16F1CB9C0BF7@st-kilda.org>

[snip]

This article may be of use for background. 

http://blog.alex.org.uk/2010/11/26/domain-names-and-criminals/

Written by one of the Nominet founders and a director till 2007.  

    F
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From Guru at ITforChange.net  Sun Nov 28 06:48:31 2010
From: Guru at ITforChange.net (=?UTF-8?B?R3VydSDgpJfgpYHgpLDgpYE=?=)
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2010 17:18:31 +0530
Subject: [governance] Re: [nomcom] Nominations for the IGC Appeals team
In-Reply-To: <4CD130FE.8080104@ITforChange.net>
References: <4CD130FE.8080104@ITforChange.net>
Message-ID: <4CF2418F.4050602@ITforChange.net>

On behalf of the Nomcom, the following were chosen as members of the IGC 
civil society Appeals Team.
Avri Doria
Charity Gamboa-Embley
Fouad Bajwa
Ginger Paque
Lee McNight

Nomcom Report
The Nomcom was briefed  on October 30, and was asked to complete this 
task in a reasonable time frame. The Nomcom members are Qusai Al-Shatti, 
Gurumurthy K, Hempal Shrestha, Jacquiline Morris and Ian Peter. 
Gurumurthy was elected Chair for this exercise.

Our first step was to call for nominations to be clarified or added to 
(original nominations were made in conjunction with the co coordinator 
ballot on October 10) which included-
Imran Ahmed Shah
Dr. Olivier Crepin-Leblond
Ginger Paque
Divina Frau-Meigs
Fearghas McKay
Nnenna Nwakanma
Fouad Bajwa
Avri Doria
Kwasi Adu-Boahen Opare
Rudi Vansnick
Charity Gamboa-Embley
Ben Akoh

One late nominations was received from Lee McNight which was also 
considered by the NonCom. 

In terms of process, the nomcom  followed these  steps
a. discuss the parameters
b. individually weigh and rank the candidates
c. the individual ranks are collated by the chair and common selections 
if any identified
d. discuss remaining candidates/slots and finalise

The  selection criteria for Appeals team membership as per charter 
(quoted below), was considered as follows:
A) Qualified IGC member
Appeals team should be Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (CS IGC) 
members.
Anyone who have subscribed to the IGC Charter and subscribed to the IGC 
caucus mailing list for 2 months prior to the announcement of the 
appeals team Nomcom process is eligible to be a candidate.

B) Qualifications
Nomcom will primarily select persons based on their knowledge and 
experience of issues faced by the caucus and their neutrality.
The successful candidate should be a person with thoughtful and unbiased 
consideration and have a stated (and demonstrated) commitment to 
consultation and dialogue with the community.

C) Diversity and balance
Appeal Team collectively should have good diversity and balance. The 
attributes to be considered include, but not limited to Geographic and 
cultural diversity, - Gender, Age,  Skill set and knowledge, Disability

These will be treated as a goal, but not as the absolute requirement.

D) Others
To avoid capture, no more than one employee/representative of a 
particular organization should serve on the Appeal Team at any given time.

Nomcom members then scored candidates individually and each nomcom 
member who participated came up with a list of 5 names. These were 
collated, with some of the candidates on our final list being initially 
selected by all participating nomcom members. The Nomcom then discussed 
finalisation of the slate and the merits of respective candidates, 
bearing in mind geographic and gender balance as much as possible to 
come up with a final list.

The Nomcom also considered the organisational affiliations of nominees 
and took a fairly liberal view since many IGC members are also members 
of other groups. However, members considered that  there was little fear 
of capture from the current slate of names.

Gurumurthy K
On behalf of Nomcom

Gurumurthy Kasinathan
IT for Change | www.ITforChange.Net | Tel:98454 37730
What is Public Software? see http://public-software-centre.org/node/31


Guru गुरु wrote:
> Friends,
>
> The Nomcom having completed the selection of nominees for the CSTD 
> working group has now begun work on constituting the Internet 
> Governance Caucus Appeals Team. As the chair for this task (the other 
> members of NOMCOM are Ian Peter, Qusai Al-Shatti, Hempal Shrestha and 
> Jacquiline Morris), I would like to share the the list of candidates 
> (in no particular order) we have from the recent ballot and 
> questionaire - (excluding those who are members of the nomcom and have 
> withdrawn their nominations)
>
> Imran Ahmed Shah
> Dr. Olivier Crepin-Leblond
> Ginger Paque
> Divina Frau-Meigs
> Fearghas McKay
> Nnenna Nwakanma
> Fouad Bajwa
> Avri Doria
> Kwasi Adu-Boahen Opare
> Qusai Al-Shatti
> Rudi Vansnick
> Charity Gamboa-Embley
> Ben Akoh
>
> If you are on the list above and no longer wish to be considered, 
> please advise within 48 hours so we can finalise the slate by writing 
> to nomcom at igf-online.net
>
> *The role of the Appeals team (see below) is very important, and we 
> actively encourage more members to send in their nominations. If you 
> would like to be added to this list for consideration, please also 
> write to nomcom at igf-online.net within 48 hours.
> *
> The purpose of the Appeals Team as stated in our charter 
> (http://www.igcaucus.org/charter) is as follows: "Any time 4 
> individual members of the IGC co-sign a statement on the main IGC 
> mailing list they can appeal any decision of the coordinators. When a 
> decision is appealed, the appeals team will review any discussions 
> that occurred and will request comments from the IGC membership. Based 
> on the information they collect and discussion, they will decide on 
> the merit of the appeal."
>
> The criteria for selection of Appeals Team members are as follows:
> A) Qualified IGC member
> Appeals team should be Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (CS 
> IGC) members.
> Anyone who have subscribed to the IGC Charter and subscribed to the 
> IGC caucus mailing list for 2 months prior to the announcement of the 
> appeals team Nomcom process is eligible to be a candidate.
>
> B) Qualifications
> Nomcom will primarily select persons based on their knowledge and 
> experience of issues faced by the caucus and their neutrality.
> The successful candidate should be a person with thoughtful and 
> unbiased consideration and have a stated (and demonstrated) commitment 
> to consultation and dialogue with the community.
>
> C) Diversity and balance
> Appeal Team collectively should have good diversity and balance. The 
> attributes to be considered include, but not limited to Geographic and 
> cultural diversity, - Gender, Age,  Skill set and knowledge, Disability
>
> These will be treated as a goal, but not as the absolute requirement.
>
> D) Others
> To avoid capture, no more than one employee/representative of a 
> particular organization should serve on the Appeal Team at any given time.
>
> Nominations may be sent to this mailing list, or to myself as chair of 
> the Nomcom.  Self-nominations are permitted (and encouraged), though a 
> seconding member may help your application. Five members of the 
> Appeals Team are required. 
>
> And finally - as not all nomcom members know all the candidates, we 
> invite all nominees to send some brief information about themselves 
> and their suitability to represent IGC - again to 
> nomcom at igf-online.net within 48 hours.
>
> regards
> Guru
> -- 
> Gurumurthy Kasinathan
> IT for Change | www.ITforChange.Net | Tel:98454 37730
> What is Public Software? see http://public-software-centre.org/node/31
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101128/d30cf651/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From avri at acm.org  Sun Nov 28 10:15:23 2010
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2010 10:15:23 -0500
Subject: [governance] Re: [nomcom] Nominations for the IGC Appeals team
In-Reply-To: <4CF2418F.4050602@ITforChange.net>
References: <4CD130FE.8080104@ITforChange.net> <4CF2418F.4050602@ITforChange.net>
Message-ID: <9BAEA346-1BED-44F7-981C-73C4983B83C7@acm.org>

To the Nomcom and IGC,

Thanks for the confidence.
I accept with the hope that another year will go by without any appeals for the team to resolve.

a.

On 28 Nov 2010, at 06:48, Guru गुरु wrote:

> On behalf of the Nomcom, the following were chosen as members of the IGC civil society Appeals Team.
> Avri Doria
> Charity Gamboa-Embley
> Fouad Bajwa
> Ginger Paque
> Lee McNight
> 
> Nomcom Report
> The Nomcom was briefed  on October 30, and was asked to complete this task in a reasonable time frame. The Nomcom members are Qusai Al-Shatti, Gurumurthy K, Hempal Shrestha, Jacquiline Morris and Ian Peter. Gurumurthy was elected Chair for this exercise.
> 
> Our first step was to call for nominations to be clarified or added to (original nominations were made in conjunction with the co coordinator ballot on October 10) which included-
> Imran Ahmed Shah
> Dr. Olivier Crepin-Leblond
> Ginger Paque
> Divina Frau-Meigs
> Fearghas McKay
> Nnenna Nwakanma
> Fouad Bajwa
> Avri Doria
> Kwasi Adu-Boahen Opare
> Rudi Vansnick
> Charity Gamboa-Embley
> Ben Akoh
> 
> One late nominations was received from Lee McNight which was also considered by the NonCom.  
> 
> In terms of process, the nomcom  followed these  steps 
> a. discuss the parameters 
> b. individually weigh and rank the candidates 
> c. the individual ranks are collated by the chair and common selections if any identified
> d. discuss remaining candidates/slots and finalise 
> 
> The  selection criteria for Appeals team membership as per charter (quoted below), was considered as follows:
> A) Qualified IGC member
> Appeals team should be Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (CS IGC) members.
> Anyone who have subscribed to the IGC Charter and subscribed to the IGC caucus mailing list for 2 months prior to the announcement of the appeals team Nomcom process is eligible to be a candidate. 
> 
> B) Qualifications
> Nomcom will primarily select persons based on their knowledge and experience of issues faced by the caucus and their neutrality.
> The successful candidate should be a person with thoughtful and unbiased consideration and have a stated (and demonstrated) commitment to consultation and dialogue with the community.
> 
> C) Diversity and balance
> Appeal Team collectively should have good diversity and balance. The attributes to be considered include, but not limited to Geographic and cultural diversity, - Gender, Age,  Skill set and knowledge, Disability
> 
> These will be treated as a goal, but not as the absolute requirement.
> 
> D) Others
> To avoid capture, no more than one employee/representative of a particular organization should serve on the Appeal Team at any given time.
> 
> Nomcom members then scored candidates individually and each nomcom member who participated came up with a list of 5 names. These were collated, with some of the candidates on our final list being initially selected by all participating nomcom members. The Nomcom then discussed finalisation of the slate and the merits of respective candidates, bearing in mind geographic and gender balance as much as possible to come up with a final list.
> 
> The Nomcom also considered the organisational affiliations of nominees and took a fairly liberal view since many IGC members are also members of other groups. However, members considered that  there was little fear of capture from the current slate of names. 
> 
> Gurumurthy K
> On behalf of Nomcom
> Gurumurthy Kasinathan
> IT for Change | 
> www.ITforChange.Net
>  | Tel:98454 37730
> What is Public Software? see 
> http://public-software-centre.org/node/31
> 
> Guru गुरु wrote:
>> Friends,
>> 
>> The Nomcom having completed the selection of nominees for the CSTD working group has now begun work on constituting the Internet Governance Caucus Appeals Team. As the chair for this task (the other members of NOMCOM are Ian Peter, Qusai Al-Shatti, Hempal Shrestha and Jacquiline Morris), I would like to share the the list of candidates (in no particular order) we have from the recent ballot and questionaire - (excluding those who are members of the nomcom and have withdrawn their nominations)
>> 
>> Imran Ahmed Shah
>> Dr. Olivier Crepin-Leblond
>> Ginger Paque
>> Divina Frau-Meigs
>> Fearghas McKay
>> Nnenna Nwakanma
>> Fouad Bajwa
>> Avri Doria
>> Kwasi Adu-Boahen Opare
>> Qusai Al-Shatti
>> Rudi Vansnick
>> Charity Gamboa-Embley
>> Ben Akoh
>> 
>> If you are on the list above and no longer wish to be considered, please advise within 48 hours so we can finalise the slate by writing to nomcom at igf-online.net
>> 
>> The role of the Appeals team (see below) is very important, and we actively encourage more members to send in their nominations. If you would like to be added to this list for consideration, please also write to nomcom at igf-online.net within 48 hours. 
>> 
>> The purpose of the Appeals Team as stated in our charter (http://www.igcaucus.org/charter) is as follows: "Any time 4 individual members of the IGC co-sign a statement on the main IGC mailing list they can appeal any decision of the coordinators. When a decision is appealed, the appeals team will review any discussions that occurred and will request comments from the IGC membership. Based on the information they collect and discussion, they will decide on the merit of the appeal."
>> 
>> The criteria for selection of Appeals Team members are as follows:
>> A) Qualified IGC member
>> Appeals team should be Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (CS IGC) members.
>> Anyone who have subscribed to the IGC Charter and subscribed to the IGC caucus mailing list for 2 months prior to the announcement of the appeals team Nomcom process is eligible to be a candidate. 
>> 
>> B) Qualifications
>> Nomcom will primarily select persons based on their knowledge and experience of issues faced by the caucus and their neutrality.
>> The successful candidate should be a person with thoughtful and unbiased consideration and have a stated (and demonstrated) commitment to consultation and dialogue with the community.
>> 
>> C) Diversity and balance
>> Appeal Team collectively should have good diversity and balance. The attributes to be considered include, but not limited to Geographic and cultural diversity, - Gender, Age,  Skill set and knowledge, Disability
>> 
>> These will be treated as a goal, but not as the absolute requirement.
>> 
>> D) Others
>> To avoid capture, no more than one employee/representative of a particular organization should serve on the Appeal Team at any given time.
>> 
>> Nominations may be sent to this mailing list, or to myself as chair of the Nomcom.  Self-nominations are permitted (and encouraged), though a seconding member may help your application. Five members of the Appeals Team are required.  
>> 
>> And finally - as not all nomcom members know all the candidates, we invite all nominees to send some brief information about themselves and their suitability to represent IGC - again to nomcom at igf-online.net within 48 hours.
>> 
>> regards
>> Guru
>> -- 
>> Gurumurthy Kasinathan
>> IT for Change | www.ITforChange.Net | Tel:98454 37730
>> What is Public Software? see http://public-software-centre.org/node/31
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 Nov 28 10:41:13 2010
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2010 10:41:13 -0500
Subject: [governance] Result of IGF negotiation - one observation
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimimvz1-EH0Ut9LfcJE+_TUzVms3CBY0jXKJX3P@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTinOz1oydUYqey8v_C=s+w=9+y0r8vaMjROP8PKK@mail.gmail.com>
	<75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC108DCFD@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
	<AANLkTimBJxQ2xjzk6cprM92Jc5HfMmgc_e_cVuOkGcEk@mail.gmail.com>
 <AANLkTimimvz1-EH0Ut9LfcJE+_TUzVms3CBY0jXKJX3P@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC108DD2C@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>

OK, thanks, Izumi. This is very revealing. The fact that it comes from a Western government (not too hard to guess which ones it could have come from) reveals the dichotomy that goes all the way back to WSIS. I think it imperative that civil society rise above that dichotomy and play a constructively critical role in the future of the igf.

I hope Katitza recovers and when she does I would like to hear more about why she is returning from that meeting with negative feelings. 

--MM

> -----Original Message-----
> From: izumiaizu at gmail.com [mailto:izumiaizu at gmail.com] On Behalf Of
> Izumi AIZU
> Sent: Thursday, November 25, 2010 2:04 AM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Mawaki Chango
> Subject: Re: [governance] Result of IGF negotiation - one observation
> 
> Milton and all,
> 
> The text I intrduced in the email is NOT our statement at all.
> 
> It was an exert from a private email from a government folk who has
> been involved in the UN GA negotiations and given his permission I
> sent to the list for purely informational reference only, not giving
> any position of mine or ours.
> 
> Sorry for the confusion and hope this clarifies the question.
> 
> Izumi just arrived at Tokyo airport
> 
> 2010/11/25, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com>:
> > Thanks Izumi for the reporting...
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 5:59 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Izumi
> >> I have a bit of trouble understanding your statements in this
> section:
> >>
> >> > -----Original Message-----
> >> > However, in negotiations of this nature, while our key objectives
> were
> >> > secured, we could not win on every point. In particular, it is
> >> > regrettable that the text does not do more to talk up the successes
> of
> >> > the IGF to balance the negative thread of "acknowledging the calls
> for
> >> > improvements" (though happily diluted from "many calls" in the
> original
> >> > text),
> >>
> >> Is it your position that the IGF is an unqualified success that needs
> no
> >> improvement?
> >> That is certainly not my position, or even the position of the many
> people
> >> within this caucus that I know and talk to.
> >>
> >> >"recogniz(ing) the need for further discussion on the improvement
> >> > of its working methods" and "consideration of IGF
> >> > improvements....particular(ly) improving the preparation process
> >> > modalities and the work and the functioning of the Secretariat".
> These
> >> > several references to improvements in the text could for those with
> no
> >> > direct experience of the IGF give the erroneous impression of
> something
> >> > needing major change or even that the IGF is inherently flawed
> which is
> >> > clearly not the case.
> >>
> >> I do not understand the need for such a defensive approach to the
> IGF.
> >> The idea that any criticism or drive for improvement means that it is
> >> inherently flawed seems to reproduce the kind of polarization we saw
> when
> >> ICANN was challenged during the WSIS process. There were those who
> >> believed
> >> - quite erroneously, it turned out -  that one must either defend it
> >> uncritically, or else one was supporting the ITU and a "UN takeover
> of the
> >> Internet." Those are false dichotomies and I see the same pattern
> being
> >> recreated here. Why?
> >>
> >
> >
> > Agreed.
> > Why? Isn't this how all constitutional moments eventually start an
> > ossification career towards a new set of vested interests?
> > This is a constant challenge. However it is a bit unsettling if we are
> to
> > reject calls for improvements only on the simple basis that they are
> asking
> > for improvements, and not because we do not agree that the substance
> of what
> > they are asking brings actual improvement.
> >
> > mc.
> >
> >
> >>
> >> --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
> >>
> >
> 
> 
> --
>                         >> Izumi Aizu <<
> 
>           Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo
> 
>            Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,
>                                   Japan
>                                  * * * * *
>            << Writing the Future of the History >>
>                                 www.anr.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 mueller at syr.edu  Sun Nov 28 10:45:17 2010
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2010 10:45:17 -0500
Subject: [governance] Re: GA 2nd Committee expected to adopt text
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20101125034617.0b456210@jefsey.com>
References: <AANLkTinD+XZF=CkA3d1u35vXJw5bbdhWQUdAw5=mQ68_@mail.gmail.com>
 <AANLkTikst4V7fSL0XmwjqadPgVP62n45gxF3DbxE2gSn@mail.gmail.com>
 <AANLkTi=z9NgVF7EAxbTs=czvcWaC_bECBk=92PP5TGqv@mail.gmail.com>
 <44F83997-5B33-4C74-8751-02743A3EB452@marzouki.info>
 <7.0.1.0.2.20101125034617.0b456210@jefsey.com>
Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC108DD2D@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>

I can't speak for Meryem but from the perspective of an advocate of internet freedom and openness there are strong reasons to be concerned about governments making protective statements about "traditions and religions" in the context of a discussion of international communications policy. I would think the reasons to be obvious, but to elaborate: the rights and freedoms that should be mentioned include the right to receive, impart information regardless of frontiers, which can also mean the right to publish or receive information that dissents from established traditions and religions in any given territory. 

--MM


> -----Original Message-----
> From: JFC Morfin [mailto:jefsey at jefsey.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2010 9:51 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Meryem Marzouki;
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] Re: GA 2nd Committee expected to adopt text
> 
> At 15:27 24/11/2010, Meryem Marzouki wrote:
> >The mention of "traditions and religions" is particularly concerning
> >here. As is the lack of *any* mention of rights or freedoms.
> 
> Could you explain your two concerns?
> (1) seems to be "technically" pretty neat and mandatory?
> (2) which rights and freedom would introduce into such a categorization?
> jfc
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From vanda at uol.com.br  Sun Nov 28 11:40:06 2010
From: vanda at uol.com.br (Vanda UOL)
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2010 14:40:06 -0200
Subject: RES: [governance] Re: [nomcom] Nominations for the IGC Appeals team
In-Reply-To: <4CF2418F.4050602@ITforChange.net>
References: <4CD130FE.8080104@ITforChange.net> <4CF2418F.4050602@ITforChange.net>
Message-ID: <000901cb8f1a$f9873320$ec959960$@uol.com.br>

 

 

Congratulations  to all nominated!. Wishes to a very productive term. 

 

Vanda Scartezini

Polo Consultores Associados

IT Trend

Alameda Santos 1470 – 1407,8

01418-903 São Paulo,SP, Brasil

Tel + 5511 3266.6253

Mob + 55118181.1464

 

De: Guru गुरु [mailto:Guru at ITforChange.net] 
Enviada em: domingo, 28 de novembro de 2010 09:49
Para: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Cc: nomcom at igf-online.net
Assunto: [governance] Re: [nomcom] Nominations for the IGC Appeals team

 

On behalf of the Nomcom, the following were chosen as members of the IGC civil society Appeals Team.
Avri Doria
Charity Gamboa-Embley
Fouad Bajwa
Ginger Paque
Lee McNight

Nomcom Report
The Nomcom was briefed  on October 30, and was asked to complete this task in a reasonable time frame. The Nomcom members are Qusai Al-Shatti, Gurumurthy K, Hempal Shrestha, Jacquiline Morris and Ian Peter. Gurumurthy was elected Chair for this exercise.

Our first step was to call for nominations to be clarified or added to (original nominations were made in conjunction with the co coordinator ballot on October 10) which included-
Imran Ahmed Shah
Dr. Olivier Crepin-Leblond
Ginger Paque
Divina Frau-Meigs
Fearghas McKay
Nnenna Nwakanma
Fouad Bajwa
Avri Doria
Kwasi Adu-Boahen Opare
Rudi Vansnick
Charity Gamboa-Embley
Ben Akoh

One late nominations was received from Lee McNight which was also considered by the NonCom.  

In terms of process, the nomcom  followed these  steps 
a. discuss the parameters 
b. individually weigh and rank the candidates 
c. the individual ranks are collated by the chair and common selections if any identified
d. discuss remaining candidates/slots and finalise 

The  selection criteria for Appeals team membership as per charter (quoted below), was considered as follows:
A) Qualified IGC member
Appeals team should be Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (CS IGC) members.
Anyone who have subscribed to the IGC Charter and subscribed to the IGC caucus mailing list for 2 months prior to the announcement of the appeals team Nomcom process is eligible to be a candidate. 

B) Qualifications
Nomcom will primarily select persons based on their knowledge and experience of issues faced by the caucus and their neutrality.
The successful candidate should be a person with thoughtful and unbiased consideration and have a stated (and demonstrated) commitment to consultation and dialogue with the community.

C) Diversity and balance
Appeal Team collectively should have good diversity and balance. The attributes to be considered include, but not limited to Geographic and cultural diversity, - Gender, Age,  Skill set and knowledge, Disability

These will be treated as a goal, but not as the absolute requirement.

D) Others
To avoid capture, no more than one employee/representative of a particular organization should serve on the Appeal Team at any given time.

Nomcom members then scored candidates individually and each nomcom member who participated came up with a list of 5 names. These were collated, with some of the candidates on our final list being initially selected by all participating nomcom members. The Nomcom then discussed finalisation of the slate and the merits of respective candidates, bearing in mind geographic and gender balance as much as possible to come up with a final list.

The Nomcom also considered the organisational affiliations of nominees and took a fairly liberal view since many IGC members are also members of other groups. However, members considered that  there was little fear of capture from the current slate of names. 

Gurumurthy K
On behalf of Nomcom



Gurumurthy Kasinathan
IT for Change | www.ITforChange.Net | Tel:98454 37730
What is Public Software? see http://public-software-centre.org/node/31


Guru गुरु wrote: 

Friends,

The Nomcom having completed the selection of nominees for the CSTD working group has now begun work on constituting the Internet Governance Caucus Appeals Team. As the chair for this task (the other members of NOMCOM are Ian Peter, Qusai Al-Shatti, Hempal Shrestha and Jacquiline Morris), I would like to share the the list of candidates (in no particular order) we have from the recent ballot and questionaire - (excluding those who are members of the nomcom and have withdrawn their nominations)

Imran Ahmed Shah
Dr. Olivier Crepin-Leblond
Ginger Paque
Divina Frau-Meigs
Fearghas McKay
Nnenna Nwakanma
Fouad Bajwa
Avri Doria
Kwasi Adu-Boahen Opare
Qusai Al-Shatti
Rudi Vansnick
Charity Gamboa-Embley
Ben Akoh

If you are on the list above and no longer wish to be considered, please advise within 48 hours so we can finalise the slate by writing to nomcom at igf-online.net

The role of the Appeals team (see below) is very important, and we actively encourage more members to send in their nominations. If you would like to be added to this list for consideration, please also write to nomcom at igf-online.net within 48 hours. 

The purpose of the Appeals Team as stated in our charter (http://www.igcaucus.org/charter) is as follows: "Any time 4 individual members of the IGC co-sign a statement on the main IGC mailing list they can appeal any decision of the coordinators. When a decision is appealed, the appeals team will review any discussions that occurred and will request comments from the IGC membership. Based on the information they collect and discussion, they will decide on the merit of the appeal."

The criteria for selection of Appeals Team members are as follows:
A) Qualified IGC member
Appeals team should be Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (CS IGC) members.
Anyone who have subscribed to the IGC Charter and subscribed to the IGC caucus mailing list for 2 months prior to the announcement of the appeals team Nomcom process is eligible to be a candidate. 

B) Qualifications
Nomcom will primarily select persons based on their knowledge and experience of issues faced by the caucus and their neutrality.
The successful candidate should be a person with thoughtful and unbiased consideration and have a stated (and demonstrated) commitment to consultation and dialogue with the community.

C) Diversity and balance
Appeal Team collectively should have good diversity and balance. The attributes to be considered include, but not limited to Geographic and cultural diversity, - Gender, Age,  Skill set and knowledge, Disability

These will be treated as a goal, but not as the absolute requirement.

D) Others
To avoid capture, no more than one employee/representative of a particular organization should serve on the Appeal Team at any given time.

Nominations may be sent to this mailing list, or to myself as chair of the Nomcom.  Self-nominations are permitted (and encouraged), though a seconding member may help your application. Five members of the Appeals Team are required.  

And finally - as not all nomcom members know all the candidates, we invite all nominees to send some brief information about themselves and their suitability to represent IGC - again to nomcom at igf-online.net within 48 hours.

regards
Guru
-- 
Gurumurthy Kasinathan
IT for Change | www.ITforChange.Net | Tel:98454 37730
What is Public Software? see http://public-software-centre.org/node/31

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101128/a85c19c4/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From ias_pk at yahoo.com  Sun Nov 28 11:44:33 2010
From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah)
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2010 08:44:33 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [governance] Re: [nomcom] Nominations for the IGC Appeals team
In-Reply-To: <4CF2418F.4050602@ITforChange.net>
References: <4CD130FE.8080104@ITforChange.net> <4CF2418F.4050602@ITforChange.net>
Message-ID: <439747.84787.qm@web33001.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Congratulation to all selected "IGC civil society Appeals Team" members.
Imran Ahmed Shah

________________________________
From: Guru गुरु <Guru at ITforChange.net>
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Cc: "nomcom at igf-online.net" <nomcom at igf-online.net>
Sent: Sun, 28 November, 2010 16:48:31
Subject: [governance] Re: [nomcom] Nominations for the IGC Appeals team

On behalf of the Nomcom, the following were chosen as members of the IGC civil 
society Appeals Team.
Avri Doria
Charity Gamboa-Embley
Fouad Bajwa
Ginger Paque
Lee McNight

Nomcom Report
The Nomcom was briefed  on October 30, and was asked to complete this task in a 
reasonable time frame. The Nomcom members are Qusai Al-Shatti, Gurumurthy K, 
Hempal Shrestha, Jacquiline Morris and Ian Peter. Gurumurthy was elected Chair 
for this exercise.

Our first step was to call for nominations to be clarified or added to (original 
nominations were made in conjunction with the co coordinator ballot on October 
10) which included-
Imran Ahmed Shah
Dr. Olivier Crepin-Leblond
Ginger Paque
Divina Frau-Meigs
Fearghas McKay
Nnenna Nwakanma
Fouad Bajwa
Avri Doria
Kwasi Adu-Boahen Opare
Rudi Vansnick
Charity Gamboa-Embley
Ben Akoh

One late nominations was received from Lee McNight which was also considered by 
the NonCom.  


In terms of process, the nomcom  followed these  steps 
a. discuss the parameters 
b. individually weigh and rank the candidates 
c. the individual ranks are collated by the chair and common selections if any 
identified
d. discuss remaining candidates/slots and finalise 

The  selection criteria for Appeals team membership as per charter (quoted 
below), was considered as follows:
A) Qualified IGC member
Appeals team should be Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (CS IGC) 
members.
Anyone who have subscribed to the IGC Charter and subscribed to the IGC caucus 
mailing list for 2 months prior to the announcement of the appeals team Nomcom 
process is eligible to be a candidate. 


B) Qualifications
Nomcom will primarily select persons based on their knowledge and experience of 
issues faced by the caucus and their neutrality.
The successful candidate should be a person with thoughtful and unbiased 
consideration and have a stated (and demonstrated) commitment to consultation 
and dialogue with the community.

C) Diversity and balance
Appeal Team collectively should have good diversity and balance. The attributes 
to be considered include, but not limited to Geographic and cultural diversity, 
- Gender, Age,  Skill set and knowledge, Disability

These will be treated as a goal, but not as the absolute requirement.

D) Others
To avoid capture, no more than one employee/representative of a particular 
organization should serve on the Appeal Team at any given time.

Nomcom members then scored candidates individually and each nomcom member who 
participated came up with a list of 5 names. These were collated, with some of 
the candidates on our final list being initially selected by all participating 
nomcom members. The Nomcom then discussed finalisation of the slate and the 
merits of respective candidates, bearing in mind geographic and gender balance 
as much as possible to come up with a final list.

The Nomcom also considered the organisational affiliations of nominees and took 
a fairly liberal view since many IGC members are also members of other groups. 
However, members considered that  there was little fear of capture from the 
current slate of names. 


Gurumurthy K
On behalf of Nomcom

Gurumurthy Kasinathan IT for Change | www.ITforChange.Net | Tel:98454 37730 What 
is Public Software? see http://public-software-centre.org/node/31 

Guru गुरु wrote: 
Friends,
>
>The Nomcom having completed the selection of nominees for the CSTD working group 
>has now begun work on constituting the Internet Governance Caucus Appeals Team. 
>As the chair for this task (the other members of NOMCOM are Ian Peter, Qusai 
>Al-Shatti, Hempal Shrestha and Jacquiline Morris), I would like to share the the 
>list of candidates (in no particular order) we have from the recent ballot and 
>questionaire - (excluding those who are members of the nomcom and have withdrawn 
>their nominations)
>
>Imran Ahmed Shah
>Dr. Olivier Crepin-Leblond
>Ginger Paque
>Divina Frau-Meigs
>Fearghas McKay
>Nnenna Nwakanma
>Fouad Bajwa
>Avri Doria
>Kwasi Adu-Boahen Opare
>Qusai Al-Shatti
>Rudi Vansnick
>Charity Gamboa-Embley
>Ben Akoh
>
>If you are on the list above and no longer wish to be considered, please advise 
>within 48 hours so we can finalise the slate by writing to nomcom at igf-online.net
>
>The role of the Appeals team (see below) is very important, and we actively 
>encourage more members to send in their nominations. If you would like to be 
>added to this list for consideration, please also write to nomcom at igf-online.net 
>within 48 hours. 
>
>
>The purpose of the Appeals Team as stated in our charter 
>(http://www.igcaucus.org/charter) is as follows: "Any time 4 individual members 
>of the IGC co-sign a statement on the main IGC mailing list they can appeal any 
>decision of the coordinators. When a decision is appealed, the appeals team will 
>review any discussions that occurred and will request comments from the IGC 
>membership. Based on the information they collect and discussion, they will 
>decide on the merit of the appeal."
>
>The criteria for selection of Appeals Team members are as follows:
>A) Qualified IGC member
>Appeals team should be Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (CS IGC) 
>members.
>Anyone who have subscribed to the IGC Charter and subscribed to the IGC caucus 
>mailing list for 2 months prior to the announcement of the appeals team Nomcom 
>process is eligible to be a candidate. 
>
>
>B) Qualifications
>Nomcom will primarily select persons based on their knowledge and experience of 
>issues faced by the caucus and their neutrality.
>The successful candidate should be a person with thoughtful and unbiased 
>consideration and have a stated (and demonstrated) commitment to consultation 
>and dialogue with the community.
>
>C) Diversity and balance
>Appeal Team collectively should have good diversity and balance. The attributes 
>to be considered include, but not limited to Geographic and cultural diversity, 
>- Gender, Age,  Skill set and knowledge, Disability
>
>These will be treated as a goal, but not as the absolute requirement.
>
>D) Others
>To avoid capture, no more than one employee/representative of a particular 
>organization should serve on the Appeal Team at any given time.
>
>Nominations may be sent to this mailing list, or to myself as chair of the 
>Nomcom.  Self-nominations are permitted (and encouraged), though a seconding 
>member may help your application. Five members of the Appeals Team are 
>required.  
>
>
>And finally - as not all nomcom members know all the candidates, we invite all 
>nominees to send some brief information about themselves and their suitability 
>to represent IGC - again to nomcom at igf-online.net within 48 hours.
>
>regards
>Guru
>-- 
>Gurumurthy Kasinathan
>IT for Change | www.ITforChange.Net | Tel:98454 37730
>What is Public Software? see http://public-software-centre.org/node/31
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101128/d845ef45/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From ocl at gih.com  Sun Nov 28 12:44:34 2010
From: ocl at gih.com (Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond)
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2010 18:44:34 +0100
Subject: [governance] Re: [nomcom] Nominations for the IGC Appeals team
In-Reply-To: <4CF2418F.4050602@ITforChange.net>
References: <4CD130FE.8080104@ITforChange.net> <4CF2418F.4050602@ITforChange.net>
Message-ID: <4CF29502.30100@gih.com>

An excellent team of very experienced individuals.
I have no doubt that they'll be fair in case they would be called upon,
hoping that ultimately they won't need to be called upon!
Warmest regards,

Olivier

Le 28/11/2010 12:48, Guru गुरु a écrit :
> On behalf of the Nomcom, the following were chosen as members of the
> IGC civil society Appeals Team.
> Avri Doria
> Charity Gamboa-Embley
> Fouad Bajwa
> Ginger Paque
> Lee McNight
>
> Nomcom Report
> The Nomcom was briefed  on October 30, and was asked to complete this
> task in a reasonable time frame. The Nomcom members are Qusai
> Al-Shatti, Gurumurthy K, Hempal Shrestha, Jacquiline Morris and Ian
> Peter. Gurumurthy was elected Chair for this exercise.
>
> Our first step was to call for nominations to be clarified or added to
> (original nominations were made in conjunction with the co coordinator
> ballot on October 10) which included-
> Imran Ahmed Shah
> Dr. Olivier Crepin-Leblond
> Ginger Paque
> Divina Frau-Meigs
> Fearghas McKay
> Nnenna Nwakanma
> Fouad Bajwa
> Avri Doria
> Kwasi Adu-Boahen Opare
> Rudi Vansnick
> Charity Gamboa-Embley
> Ben Akoh
>
> One late nominations was received from Lee McNight which was also
> considered by the NonCom. 
>
> In terms of process, the nomcom  followed these  steps
> a. discuss the parameters
> b. individually weigh and rank the candidates
> c. the individual ranks are collated by the chair and common
> selections if any identified
> d. discuss remaining candidates/slots and finalise
>
> The  selection criteria for Appeals team membership as per charter
> (quoted below), was considered as follows:
> A) Qualified IGC member
> Appeals team should be Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (CS
> IGC) members.
> Anyone who have subscribed to the IGC Charter and subscribed to the
> IGC caucus mailing list for 2 months prior to the announcement of the
> appeals team Nomcom process is eligible to be a candidate.
>
> B) Qualifications
> Nomcom will primarily select persons based on their knowledge and
> experience of issues faced by the caucus and their neutrality.
> The successful candidate should be a person with thoughtful and
> unbiased consideration and have a stated (and demonstrated) commitment
> to consultation and dialogue with the community.
>
> C) Diversity and balance
> Appeal Team collectively should have good diversity and balance. The
> attributes to be considered include, but not limited to Geographic and
> cultural diversity, - Gender, Age,  Skill set and knowledge, Disability
>
> These will be treated as a goal, but not as the absolute requirement.
>
> D) Others
> To avoid capture, no more than one employee/representative of a
> particular organization should serve on the Appeal Team at any given time.
>
> Nomcom members then scored candidates individually and each nomcom
> member who participated came up with a list of 5 names. These were
> collated, with some of the candidates on our final list being
> initially selected by all participating nomcom members. The Nomcom
> then discussed finalisation of the slate and the merits of respective
> candidates, bearing in mind geographic and gender balance as much as
> possible to come up with a final list.
>
> The Nomcom also considered the organisational affiliations of nominees
> and took a fairly liberal view since many IGC members are also members
> of other groups. However, members considered that  there was little
> fear of capture from the current slate of names.
>
> Gurumurthy K
> On behalf of Nomcom
> Gurumurthy Kasinathan
> IT for Change | www.ITforChange.Net | Tel:98454 37730
> What is Public Software? see http://public-software-centre.org/node/31
>
> Guru गुरु wrote:
>> Friends,
>>
>> The Nomcom having completed the selection of nominees for the CSTD
>> working group has now begun work on constituting the Internet
>> Governance Caucus Appeals Team. As the chair for this task (the other
>> members of NOMCOM are Ian Peter, Qusai Al-Shatti, Hempal Shrestha and
>> Jacquiline Morris), I would like to share the the list of candidates
>> (in no particular order) we have from the recent ballot and
>> questionaire - (excluding those who are members of the nomcom and
>> have withdrawn their nominations)
>>
>> Imran Ahmed Shah
>> Dr. Olivier Crepin-Leblond
>> Ginger Paque
>> Divina Frau-Meigs
>> Fearghas McKay
>> Nnenna Nwakanma
>> Fouad Bajwa
>> Avri Doria
>> Kwasi Adu-Boahen Opare
>> Qusai Al-Shatti
>> Rudi Vansnick
>> Charity Gamboa-Embley
>> Ben Akoh
>>
>> If you are on the list above and no longer wish to be considered,
>> please advise within 48 hours so we can finalise the slate by writing
>> to nomcom at igf-online.net
>>
>> *The role of the Appeals team (see below) is very important, and we
>> actively encourage more members to send in their nominations. If you
>> would like to be added to this list for consideration, please also
>> write to nomcom at igf-online.net within 48 hours.
>> *
>> The purpose of the Appeals Team as stated in our charter
>> (http://www.igcaucus.org/charter) is as follows: "Any time 4
>> individual members of the IGC co-sign a statement on the main IGC
>> mailing list they can appeal any decision of the coordinators. When a
>> decision is appealed, the appeals team will review any discussions
>> that occurred and will request comments from the IGC membership.
>> Based on the information they collect and discussion, they will
>> decide on the merit of the appeal."
>>
>> The criteria for selection of Appeals Team members are as follows:
>> A) Qualified IGC member
>> Appeals team should be Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (CS
>> IGC) members.
>> Anyone who have subscribed to the IGC Charter and subscribed to the
>> IGC caucus mailing list for 2 months prior to the announcement of the
>> appeals team Nomcom process is eligible to be a candidate.
>>
>> B) Qualifications
>> Nomcom will primarily select persons based on their knowledge and
>> experience of issues faced by the caucus and their neutrality.
>> The successful candidate should be a person with thoughtful and
>> unbiased consideration and have a stated (and demonstrated)
>> commitment to consultation and dialogue with the community.
>>
>> C) Diversity and balance
>> Appeal Team collectively should have good diversity and balance. The
>> attributes to be considered include, but not limited to Geographic
>> and cultural diversity, - Gender, Age,  Skill set and knowledge,
>> Disability
>>
>> These will be treated as a goal, but not as the absolute requirement.
>>
>> D) Others
>> To avoid capture, no more than one employee/representative of a
>> particular organization should serve on the Appeal Team at any given
>> time.
>>
>> Nominations may be sent to this mailing list, or to myself as chair
>> of the Nomcom.  Self-nominations are permitted (and encouraged),
>> though a seconding member may help your application. Five members of
>> the Appeals Team are required. 
>>
>> And finally - as not all nomcom members know all the candidates, we
>> invite all nominees to send some brief information about themselves
>> and their suitability to represent IGC - again to
>> nomcom at igf-online.net within 48 hours.
>>
>> regards
>> Guru
>> -- 
>> Gurumurthy Kasinathan
>> IT for Change | www.ITforChange.Net | Tel:98454 37730
>> What is Public Software? see http://public-software-centre.org/node/31

-- 
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
http://www.gih.com/ocl.html

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101128/4cf46a56/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From gpaque at gmail.com  Sun Nov 28 12:58:16 2010
From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque)
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2010 13:28:16 -0430
Subject: RES: [governance] Re: [nomcom] Nominations for the IGC Appeals
In-Reply-To: <000901cb8f1a$f9873320$ec959960$@uol.com.br>
References: <4CD130FE.8080104@ITforChange.net> <4CF2418F.4050602@ITforChange.net> <000901cb8f1a$f9873320$ec959960$@uol.com.br>
Message-ID: <4CF29838.5070507@gmail.com>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101128/5fd6990f/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From gate.one205 at yahoo.fr  Sun Nov 28 13:20:15 2010
From: gate.one205 at yahoo.fr (Jean-Yves GATETE)
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2010 18:20:15 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: [governance] Re: [nomcom] Nominations for the IGC Appeals team
In-Reply-To: <9BAEA346-1BED-44F7-981C-73C4983B83C7@acm.org>
Message-ID: <798719.90086.qm@web27801.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>

Hello all,
 
I am finding a good team ,I wish you a good continuation and success,
 
Jean-Yves G

--- En date de : Dim 28.11.10, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> a écrit :


De: Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>
Objet: Re: [governance] Re: [nomcom] Nominations for the IGC Appeals team
À: "IGC" <governance at lists.cpsr.org>
Cc: "nomcom at igf-online.net" <nomcom at igf-online.net>
Date: Dimanche 28 novembre 2010, 16h15


To the Nomcom and IGC,

Thanks for the confidence.
I accept with the hope that another year will go by without any appeals for the team to resolve.

a.

On 28 Nov 2010, at 06:48, Guru गुरु wrote:

> On behalf of the Nomcom, the following were chosen as members of the IGC civil society Appeals Team.
> Avri Doria
> Charity Gamboa-Embley
> Fouad Bajwa
> Ginger Paque
> Lee McNight
> 
> Nomcom Report
> The Nomcom was briefed  on October 30, and was asked to complete this task in a reasonable time frame. The Nomcom members are Qusai Al-Shatti, Gurumurthy K, Hempal Shrestha, Jacquiline Morris and Ian Peter. Gurumurthy was elected Chair for this exercise.
> 
> Our first step was to call for nominations to be clarified or added to (original nominations were made in conjunction with the co coordinator ballot on October 10) which included-
> Imran Ahmed Shah
> Dr. Olivier Crepin-Leblond
> Ginger Paque
> Divina Frau-Meigs
> Fearghas McKay
> Nnenna Nwakanma
> Fouad Bajwa
> Avri Doria
> Kwasi Adu-Boahen Opare
> Rudi Vansnick
> Charity Gamboa-Embley
> Ben Akoh
> 
> One late nominations was received from Lee McNight which was also considered by the NonCom.  
> 
> In terms of process, the nomcom  followed these  steps 
> a. discuss the parameters 
> b. individually weigh and rank the candidates 
> c. the individual ranks are collated by the chair and common selections if any identified
> d. discuss remaining candidates/slots and finalise 
> 
> The  selection criteria for Appeals team membership as per charter (quoted below), was considered as follows:
> A) Qualified IGC member
> Appeals team should be Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (CS IGC) members.
> Anyone who have subscribed to the IGC Charter and subscribed to the IGC caucus mailing list for 2 months prior to the announcement of the appeals team Nomcom process is eligible to be a candidate. 
> 
> B) Qualifications
> Nomcom will primarily select persons based on their knowledge and experience of issues faced by the caucus and their neutrality.
> The successful candidate should be a person with thoughtful and unbiased consideration and have a stated (and demonstrated) commitment to consultation and dialogue with the community.
> 
> C) Diversity and balance
> Appeal Team collectively should have good diversity and balance. The attributes to be considered include, but not limited to Geographic and cultural diversity, - Gender, Age,  Skill set and knowledge, Disability
> 
> These will be treated as a goal, but not as the absolute requirement.
> 
> D) Others
> To avoid capture, no more than one employee/representative of a particular organization should serve on the Appeal Team at any given time.
> 
> Nomcom members then scored candidates individually and each nomcom member who participated came up with a list of 5 names. These were collated, with some of the candidates on our final list being initially selected by all participating nomcom members. The Nomcom then discussed finalisation of the slate and the merits of respective candidates, bearing in mind geographic and gender balance as much as possible to come up with a final list.
> 
> The Nomcom also considered the organisational affiliations of nominees and took a fairly liberal view since many IGC members are also members of other groups. However, members considered that  there was little fear of capture from the current slate of names. 
> 
> Gurumurthy K
> On behalf of Nomcom
> Gurumurthy Kasinathan
> IT for Change | 
> www.ITforChange.Net
>  | Tel:98454 37730
> What is Public Software? see 
> http://public-software-centre.org/node/31
> 
> Guru गुरु wrote:
>> Friends,
>> 
>> The Nomcom having completed the selection of nominees for the CSTD working group has now begun work on constituting the Internet Governance Caucus Appeals Team. As the chair for this task (the other members of NOMCOM are Ian Peter, Qusai Al-Shatti, Hempal Shrestha and Jacquiline Morris), I would like to share the the list of candidates (in no particular order) we have from the recent ballot and questionaire - (excluding those who are members of the nomcom and have withdrawn their nominations)
>> 
>> Imran Ahmed Shah
>> Dr. Olivier Crepin-Leblond
>> Ginger Paque
>> Divina Frau-Meigs
>> Fearghas McKay
>> Nnenna Nwakanma
>> Fouad Bajwa
>> Avri Doria
>> Kwasi Adu-Boahen Opare
>> Qusai Al-Shatti
>> Rudi Vansnick
>> Charity Gamboa-Embley
>> Ben Akoh
>> 
>> If you are on the list above and no longer wish to be considered, please advise within 48 hours so we can finalise the slate by writing to nomcom at igf-online.net
>> 
>> The role of the Appeals team (see below) is very important, and we actively encourage more members to send in their nominations. If you would like to be added to this list for consideration, please also write to nomcom at igf-online.net within 48 hours. 
>> 
>> The purpose of the Appeals Team as stated in our charter (http://www.igcaucus.org/charter) is as follows: "Any time 4 individual members of the IGC co-sign a statement on the main IGC mailing list they can appeal any decision of the coordinators. When a decision is appealed, the appeals team will review any discussions that occurred and will request comments from the IGC membership. Based on the information they collect and discussion, they will decide on the merit of the appeal."
>> 
>> The criteria for selection of Appeals Team members are as follows:
>> A) Qualified IGC member
>> Appeals team should be Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (CS IGC) members.
>> Anyone who have subscribed to the IGC Charter and subscribed to the IGC caucus mailing list for 2 months prior to the announcement of the appeals team Nomcom process is eligible to be a candidate. 
>> 
>> B) Qualifications
>> Nomcom will primarily select persons based on their knowledge and experience of issues faced by the caucus and their neutrality.
>> The successful candidate should be a person with thoughtful and unbiased consideration and have a stated (and demonstrated) commitment to consultation and dialogue with the community.
>> 
>> C) Diversity and balance
>> Appeal Team collectively should have good diversity and balance. The attributes to be considered include, but not limited to Geographic and cultural diversity, - Gender, Age,  Skill set and knowledge, Disability
>> 
>> These will be treated as a goal, but not as the absolute requirement.
>> 
>> D) Others
>> To avoid capture, no more than one employee/representative of a particular organization should serve on the Appeal Team at any given time.
>> 
>> Nominations may be sent to this mailing list, or to myself as chair of the Nomcom.  Self-nominations are permitted (and encouraged), though a seconding member may help your application. Five members of the Appeals Team are required.  
>> 
>> And finally - as not all nomcom members know all the candidates, we invite all nominees to send some brief information about themselves and their suitability to represent IGC - again to nomcom at igf-online.net within 48 hours.
>> 
>> regards
>> Guru
>> -- 
>> Gurumurthy Kasinathan
>> IT for Change | www.ITforChange.Net | Tel:98454 37730
>> What is Public Software? see http://public-software-centre.org/node/31
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101128/dad1e533/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From fouadbajwa at gmail.com  Sun Nov 28 14:58:44 2010
From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa)
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 00:58:44 +0500
Subject: [governance] Re: [nomcom] Nominations for the IGC Appeals team
In-Reply-To: <4CF2418F.4050602@ITforChange.net>
References: <4CD130FE.8080104@ITforChange.net> <4CF2418F.4050602@ITforChange.net>
Message-ID: <9CBCC97B-427B-4D83-8508-D1B3BE22658A@gmail.com>

Thank you Guru for the update! It is indeed my pleasure to be in this team for the second time now and I hope there is no need to call upon us!

Thank you for IGC's continued trust and support. Hello team!

Fouad Bajwa
sent using my iPad

On 28 Nov 2010, at 16:48, Guru गुरु <Guru at ITforChange.net> wrote:

> On behalf of the Nomcom, the following were chosen as members of the IGC civil society Appeals Team.
> Avri Doria
> Charity Gamboa-Embley
> Fouad Bajwa
> Ginger Paque
> Lee McNight
> 
> Nomcom Report
> The Nomcom was briefed  on October 30, and was asked to complete this task in a reasonable time frame. The Nomcom members are Qusai Al-Shatti, Gurumurthy K, Hempal Shrestha, Jacquiline Morris and Ian Peter. Gurumurthy was elected Chair for this exercise.
> 
> Our first step was to call for nominations to be clarified or added to (original nominations were made in conjunction with the co coordinator ballot on October 10) which included-
> Imran Ahmed Shah
> Dr. Olivier Crepin-Leblond
> Ginger Paque
> Divina Frau-Meigs
> Fearghas McKay
> Nnenna Nwakanma
> Fouad Bajwa
> Avri Doria
> Kwasi Adu-Boahen Opare
> Rudi Vansnick
> Charity Gamboa-Embley
> Ben Akoh
> 
> One late nominations was received from Lee McNight which was also considered by the NonCom.  
> 
> In terms of process, the nomcom  followed these  steps 
> a. discuss the parameters 
> b. individually weigh and rank the candidates 
> c. the individual ranks are collated by the chair and common selections if any identified
> d. discuss remaining candidates/slots and finalise 
> 
> The  selection criteria for Appeals team membership as per charter (quoted below), was considered as follows:
> A) Qualified IGC member
> Appeals team should be Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (CS IGC) members.
> Anyone who have subscribed to the IGC Charter and subscribed to the IGC caucus mailing list for 2 months prior to the announcement of the appeals team Nomcom process is eligible to be a candidate. 
> 
> B) Qualifications
> Nomcom will primarily select persons based on their knowledge and experience of issues faced by the caucus and their neutrality.
> The successful candidate should be a person with thoughtful and unbiased consideration and have a stated (and demonstrated) commitment to consultation and dialogue with the community.
> 
> C) Diversity and balance
> Appeal Team collectively should have good diversity and balance. The attributes to be considered include, but not limited to Geographic and cultural diversity, - Gender, Age,  Skill set and knowledge, Disability
> 
> These will be treated as a goal, but not as the absolute requirement.
> 
> D) Others
> To avoid capture, no more than one employee/representative of a particular organization should serve on the Appeal Team at any given time.
> 
> Nomcom members then scored candidates individually and each nomcom member who participated came up with a list of 5 names. These were collated, with some of the candidates on our final list being initially selected by all participating nomcom members. The Nomcom then discussed finalisation of the slate and the merits of respective candidates, bearing in mind geographic and gender balance as much as possible to come up with a final list.
> 
> The Nomcom also considered the organisational affiliations of nominees and took a fairly liberal view since many IGC members are also members of other groups. However, members considered that  there was little fear of capture from the current slate of names. 
> 
> Gurumurthy K
> On behalf of Nomcom
> Gurumurthy Kasinathan
> IT for Change | www.ITforChange.Net | Tel:98454 37730
> What is Public Software? see http://public-software-centre.org/node/31
> 
> Guru गुरु wrote:
>> 
>> Friends,
>> 
>> The Nomcom having completed the selection of nominees for the CSTD working group has now begun work on constituting the Internet Governance Caucus Appeals Team. As the chair for this task (the other members of NOMCOM are Ian Peter, Qusai Al-Shatti, Hempal Shrestha and Jacquiline Morris), I would like to share the the list of candidates (in no particular order) we have from the recent ballot and questionaire - (excluding those who are members of the nomcom and have withdrawn their nominations)
>> 
>> Imran Ahmed Shah
>> Dr. Olivier Crepin-Leblond
>> Ginger Paque
>> Divina Frau-Meigs
>> Fearghas McKay
>> Nnenna Nwakanma
>> Fouad Bajwa
>> Avri Doria
>> Kwasi Adu-Boahen Opare
>> Qusai Al-Shatti
>> Rudi Vansnick
>> Charity Gamboa-Embley
>> Ben Akoh
>> 
>> If you are on the list above and no longer wish to be considered, please advise within 48 hours so we can finalise the slate by writing to nomcom at igf-online.net
>> 
>> The role of the Appeals team (see below) is very important, and we actively encourage more members to send in their nominations. If you would like to be added to this list for consideration, please also write to nomcom at igf-online.net within 48 hours. 
>> 
>> The purpose of the Appeals Team as stated in our charter (http://www.igcaucus.org/charter) is as follows: "Any time 4 individual members of the IGC co-sign a statement on the main IGC mailing list they can appeal any decision of the coordinators. When a decision is appealed, the appeals team will review any discussions that occurred and will request comments from the IGC membership. Based on the information they collect and discussion, they will decide on the merit of the appeal."
>> 
>> The criteria for selection of Appeals Team members are as follows:
>> A) Qualified IGC member
>> Appeals team should be Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (CS IGC) members.
>> Anyone who have subscribed to the IGC Charter and subscribed to the IGC caucus mailing list for 2 months prior to the announcement of the appeals team Nomcom process is eligible to be a candidate. 
>> 
>> B) Qualifications
>> Nomcom will primarily select persons based on their knowledge and experience of issues faced by the caucus and their neutrality.
>> The successful candidate should be a person with thoughtful and unbiased consideration and have a stated (and demonstrated) commitment to consultation and dialogue with the community.
>> 
>> C) Diversity and balance
>> Appeal Team collectively should have good diversity and balance. The attributes to be considered include, but not limited to Geographic and cultural diversity, - Gender, Age,  Skill set and knowledge, Disability
>> 
>> These will be treated as a goal, but not as the absolute requirement.
>> 
>> D) Others
>> To avoid capture, no more than one employee/representative of a particular organization should serve on the Appeal Team at any given time.
>> 
>> Nominations may be sent to this mailing list, or to myself as chair of the Nomcom.  Self-nominations are permitted (and encouraged), though a seconding member may help your application. Five members of the Appeals Team are required.  
>> 
>> And finally - as not all nomcom members know all the candidates, we invite all nominees to send some brief information about themselves and their suitability to represent IGC - again to nomcom at igf-online.net within 48 hours.
>> 
>> regards
>> Guru
>> -- 
>> Gurumurthy Kasinathan
>> IT for Change | www.ITforChange.Net | Tel:98454 37730
>> What is Public Software? see http://public-software-centre.org/node/31
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101129/52e4dc25/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From andersj at elon.edu  Sun Nov 28 15:17:30 2010
From: andersj at elon.edu (Janna Anderson)
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2010 15:17:30 -0500
Subject: [governance] IGF 2010 reports with video and still photos
In-Reply-To: <798719.90086.qm@web27801.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <C918230A.23B40%andersj@elon.edu>

FYI,

The crew at the Imagining the Internet Center at Elon University has put
together a set of reports from a representative selection of IGF Vilnius
2010 events that also includes video responses to a survey conducted there.

More than 400 video clips and still photos were posted as part of this
informative package. Comprehensive written and visual coverage of 14 major
Global IGF 2010 events and a video survey with hundreds of responses are now
posted online.

All of the data that was usable has been posted online at the following
URLs. Thank you to all who assisted! (If you were interviewed and your
responses were not included, please forgive us ­ sometimes technical
glitches or human error were the cause of some lost or damaged interviews in
the process of collection and processing of so many files in such a short
time by such a small crew!)

IGF Vilnius home page -
http://www.elon.edu/e-web/predictions/igf_2010/default.xhtml

Plenary Session: Taking Stock of Internet Governance:
http://www.elon.edu/e-web/predictions/igf_2010/taking_stock.xhtml

Plenary Session: Managing Critical Internet Resources:
http://www.elon.edu/e-web/predictions/igf_2010/critical_Internet_resources.x
html

Plenary Session: Emerging Issues ­ Cloud Computing:
http://www.elon.edu/e-web/predictions/igf_2010/cloud_computing_main.xhtml

Plenary Session: Security, Openness, Privacy:
http://www.elon.edu/e-web/predictions/igf_2010/security_openness_privacy.xht
ml

Workshop: Core Internet Values and the Principles of Internet Governance
Across Generations:
http://www.elon.edu/e-web/predictions/igf_2010/youth_core_Internet_values.xh
tml

Workshop: Priorities for the Long-Term Stability of the Internet:
http://www.elon.edu/e-web/predictions/igf_2010/internet_stability.xhtml

IGF Opening Ceremony:
http://www.elon.edu/e-web/predictions/igf_2010/opening_session.xhtml

Setting the Scene Session prior to Opening Ceremony:
http://www.elon.edu/e-web/predictions/igf_2010/setting_scene.xhtml

Workshop: Looking to WSIS 2015 - Successes and Failures of Internet
Governance: 
http://www.elon.edu/e-web/predictions/igf_2010/looking_to_WSIS.xhtml

Workshop: The Role of Internet Intermediaries In Advancing Public Policy
Objectives: 
http://www.elon.edu/e-web/predictions/igf_2010/Internet_intermediaries.xhtml

Workshop: The New Breed of Location Services - Challenges for Child Safety:
http://www.elon.edu/e-web/predictions/igf_2010/location_services.xhtml

Dynamic Coalition Meeting - Internet Rights and Principles:
http://www.elon.edu/e-web/predictions/igf_2010/rights_and_principles.xhtml

Dynamic Coalition Organizational Session - Internet of Things:
http://www.elon.edu/e-web/predictions/igf_2010/Internet_of_things.xhtml

Dynamic Coalition Organizational Session - Core Values of the Internet:
http://www.elon.edu/e-web/predictions/igf_2010/core_values_of_Internet.xhtml

The global IGF 2010 survey home page -
http://www.elon.edu/e-web/predictions/igf_2010/survey.xhtml

Is Internet access a fundamental human right?
http://www.elon.edu/e-web/predictions/igf_2010/survey_human_right.xhtml

How will the influence of intermediaries change things in the next five
years? 
http://www.elon.edu/e-web/predictions/igf_2010/survey_intermediaries.xhtml

How can the IGF change the world ­ what are top goals, approaches,
differences that might be made?
http://www.elon.edu/e-web/predictions/igf_2010/survey_igf_influence.xhtml

What is the biggest challenge, opportunity or change that the mobile
Internet might bring?
http://www.elon.edu/e-web/predictions/igf_2010/survey_mobile.xhtml

What are the most vital positives/negatives of cloud computing?
http://www.elon.edu/e-web/predictions/igf_2010/survey_cloud_computing.xhtml

What is your greatest hope for the Internet?
http://www.elon.edu/e-web/predictions/igf_2010/survey_internet_hope.xhtml

What is your greatest fear or concern for the future of the Internet?
http://www.elon.edu/e-web/predictions/igf_2010/survey_internet_hope.xhtml

What does the Internet mean for the future of the world?
http://www.elon.edu/e-web/predictions/igf_2010/survey_internet_10_sec.xhtml

These reports are our best effort with our limited resources to offer an
unbiased report that reflects upon the events of the global IGF 2010. Thanks
to all who provided assistance!

Best regards,
Janna Anderson, Glenn Scott, Kirsten Bennett, Drew Smith and Samantha
Baranowski

Imagining the Internet Center
Elon University









____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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 Nov 28 18:46:04 2010
From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight)
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2010 18:46:04 -0500
Subject: [governance] Re: [nomcom] Nominations for the IGC Appeals team
In-Reply-To: <9CBCC97B-427B-4D83-8508-D1B3BE22658A@gmail.com>
References: <4CD130FE.8080104@ITforChange.net>
 <4CF2418F.4050602@ITforChange.net>,<9CBCC97B-427B-4D83-8508-D1B3BE22658A@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006EA2@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>

Thanks? for selection to the IGC Appeals Team.

Lee McKnight
________________________________________
From: Fouad Bajwa [fouadbajwa at gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, November 28, 2010 2:58 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Guru गुरु
Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; nomcom at igf-online.net
Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [nomcom] Nominations for the IGC Appeals team

Thank you Guru for the update! It is indeed my pleasure to be in this team for the second time now and I hope there is no need to call upon us!

Thank you for IGC's continued trust and support. Hello team!

Fouad Bajwa
sent using my iPad

On 28 Nov 2010, at 16:48, Guru गुरु <Guru at ITforChange.net<mailto:Guru at ITforChange.net>> wrote:

On behalf of the Nomcom, the following were chosen as members of the IGC civil society Appeals Team.
Avri Doria
Charity Gamboa-Embley
Fouad Bajwa
Ginger Paque
Lee McNight

Nomcom Report
The Nomcom was briefed  on October 30, and was asked to complete this task in a reasonable time frame. The Nomcom members are Qusai Al-Shatti, Gurumurthy K, Hempal Shrestha, Jacquiline Morris and Ian Peter. Gurumurthy was elected Chair for this exercise.

Our first step was to call for nominations to be clarified or added to (original nominations were made in conjunction with the co coordinator ballot on October 10) which included-
Imran Ahmed Shah
Dr. Olivier Crepin-Leblond
Ginger Paque
Divina Frau-Meigs
Fearghas McKay
Nnenna Nwakanma
Fouad Bajwa
Avri Doria
Kwasi Adu-Boahen Opare
Rudi Vansnick
Charity Gamboa-Embley
Ben Akoh

One late nominations was received from Lee McNight which was also considered by the NonCom.

In terms of process, the nomcom  followed these  steps
a. discuss the parameters
b. individually weigh and rank the candidates
c. the individual ranks are collated by the chair and common selections if any identified
d. discuss remaining candidates/slots and finalise

The  selection criteria for Appeals team membership as per charter (quoted below), was considered as follows:
A) Qualified IGC member
Appeals team should be Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (CS IGC) members.
Anyone who have subscribed to the IGC Charter and subscribed to the IGC caucus mailing list for 2 months prior to the announcement of the appeals team Nomcom process is eligible to be a candidate.

B) Qualifications
Nomcom will primarily select persons based on their knowledge and experience of issues faced by the caucus and their neutrality.
The successful candidate should be a person with thoughtful and unbiased consideration and have a stated (and demonstrated) commitment to consultation and dialogue with the community.

C) Diversity and balance
Appeal Team collectively should have good diversity and balance. The attributes to be considered include, but not limited to Geographic and cultural diversity, - Gender, Age,  Skill set and knowledge, Disability

These will be treated as a goal, but not as the absolute requirement.

D) Others
To avoid capture, no more than one employee/representative of a particular organization should serve on the Appeal Team at any given time.

Nomcom members then scored candidates individually and each nomcom member who participated came up with a list of 5 names. These were collated, with some of the candidates on our final list being initially selected by all participating nomcom members. The Nomcom then discussed finalisation of the slate and the merits of respective candidates, bearing in mind geographic and gender balance as much as possible to come up with a final list.

The Nomcom also considered the organisational affiliations of nominees and took a fairly liberal view since many IGC members are also members of other groups. However, members considered that  there was little fear of capture from the current slate of names.

Gurumurthy K
On behalf of Nomcom

Gurumurthy Kasinathan
IT for Change | <http://www.ITforChange.Net> www.ITforChange.Net<http://www.ITforChange.Net> | Tel:98454 37730
What is Public Software? see <http://public-software-centre.org/node/31> http://public-software-centre.org/node/31


Guru गुरु wrote:
Friends,

The Nomcom having completed the selection of nominees for the CSTD working group has now begun work on constituting the Internet Governance Caucus Appeals Team. As the chair for this task (the other members of NOMCOM are Ian Peter, Qusai Al-Shatti, Hempal Shrestha and Jacquiline Morris), I would like to share the the list of candidates (in no particular order) we have from the recent ballot and questionaire - (excluding those who are members of the nomcom and have withdrawn their nominations)

Imran Ahmed Shah
Dr. Olivier Crepin-Leblond
Ginger Paque
Divina Frau-Meigs
Fearghas McKay
Nnenna Nwakanma
Fouad Bajwa
Avri Doria
Kwasi Adu-Boahen Opare
Qusai Al-Shatti
Rudi Vansnick
Charity Gamboa-Embley
Ben Akoh

If you are on the list above and no longer wish to be considered, please advise within 48 hours so we can finalise the slate by writing to <mailto:nomcom at igf-online.net> nomcom at igf-online.net<mailto:nomcom at igf-online.net>

The role of the Appeals team (see below) is very important, and we actively encourage more members to send in their nominations. If you would like to be added to this list for consideration, please also write to <mailto:nomcom at igf-online.net> nomcom at igf-online.net<mailto:nomcom at igf-online.net> within 48 hours.

The purpose of the Appeals Team as stated in our charter (<http://www.igcaucus.org/charter>http://www.igcaucus.org/charter) is as follows: "Any time 4 individual members of the IGC co-sign a statement on the main IGC mailing list they can appeal any decision of the coordinators. When a decision is appealed, the appeals team will review any discussions that occurred and will request comments from the IGC membership. Based on the information they collect and discussion, they will decide on the merit of the appeal."

The criteria for selection of Appeals Team members are as follows:
A) Qualified IGC member
Appeals team should be Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (CS IGC) members.
Anyone who have subscribed to the IGC Charter and subscribed to the IGC caucus mailing list for 2 months prior to the announcement of the appeals team Nomcom process is eligible to be a candidate.

B) Qualifications
Nomcom will primarily select persons based on their knowledge and experience of issues faced by the caucus and their neutrality.
The successful candidate should be a person with thoughtful and unbiased consideration and have a stated (and demonstrated) commitment to consultation and dialogue with the community.

C) Diversity and balance
Appeal Team collectively should have good diversity and balance. The attributes to be considered include, but not limited to Geographic and cultural diversity, - Gender, Age,  Skill set and knowledge, Disability

These will be treated as a goal, but not as the absolute requirement.

D) Others
To avoid capture, no more than one employee/representative of a particular organization should serve on the Appeal Team at any given time.

Nominations may be sent to this mailing list, or to myself as chair of the Nomcom.  Self-nominations are permitted (and encouraged), though a seconding member may help your application. Five members of the Appeals Team are required.

And finally - as not all nomcom members know all the candidates, we invite all nominees to send some brief information about themselves and their suitability to represent IGC - again to <mailto:nomcom at igf-online.net> nomcom at igf-online.net<mailto:nomcom at igf-online.net> within 48 hours.

regards
Guru
--
Gurumurthy Kasinathan
IT for Change | <http://www.ITforChange.Net> www.ITforChange.Net<http://www.ITforChange.Net> | Tel:98454 37730
What is Public Software? see <http://public-software-centre.org/node/31> http://public-software-centre.org/node/31
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
    <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org> governance at lists.cpsr.org<mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
    <mailto:governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org<mailto:governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org>

For all list information and functions, see:
    <http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: <http://translate.google.com/translate_t> http://translate.google.com/translate_t
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From iza at anr.org  Sun Nov 28 19:11:12 2010
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 09:11:12 +0900
Subject: [governance] Re: [nomcom] Nominations for the IGC Appeals team
In-Reply-To: <4CF2418F.4050602@ITforChange.net>
References: <4CD130FE.8080104@ITforChange.net> <4CF2418F.4050602@ITforChange.net>
Message-ID: <AANLkTik8csgvufC_=0mPjM_4FYiC-fZNdfc=auGZjAZG@mail.gmail.com>

Many thanks for Guru and Nomcom for the excellent selection
for the Appeals Team. And Thanks also for those selected.

As co-coordinator, we will try not to waken you guys up ;-).

izumi


2010/11/28 Guru गुरु <Guru at itforchange.net>:
> On behalf of the Nomcom, the following were chosen as members of the IGC
> civil society Appeals Team.
> Avri Doria
> Charity Gamboa-Embley
> Fouad Bajwa
> Ginger Paque
> Lee McNight
>
> Nomcom Report
> The Nomcom was briefed  on October 30, and was asked to complete this task
> in a reasonable time frame. The Nomcom members are Qusai Al-Shatti,
> Gurumurthy K, Hempal Shrestha, Jacquiline Morris and Ian Peter. Gurumurthy
> was elected Chair for this exercise.
>
> Our first step was to call for nominations to be clarified or added to
> (original nominations were made in conjunction with the co coordinator
> ballot on October 10) which included-
> Imran Ahmed Shah
> Dr. Olivier Crepin-Leblond
> Ginger Paque
> Divina Frau-Meigs
> Fearghas McKay
> Nnenna Nwakanma
> Fouad Bajwa
> Avri Doria
> Kwasi Adu-Boahen Opare
> Rudi Vansnick
> Charity Gamboa-Embley
> Ben Akoh
>
> One late nominations was received from Lee McNight which was also considered
> by the NonCom.
>
> In terms of process, the nomcom  followed these  steps
> a. discuss the parameters
> b. individually weigh and rank the candidates
> c. the individual ranks are collated by the chair and common selections if
> any identified
> d. discuss remaining candidates/slots and finalise
>
> The  selection criteria for Appeals team membership as per charter (quoted
> below), was considered as follows:
> A) Qualified IGC member
> Appeals team should be Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (CS IGC)
> members.
> Anyone who have subscribed to the IGC Charter and subscribed to the IGC
> caucus mailing list for 2 months prior to the announcement of the appeals
> team Nomcom process is eligible to be a candidate.
>
> B) Qualifications
> Nomcom will primarily select persons based on their knowledge and experience
> of issues faced by the caucus and their neutrality.
> The successful candidate should be a person with thoughtful and unbiased
> consideration and have a stated (and demonstrated) commitment to
> consultation and dialogue with the community.
>
> C) Diversity and balance
> Appeal Team collectively should have good diversity and balance. The
> attributes to be considered include, but not limited to Geographic and
> cultural diversity, - Gender, Age,  Skill set and knowledge, Disability
>
> These will be treated as a goal, but not as the absolute requirement.
>
> D) Others
> To avoid capture, no more than one employee/representative of a particular
> organization should serve on the Appeal Team at any given time.
>
> Nomcom members then scored candidates individually and each nomcom member
> who participated came up with a list of 5 names. These were collated, with
> some of the candidates on our final list being initially selected by all
> participating nomcom members. The Nomcom then discussed finalisation of the
> slate and the merits of respective candidates, bearing in mind geographic
> and gender balance as much as possible to come up with a final list.
>
> The Nomcom also considered the organisational affiliations of nominees and
> took a fairly liberal view since many IGC members are also members of other
> groups. However, members considered that  there was little fear of capture
> from the current slate of names.
>
> Gurumurthy K
> On behalf of Nomcom
>
> Gurumurthy Kasinathan
> IT for Change | www.ITforChange.Net | Tel:98454 37730
> What is Public Software? see http://public-software-centre.org/node/31
>
> Guru गुरु wrote:
>
> Friends,
>
> The Nomcom having completed the selection of nominees for the CSTD working
> group has now begun work on constituting the Internet Governance Caucus
> Appeals Team. As the chair for this task (the other members of NOMCOM are
> Ian Peter, Qusai Al-Shatti, Hempal Shrestha and Jacquiline Morris), I would
> like to share the the list of candidates (in no particular order) we have
> from the recent ballot and questionaire - (excluding those who are members
> of the nomcom and have withdrawn their nominations)
>
> Imran Ahmed Shah
> Dr. Olivier Crepin-Leblond
> Ginger Paque
> Divina Frau-Meigs
> Fearghas McKay
> Nnenna Nwakanma
> Fouad Bajwa
> Avri Doria
> Kwasi Adu-Boahen Opare
> Qusai Al-Shatti
> Rudi Vansnick
> Charity Gamboa-Embley
> Ben Akoh
>
> If you are on the list above and no longer wish to be considered, please
> advise within 48 hours so we can finalise the slate by writing to
> nomcom at igf-online.net
>
> The role of the Appeals team (see below) is very important, and we actively
> encourage more members to send in their nominations. If you would like to be
> added to this list for consideration, please also write to
> nomcom at igf-online.net within 48 hours.
>
> The purpose of the Appeals Team as stated in our charter
> (http://www.igcaucus.org/charter) is as follows: "Any time 4 individual
> members of the IGC co-sign a statement on the main IGC mailing list they can
> appeal any decision of the coordinators. When a decision is appealed, the
> appeals team will review any discussions that occurred and will request
> comments from the IGC membership. Based on the information they collect and
> discussion, they will decide on the merit of the appeal."
>
> The criteria for selection of Appeals Team members are as follows:
> A) Qualified IGC member
> Appeals team should be Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (CS IGC)
> members.
> Anyone who have subscribed to the IGC Charter and subscribed to the IGC
> caucus mailing list for 2 months prior to the announcement of the appeals
> team Nomcom process is eligible to be a candidate.
>
> B) Qualifications
> Nomcom will primarily select persons based on their knowledge and experience
> of issues faced by the caucus and their neutrality.
> The successful candidate should be a person with thoughtful and unbiased
> consideration and have a stated (and demonstrated) commitment to
> consultation and dialogue with the community.
>
> C) Diversity and balance
> Appeal Team collectively should have good diversity and balance. The
> attributes to be considered include, but not limited to Geographic and
> cultural diversity, - Gender, Age,  Skill set and knowledge, Disability
>
> These will be treated as a goal, but not as the absolute requirement.
>
> D) Others
> To avoid capture, no more than one employee/representative of a particular
> organization should serve on the Appeal Team at any given time.
>
> Nominations may be sent to this mailing list, or to myself as chair of the
> Nomcom.  Self-nominations are permitted (and encouraged), though a seconding
> member may help your application. Five members of the Appeals Team are
> required.
>
> And finally - as not all nomcom members know all the candidates, we invite
> all nominees to send some brief information about themselves and their
> suitability to represent IGC - again to nomcom at igf-online.net within 48
> hours.
>
> regards
> Guru
> --
> Gurumurthy Kasinathan
> IT for Change | www.ITforChange.Net | Tel:98454 37730
> What is Public Software? see http://public-software-centre.org/node/31
>
> ________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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  Sun Nov 28 19:36:39 2010
From: shailam at yahoo.com (shaila mistry)
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2010 16:36:39 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [governance] Re: [nomcom] Nominations for the IGC Appeals team
In-Reply-To: <4CF29502.30100@gih.com>
References: <4CD130FE.8080104@ITforChange.net> <4CF2418F.4050602@ITforChange.net> <4CF29502.30100@gih.com>
Message-ID: <984222.89443.qm@web55208.mail.re4.yahoo.com>

Congratulations to everyone!!
Shaila 

 Life is too short ....challenge the rules
Forgive quickly ... love truly ...and tenderly
Laugh constantly.....and never stop dreaming! 




________________________________
From: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com>
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Guru गुरु <Guru at ITforChange.net>
Cc: "nomcom at igf-online.net" <nomcom at igf-online.net>
Sent: Sun, November 28, 2010 9:44:34 AM
Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [nomcom] Nominations for the IGC Appeals team

 An excellent team of very experienced individuals. 
I have no doubt that they'll be fair in case they would be called     upon, 
hoping that ultimately they won't need to be called upon!
Warmest regards,

Olivier

Le 28/11/2010 12:48, Guru गुरु a écrit : 
 On behalf of the Nomcom, the following were chosen as members of       the       
IGC civil society Appeals Team.
>Avri Doria
>Charity Gamboa-Embley
>Fouad Bajwa
>Ginger Paque
>Lee McNight
>
>Nomcom Report
>The Nomcom was briefed  on October 30, and was asked to complete       this       
>task in a reasonable time frame. The Nomcom members are Qusai       Al-Shatti, 
>Gurumurthy K, Hempal Shrestha, Jacquiline Morris and       Ian       Peter. 
>Gurumurthy was elected Chair for this exercise.
>
>Our first step was to call for nominations to be clarified or       added to       
>(original nominations were made in conjunction with the co       coordinator       
>ballot on October 10) which included-
>Imran Ahmed Shah
>Dr. Olivier Crepin-Leblond
>Ginger Paque
>Divina Frau-Meigs
>Fearghas McKay
>Nnenna Nwakanma
>Fouad Bajwa
>Avri Doria
>Kwasi Adu-Boahen Opare
>Rudi Vansnick
>Charity Gamboa-Embley
>Ben Akoh
>
>One late nominations was received from Lee McNight which was also       
>considered by the NonCom.  
>
>
>In terms of process, the nomcom  followed these  steps 
>a. discuss the parameters 
>b. individually weigh and rank the candidates 
>c. the individual ranks are collated by the chair and common       selections       
>if any identified
>d. discuss remaining candidates/slots and finalise 
>
>The  selection criteria for Appeals team membership as per charter       (quoted 
>below), was considered as follows:
>A) Qualified IGC member
>Appeals team should be Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus       (CS       
>IGC) members.
>Anyone who have subscribed to the IGC Charter and subscribed to       the IGC       
>caucus mailing list for 2 months prior to the announcement of the       appeals 
>team Nomcom process is eligible to be a candidate. 
>
>
>B) Qualifications
>Nomcom will primarily select persons based on their knowledge and       
>experience of issues faced by the caucus and their neutrality.
>The successful candidate should be a person with thoughtful and       unbiased 
>consideration and have a stated (and demonstrated)       commitment       to 
>consultation and dialogue with the community.
>
>C) Diversity and balance
>Appeal Team collectively should have good diversity and balance.       The       
>attributes to be considered include, but not limited to Geographic       and       
>cultural diversity, - Gender, Age,  Skill set and knowledge,       Disability
>
>These will be treated as a goal, but not as the absolute       requirement.
>
>D) Others
>To avoid capture, no more than one employee/representative of a       particular 
>organization should serve on the Appeal Team at any       given       time.
>
>Nomcom members then scored candidates individually and each nomcom       member 
>who participated came up with a list of 5 names. These were       collated, with 
>some of the candidates on our final list being       initially       selected by 
>all participating nomcom members. The Nomcom then       discussed       
>finalisation of the slate and the merits of respective candidates,       bearing 
>in mind geographic and gender balance as much as possible       to       come up 
>with a final list.
>
>The Nomcom also considered the organisational affiliations of       nominees       
>and took a fairly liberal view since many IGC members are also       members       
>of other groups. However, members considered that  there was       little       
>fear of capture from the current slate of names. 
>
>
>Gurumurthy K
>On behalf of Nomcom
>
>Gurumurthy Kasinathan
>IT for Change | www.ITforChange.Net | Tel:98454 37730
>What is Public Software? see http://public-software-centre.org/node/31
>
>Guru गुरु wrote: 
>Friends,
>>
>>The Nomcom having completed the selection of nominees for the         CSTD         
>>working group has now begun work on constituting the Internet         Governance 
>>Caucus Appeals Team. As the chair for this task (the         other         
>>members of NOMCOM are Ian Peter, Qusai Al-Shatti, Hempal         Shrestha and         
>>Jacquiline Morris), I would like to share the the list of         candidates         
>>(in no particular order) we have from the recent ballot and         questionaire 
>>- (excluding those who are members of the nomcom         and have         
>>withdrawn their nominations)
>>
>>Imran Ahmed Shah
>>Dr. Olivier Crepin-Leblond
>>Ginger Paque
>>Divina Frau-Meigs
>>Fearghas McKay
>>Nnenna Nwakanma
>>Fouad Bajwa
>>Avri Doria
>>Kwasi Adu-Boahen Opare
>>Qusai Al-Shatti
>>Rudi Vansnick
>>Charity Gamboa-Embley
>>Ben Akoh
>>
>>If you are on the list above and no longer wish to be         considered,         
>>please advise within 48 hours so we can finalise the slate by         writing         
>>to nomcom at igf-online.net
>>
>>The role of the           Appeals team (see below) is very important, and we 
>>actively           encourage           more members           to send in their 
>>nominations. If you would like to be added to           this           list for 
>>consideration, please           also write to nomcom at igf-online.net within 48 
>>hours. 
>>
>>
>>The purpose of the Appeals Team as stated in our charter         
>>(http://www.igcaucus.org/charter)         is as follows: "Any time 4 individual         
>>members of the IGC co-sign a statement on the main IGC mailing         list         
>>they can appeal any decision of the coordinators. When a         decision is         
>>appealed, the appeals team will review any discussions that         occurred         
>>and will request comments from the IGC membership. Based on the         
>>information they collect and discussion, they will decide on the         merit         
>>of the appeal."
>>
>>The criteria for selection of Appeals Team members are as         follows:
>>A) Qualified IGC member
>>Appeals team should be Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus         (CS         
>>IGC) members.
>>Anyone who have subscribed to the IGC Charter and subscribed to         the IGC         
>>caucus mailing list for 2 months prior to the announcement of         the         
>>appeals team Nomcom process is eligible to be a candidate. 
>>
>>
>>B) Qualifications
>>Nomcom will primarily select persons based on their knowledge         and         
>>experience of issues faced by the caucus and their neutrality.
>>The successful candidate should be a person with thoughtful and         unbiased 
>>consideration and have a stated (and demonstrated)         commitment         to 
>>consultation and dialogue with the community.
>>
>>C) Diversity and balance
>>Appeal Team collectively should have good diversity and balance.         The         
>>attributes to be considered include, but not limited to         Geographic and         
>>cultural diversity, - Gender, Age,  Skill set and knowledge,         Disability
>>
>>These will be treated as a goal, but not as the absolute         requirement.
>>
>>D) Others
>>To avoid capture, no more than one employee/representative of a         
>>particular organization should serve on the Appeal Team at any         given         
>>time.
>>
>>Nominations may be         sent to this mailing list, or to myself as chair of 
>>the Nomcom.          Self-nominations are permitted (and encouraged), though a         
>>seconding         member may help your application. Five members of the Appeals         
>>Team are         required.  
>>
>>
>>And finally - as not all nomcom members know all the candidates,         we         
>>invite all nominees to send some brief information about         themselves and         
>>their suitability to represent IGC - again to nomcom at igf-online.net within 48 
>>hours.
>>
>>regards
>>Guru
>>-- 
>>Gurumurthy Kasinathan
>>IT for Change | www.ITforChange.Net | Tel:98454 37730
>>What is Public Software? see http://public-software-centre.org/node/31
>>

-- 
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101128/34bab20a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From jeremy at ciroap.org  Sun Nov 28 19:42:49 2010
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 08:42:49 +0800
Subject: [governance] Re: [nomcom] Nominations for the IGC Appeals team
In-Reply-To: <4CF2418F.4050602@ITforChange.net>
References: <4CD130FE.8080104@ITforChange.net> <4CF2418F.4050602@ITforChange.net>
Message-ID: <5B5C2B17-D288-489B-B8E2-5F44AB796373@ciroap.org>

On 28/11/2010, at 7:48 PM, Guru गुरु wrote:

> On behalf of the Nomcom, the following were chosen as members of the IGC civil society Appeals Team.

Many thanks Guru.  I will update the IGC Web site with the new team's details as soon as I return home from travels tonight.

Belated thanks also to Izumi for so capably leading the IGC team in Geneva.

-- 
Jeremy Malcolm
Project Coordinator
Consumers International
Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East
Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Tel: +60 3 7726 1599

CI is 50
Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010.
Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer rights around the world. 
http://www.consumersinternational.org/50

Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101129/1c4ac864/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From charityg at diplomacy.edu  Sun Nov 28 23:27:35 2010
From: charityg at diplomacy.edu (Charity Gamboa)
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2010 22:27:35 -0600
Subject: [governance] Re: [nomcom] Nominations for the IGC Appeals team
In-Reply-To: <5B5C2B17-D288-489B-B8E2-5F44AB796373@ciroap.org>
References: <4CD130FE.8080104@ITforChange.net>
	<4CF2418F.4050602@ITforChange.net>
	<5B5C2B17-D288-489B-B8E2-5F44AB796373@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <AANLkTinUY1Jg5au3K7M0mqJ882uupeVBje_Lb=M2GVsq@mail.gmail.com>

Thank you for the confidence.  I'm with a great team so it is my pleasure to
work with y'all.

Regards,
Charity

2010/11/28 Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org>

> On 28/11/2010, at 7:48 PM, Guru गुरु wrote:
>
>  On behalf of the Nomcom, the following were chosen as members of the IGC
> civil society Appeals Team.
>
>
> Many thanks Guru.  I will update the IGC Web site with the new team's
> details as soon as I return home from travels tonight.
>
> Belated thanks also to Izumi for so capably leading the IGC team in Geneva.
>
> --
>
> *Jeremy Malcolm
> Project Coordinator*
> Consumers International
> Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East
> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur,
> Malaysia
> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
> *CI is 50*
> Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in
> 2010.
> Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer
> rights around the world.
> *http://www.consumersinternational.org/50*
>
> Read our email confidentiality notice<http://www.consumersinternational.org/Templates/Internal.asp?NodeID=100521&int1stParentNodeID=89765>.
> Don't print this email unless necessary.
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101128/48d4d7d3/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From parminder at itforchange.net  Mon Nov 29 04:22:04 2010
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 14:52:04 +0530
Subject: [governance] US gov's Domain seizing activities
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinUY1Jg5au3K7M0mqJ882uupeVBje_Lb=M2GVsq@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4CD130FE.8080104@ITforChange.net>	<4CF2418F.4050602@ITforChange.net>	<5B5C2B17-D288-489B-B8E2-5F44AB796373@ciroap.org> <AANLkTinUY1Jg5au3K7M0mqJ882uupeVBje_Lb=M2GVsq@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4CF370BC.8040201@itforchange.net>

(For some reason, domain seizing activities of governments of developing 
countries, done for IP enforcement, receives so much less attention that 
that of developing countries done for political and cultural reasons.  
See below.)


    The Background Dope on DHS Recent Seizure of Domains

http://rulingclass.wordpress.com/2010/11/28/the-background-dope-on-dhs-recent-seizure-of-domains/

As has been reported, it looks like ICE <http://www.ice.gov/iprcenter/>, 
which is the principal investigative arm of DHS, has begun seizing 
domains under the pretext of IP infringement. But it’s actually not ICE 
who is executing the mechanics of the seizures. It’s a private company, 
immixGroup IT Solutions <http://www.immixgroup.com/>. Here is what is 
going down.

In May of this year, immixGroup IT Solutions 
<http://www.immixgroup.com/news/pr_display.cfm?ID=117> is awarded a one 
year IT Services contract with DHS. The particulars of this contract:

    Under this new contract, immixGroup will provide information
    technology operational services and support, implementation, and
    maintenance of DHS ICE C3′s software applications, network and
    CyberSecurity systems, as well as the maintenance and enhancement of
    applications that support law enforcement activities.

    The contract includes one base year, one 12-month option period, and
    two six-month option periods; covers all four divisions of C3 (Child
    Exploitation, Cyber Crimes, Computer Forensics, and Cyber Training);
    and is critical to C3′s pursuit of criminal activity. immixGroup’s
    services in this effort include network maintenance, application
    development and support, forensic lab assistance, data storage
    maintenance, and information assurance.

On November 24th, immixGroup IT Solutions registered the domain 
SEIZEDSERVERS.COM, and primary and secondary nameservers, 
NS1.SEIZEDSERVERS.COM, NS2.SEIZEDSERVERS.COM, with Network Solutions, 
which is the registrar for this domain. Since the DHS contract is 
provisionally for one year only, the domain was only registered for one 
year(expires in one year).

immixGroup IT Solutions is using CaroNet <https://www.caro.net/> to host 
their domain, including the authoritative name 
servers(NS1.SEIZEDSERVERS.COM, NS2.SEIZEDSERVERS.COM) for this domain. 
They have setup a simple web page, http://seizedservers.com/ or 
http://74.81.170.110 which is the same “Notification of Seizure” page 
you will get if you type in one of the seized domains in browser address 
bar(if you’re paranoid: yes, they are tracking using both Google 
analytics and piwik).

ICE is not actually “seizing” any servers or forcing hosting companies 
to remove web content from their servers; what they are doing is using 
immixGroup IT Solutions to switch the authoritative name servers for 
these “seized domains.” But they are not doing it at the Registrar 
level(by contacting the registrar for the domain and forcing them to 
update the authoritative name server info to point to 
NS1.SEIZEDSERVERS.COM, NS2.SEIZEDSERVERS.COM), but rather through the 
agency who controls the top level domain. In this case, all the “seized 
domains” appear to be .com and the agency/company who has the ICANN 
contract for this TLD is VeriSign(which also controls .net TLD). The 
changes are being made at the top-level authoritative name servers for 
the .com TLD, which would be the [a-m].gtld-servers.net. These are 
controlled by VeriSign(note: these top-level name servers are also 
authoritative for .net and .edu TLDs).

So, VeriSign, the owner of the .com TLD, is working in cooperation with 
DHS, and it appears immixGroup IT Solutions has what we might call an 
“IT Support Ticket system” setup with VeriSign.

That web servers are not being seized and web content not being deleted 
can easily be verified by clicking this link, http://208.101.51.57, 
which is the original IP Address of a seized domain, 
*torrent-finder.com*. It’s still up, and it appears it has registered a 
new domain, *torrent-finder.info*, that resolves to the original IP 
address. This site is being hosted by SoftLayer Technologies in Dallas, 
TX. So, it is certainly within US jurisdiction to be shut down if there 
was “a case to be made.”

Now the .info TLD is not controlled by VeriSign; it’s controlled by 
Afilias <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afilias>. So, an interesting 
little experiment would be to see if the *torrent-finder.info* domain 
remains up. As of now, we can only conclude that there is back deal 
between DHS and VeriSign that makes any .com or .net domain subject to 
seizure by the actions of immixGroup IT Solutions.

Lastly, there has been some speculation that this recent business of 
“domain seizure” portends the same tactics being used to seize the 
“wikileaks.org” domain. From a technical standpoint, understand that the 
.org TLD is not controlled by VeriSign; it is controlled by the Public 
Interest Registry. An interesting thing however: PIR has contracted out 
the technical operations to Afilias. So, if we were to see 
*torrent-finder.info* similarly seized, then this would mean that 
Afilias is also in cahoots with DHS, which could imply the .org TLD 
could be subject to the same type of “domain seizures.” As of now, there 
is no evidence of that. And, it should be clear, these type of domain 
seizures are completely different than the 2008 attempted shutdown of 
wikileaks.org by the US government. In that case, a U.S. District Court 
issued an injunction ordering Dynadot, which was the registrar for the 
domain, to remove all traces of Wikileaks from its records. That didn’t 
hold up.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101129/f9f3c160/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From parminder at itforchange.net  Mon Nov 29 04:24:30 2010
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 14:54:30 +0530
Subject: [governance] US gov's Domain seizing activities
In-Reply-To: <4CF370BC.8040201@itforchange.net>
References: <4CD130FE.8080104@ITforChange.net>	<4CF2418F.4050602@ITforChange.net>	<5B5C2B17-D288-489B-B8E2-5F44AB796373@ciroap.org> <AANLkTinUY1Jg5au3K7M0mqJ882uupeVBje_Lb=M2GVsq@mail.gmail.com> <4CF370BC.8040201@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <4CF3714E.90907@itforchange.net>



On Monday 29 November 2010 02:52 PM, parminder wrote:
> (For some reason, domain seizing activities of governments of 
> developing countries

correction. i of course meant developed countries here


> , done for IP enforcement, receives so much less attention that that 
> of developing countries done for political and cultural reasons.  See 
> below.)
>
>
>     The Background Dope on DHS Recent Seizure of Domains
>
> http://rulingclass.wordpress.com/2010/11/28/the-background-dope-on-dhs-recent-seizure-of-domains/
>
> As has been reported, it looks like ICE 
> <http://www.ice.gov/iprcenter/>, which is the principal investigative 
> arm of DHS, has begun seizing domains under the pretext of IP 
> infringement. But it’s actually not ICE who is executing the mechanics 
> of the seizures. It’s a private company, immixGroup IT Solutions 
> <http://www.immixgroup.com/>. Here is what is going down.
>
> In May of this year, immixGroup IT Solutions 
> <http://www.immixgroup.com/news/pr_display.cfm?ID=117> is awarded a 
> one year IT Services contract with DHS. The particulars of this contract:
>
>     Under this new contract, immixGroup will provide information
>     technology operational services and support, implementation, and
>     maintenance of DHS ICE C3′s software applications, network and
>     CyberSecurity systems, as well as the maintenance and enhancement
>     of applications that support law enforcement activities.
>
>     The contract includes one base year, one 12-month option period,
>     and two six-month option periods; covers all four divisions of C3
>     (Child Exploitation, Cyber Crimes, Computer Forensics, and Cyber
>     Training); and is critical to C3′s pursuit of criminal activity.
>     immixGroup’s services in this effort include network maintenance,
>     application development and support, forensic lab assistance, data
>     storage maintenance, and information assurance.
>
> On November 24th, immixGroup IT Solutions registered the domain 
> SEIZEDSERVERS.COM, and primary and secondary nameservers, 
> NS1.SEIZEDSERVERS.COM, NS2.SEIZEDSERVERS.COM, with Network Solutions, 
> which is the registrar for this domain. Since the DHS contract is 
> provisionally for one year only, the domain was only registered for 
> one year(expires in one year).
>
> immixGroup IT Solutions is using CaroNet <https://www.caro.net/> to 
> host their domain, including the authoritative name 
> servers(NS1.SEIZEDSERVERS.COM, NS2.SEIZEDSERVERS.COM) for this domain. 
> They have setup a simple web page, http://seizedservers.com/ or 
> http://74.81.170.110 which is the same “Notification of Seizure” page 
> you will get if you type in one of the seized domains in browser 
> address bar(if you’re paranoid: yes, they are tracking using both 
> Google analytics and piwik).
>
> ICE is not actually “seizing” any servers or forcing hosting companies 
> to remove web content from their servers; what they are doing is using 
> immixGroup IT Solutions to switch the authoritative name servers for 
> these “seized domains.” But they are not doing it at the Registrar 
> level(by contacting the registrar for the domain and forcing them to 
> update the authoritative name server info to point to 
> NS1.SEIZEDSERVERS.COM, NS2.SEIZEDSERVERS.COM), but rather through the 
> agency who controls the top level domain. In this case, all the 
> “seized domains” appear to be .com and the agency/company who has the 
> ICANN contract for this TLD is VeriSign(which also controls .net TLD). 
> The changes are being made at the top-level authoritative name servers 
> for the .com TLD, which would be the [a-m].gtld-servers.net. These are 
> controlled by VeriSign(note: these top-level name servers are also 
> authoritative for .net and .edu TLDs).
>
> So, VeriSign, the owner of the .com TLD, is working in cooperation 
> with DHS, and it appears immixGroup IT Solutions has what we might 
> call an “IT Support Ticket system” setup with VeriSign.
>
> That web servers are not being seized and web content not being 
> deleted can easily be verified by clicking this link, 
> http://208.101.51.57, which is the original IP Address of a seized 
> domain, *torrent-finder.com*. It’s still up, and it appears it has 
> registered a new domain, *torrent-finder.info*, that resolves to the 
> original IP address. This site is being hosted by SoftLayer 
> Technologies in Dallas, TX. So, it is certainly within US jurisdiction 
> to be shut down if there was “a case to be made.”
>
> Now the .info TLD is not controlled by VeriSign; it’s controlled by 
> Afilias <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afilias>. So, an interesting 
> little experiment would be to see if the *torrent-finder.info* domain 
> remains up. As of now, we can only conclude that there is back deal 
> between DHS and VeriSign that makes any .com or .net domain subject to 
> seizure by the actions of immixGroup IT Solutions.
>
> Lastly, there has been some speculation that this recent business of 
> “domain seizure” portends the same tactics being used to seize the 
> “wikileaks.org” domain. From a technical standpoint, understand that 
> the .org TLD is not controlled by VeriSign; it is controlled by the 
> Public Interest Registry. An interesting thing however: PIR has 
> contracted out the technical operations to Afilias. So, if we were to 
> see *torrent-finder.info* similarly seized, then this would mean that 
> Afilias is also in cahoots with DHS, which could imply the .org TLD 
> could be subject to the same type of “domain seizures.” As of now, 
> there is no evidence of that. And, it should be clear, these type of 
> domain seizures are completely different than the 2008 attempted 
> shutdown of wikileaks.org by the US government. In that case, a U.S. 
> District Court issued an injunction ordering Dynadot, which was the 
> registrar for the domain, to remove all traces of Wikileaks from its 
> records. That didn’t hold up.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101129/a333237a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From parminder at itforchange.net  Mon Nov 29 05:06:05 2010
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 15:36:05 +0530
Subject: [governance] US gov's Domain seizing activities
In-Reply-To: <4CF3714E.90907@itforchange.net>
References: <4CD130FE.8080104@ITforChange.net>	<4CF2418F.4050602@ITforChange.net>	<5B5C2B17-D288-489B-B8E2-5F44AB796373@ciroap.org> <AANLkTinUY1Jg5au3K7M0mqJ882uupeVBje_Lb=M2GVsq@mail.gmail.com> <4CF370BC.8040201@itforchange.net> <4CF3714E.90907@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <4CF37B0D.8030508@itforchange.net>

BTW, do click on http://www.torrent-finder.com/ to see the seizure notice .

As the article mentions, the seizure of the domain space is done not at 
Registrar level but at TLD owner level, a privilege only available to US 
gov for most top TLDs.

On Monday 29 November 2010 02:54 PM, parminder wrote
>
>
> On Monday 29 November 2010 02:52 PM, parminder wrote:
>> (For some reason, domain seizing activities of governments of 
>> developing countries
>
> correction. i of course meant developed countries here
>
>
>> , done for IP enforcement, receives so much less attention that that 
>> of developing countries done for political and cultural reasons.  See 
>> below.)
>>
>>
>>     The Background Dope on DHS Recent Seizure of Domains
>>
>> http://rulingclass.wordpress.com/2010/11/28/the-background-dope-on-dhs-recent-seizure-of-domains/
>>
>> As has been reported, it looks like ICE 
>> <http://www.ice.gov/iprcenter/>, which is the principal investigative 
>> arm of DHS, has begun seizing domains under the pretext of IP 
>> infringement. But it’s actually not ICE who is executing the 
>> mechanics of the seizures. It’s a private company, immixGroup IT 
>> Solutions <http://www.immixgroup.com/>. Here is what is going down.
>>
>> In May of this year, immixGroup IT Solutions 
>> <http://www.immixgroup.com/news/pr_display.cfm?ID=117> is awarded a 
>> one year IT Services contract with DHS. The particulars of this contract:
>>
>>     Under this new contract, immixGroup will provide information
>>     technology operational services and support, implementation, and
>>     maintenance of DHS ICE C3′s software applications, network and
>>     CyberSecurity systems, as well as the maintenance and enhancement
>>     of applications that support law enforcement activities.
>>
>>     The contract includes one base year, one 12-month option period,
>>     and two six-month option periods; covers all four divisions of C3
>>     (Child Exploitation, Cyber Crimes, Computer Forensics, and Cyber
>>     Training); and is critical to C3′s pursuit of criminal activity.
>>     immixGroup’s services in this effort include network maintenance,
>>     application development and support, forensic lab assistance,
>>     data storage maintenance, and information assurance.
>>
>> On November 24th, immixGroup IT Solutions registered the domain 
>> SEIZEDSERVERS.COM, and primary and secondary nameservers, 
>> NS1.SEIZEDSERVERS.COM, NS2.SEIZEDSERVERS.COM, with Network Solutions, 
>> which is the registrar for this domain. Since the DHS contract is 
>> provisionally for one year only, the domain was only registered for 
>> one year(expires in one year).
>>
>> immixGroup IT Solutions is using CaroNet <https://www.caro.net/> to 
>> host their domain, including the authoritative name 
>> servers(NS1.SEIZEDSERVERS.COM, NS2.SEIZEDSERVERS.COM) for this 
>> domain. They have setup a simple web page, http://seizedservers.com/ 
>> or http://74.81.170.110 which is the same “Notification of Seizure” 
>> page you will get if you type in one of the seized domains in browser 
>> address bar(if you’re paranoid: yes, they are tracking using both 
>> Google analytics and piwik).
>>
>> ICE is not actually “seizing” any servers or forcing hosting 
>> companies to remove web content from their servers; what they are 
>> doing is using immixGroup IT Solutions to switch the authoritative 
>> name servers for these “seized domains.” But they are not doing it at 
>> the Registrar level(by contacting the registrar for the domain and 
>> forcing them to update the authoritative name server info to point to 
>> NS1.SEIZEDSERVERS.COM, NS2.SEIZEDSERVERS.COM), but rather through the 
>> agency who controls the top level domain. In this case, all the 
>> “seized domains” appear to be .com and the agency/company who has the 
>> ICANN contract for this TLD is VeriSign(which also controls .net 
>> TLD). The changes are being made at the top-level authoritative name 
>> servers for the .com TLD, which would be the [a-m].gtld-servers.net. 
>> These are controlled by VeriSign(note: these top-level name servers 
>> are also authoritative for .net and .edu TLDs).
>>
>> So, VeriSign, the owner of the .com TLD, is working in cooperation 
>> with DHS, and it appears immixGroup IT Solutions has what we might 
>> call an “IT Support Ticket system” setup with VeriSign.
>>
>> That web servers are not being seized and web content not being 
>> deleted can easily be verified by clicking this link, 
>> http://208.101.51.57, which is the original IP Address of a seized 
>> domain, *torrent-finder.com*. It’s still up, and it appears it has 
>> registered a new domain, *torrent-finder.info*, that resolves to the 
>> original IP address. This site is being hosted by SoftLayer 
>> Technologies in Dallas, TX. So, it is certainly within US 
>> jurisdiction to be shut down if there was “a case to be made.”
>>
>> Now the .info TLD is not controlled by VeriSign; it’s controlled by 
>> Afilias <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afilias>. So, an interesting 
>> little experiment would be to see if the *torrent-finder.info* domain 
>> remains up. As of now, we can only conclude that there is back deal 
>> between DHS and VeriSign that makes any .com or .net domain subject 
>> to seizure by the actions of immixGroup IT Solutions.
>>
>> Lastly, there has been some speculation that this recent business of 
>> “domain seizure” portends the same tactics being used to seize the 
>> “wikileaks.org” domain. From a technical standpoint, understand that 
>> the .org TLD is not controlled by VeriSign; it is controlled by the 
>> Public Interest Registry. An interesting thing however: PIR has 
>> contracted out the technical operations to Afilias. So, if we were to 
>> see *torrent-finder.info* similarly seized, then this would mean that 
>> Afilias is also in cahoots with DHS, which could imply the .org TLD 
>> could be subject to the same type of “domain seizures.” As of now, 
>> there is no evidence of that. And, it should be clear, these type of 
>> domain seizures are completely different than the 2008 attempted 
>> shutdown of wikileaks.org by the US government. In that case, a U.S. 
>> District Court issued an injunction ordering Dynadot, which was the 
>> registrar for the domain, to remove all traces of Wikileaks from its 
>> records. That didn’t hold up.
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101129/a0cb955c/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From dogwallah at gmail.com  Mon Nov 29 06:17:13 2010
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 14:17:13 +0300
Subject: [governance] US gov's Domain seizing activities
In-Reply-To: <4CF37B0D.8030508@itforchange.net>
References: <4CD130FE.8080104@ITforChange.net>
	<4CF2418F.4050602@ITforChange.net>
	<5B5C2B17-D288-489B-B8E2-5F44AB796373@ciroap.org>
	<AANLkTinUY1Jg5au3K7M0mqJ882uupeVBje_Lb=M2GVsq@mail.gmail.com>
	<4CF370BC.8040201@itforchange.net>
	<4CF3714E.90907@itforchange.net>
	<4CF37B0D.8030508@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=f5ugDPPyP3rTWqwG8Ak9Ui8bKZVBUmdSE9OTe@mail.gmail.com>

Click on it only if you want to be tracked by the USG contractor
running the web server! Rgds, mctim

On 11/29/10, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
> BTW, do click on http://www.torrent-finder.com/ to see the seizure notice .
>
> As the article mentions, the seizure of the domain space is done not at
> Registrar level but at TLD owner level, a privilege only available to US
> gov for most top TLDs.
>
> On Monday 29 November 2010 02:54 PM, parminder wrote
>>
>>
>> On Monday 29 November 2010 02:52 PM, parminder wrote:
>>> (For some reason, domain seizing activities of governments of
>>> developing countries
>>
>> correction. i of course meant developed countries here
>>
>>
>>> , done for IP enforcement, receives so much less attention that that
>>> of developing countries done for political and cultural reasons.  See
>>> below.)
>>>
>>>
>>>     The Background Dope on DHS Recent Seizure of Domains
>>>
>>> http://rulingclass.wordpress.com/2010/11/28/the-background-dope-on-dhs-recent-seizure-of-domains/
>>>
>>> As has been reported, it looks like ICE
>>> <http://www.ice.gov/iprcenter/>, which is the principal investigative
>>> arm of DHS, has begun seizing domains under the pretext of IP
>>> infringement. But it’s actually not ICE who is executing the
>>> mechanics of the seizures. It’s a private company, immixGroup IT
>>> Solutions <http://www.immixgroup.com/>. Here is what is going down.
>>>
>>> In May of this year, immixGroup IT Solutions
>>> <http://www.immixgroup.com/news/pr_display.cfm?ID=117> is awarded a
>>> one year IT Services contract with DHS. The particulars of this contract:
>>>
>>>     Under this new contract, immixGroup will provide information
>>>     technology operational services and support, implementation, and
>>>     maintenance of DHS ICE C3′s software applications, network and
>>>     CyberSecurity systems, as well as the maintenance and enhancement
>>>     of applications that support law enforcement activities.
>>>
>>>     The contract includes one base year, one 12-month option period,
>>>     and two six-month option periods; covers all four divisions of C3
>>>     (Child Exploitation, Cyber Crimes, Computer Forensics, and Cyber
>>>     Training); and is critical to C3′s pursuit of criminal activity.
>>>     immixGroup’s services in this effort include network maintenance,
>>>     application development and support, forensic lab assistance,
>>>     data storage maintenance, and information assurance.
>>>
>>> On November 24th, immixGroup IT Solutions registered the domain
>>> SEIZEDSERVERS.COM, and primary and secondary nameservers,
>>> NS1.SEIZEDSERVERS.COM, NS2.SEIZEDSERVERS.COM, with Network Solutions,
>>> which is the registrar for this domain. Since the DHS contract is
>>> provisionally for one year only, the domain was only registered for
>>> one year(expires in one year).
>>>
>>> immixGroup IT Solutions is using CaroNet <https://www.caro.net/> to
>>> host their domain, including the authoritative name
>>> servers(NS1.SEIZEDSERVERS.COM, NS2.SEIZEDSERVERS.COM) for this
>>> domain. They have setup a simple web page, http://seizedservers.com/
>>> or http://74.81.170.110 which is the same “Notification of Seizure”
>>> page you will get if you type in one of the seized domains in browser
>>> address bar(if you’re paranoid: yes, they are tracking using both
>>> Google analytics and piwik).
>>>
>>> ICE is not actually “seizing” any servers or forcing hosting
>>> companies to remove web content from their servers; what they are
>>> doing is using immixGroup IT Solutions to switch the authoritative
>>> name servers for these “seized domains.” But they are not doing it at
>>> the Registrar level(by contacting the registrar for the domain and
>>> forcing them to update the authoritative name server info to point to
>>> NS1.SEIZEDSERVERS.COM, NS2.SEIZEDSERVERS.COM), but rather through the
>>> agency who controls the top level domain. In this case, all the
>>> “seized domains” appear to be .com and the agency/company who has the
>>> ICANN contract for this TLD is VeriSign(which also controls .net
>>> TLD). The changes are being made at the top-level authoritative name
>>> servers for the .com TLD, which would be the [a-m].gtld-servers.net.
>>> These are controlled by VeriSign(note: these top-level name servers
>>> are also authoritative for .net and .edu TLDs).
>>>
>>> So, VeriSign, the owner of the .com TLD, is working in cooperation
>>> with DHS, and it appears immixGroup IT Solutions has what we might
>>> call an “IT Support Ticket system” setup with VeriSign.
>>>
>>> That web servers are not being seized and web content not being
>>> deleted can easily be verified by clicking this link,
>>> http://208.101.51.57, which is the original IP Address of a seized
>>> domain, *torrent-finder.com*. It’s still up, and it appears it has
>>> registered a new domain, *torrent-finder.info*, that resolves to the
>>> original IP address. This site is being hosted by SoftLayer
>>> Technologies in Dallas, TX. So, it is certainly within US
>>> jurisdiction to be shut down if there was “a case to be made.”
>>>
>>> Now the .info TLD is not controlled by VeriSign; it’s controlled by
>>> Afilias <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afilias>. So, an interesting
>>> little experiment would be to see if the *torrent-finder.info* domain
>>> remains up. As of now, we can only conclude that there is back deal
>>> between DHS and VeriSign that makes any .com or .net domain subject
>>> to seizure by the actions of immixGroup IT Solutions.
>>>
>>> Lastly, there has been some speculation that this recent business of
>>> “domain seizure” portends the same tactics being used to seize the
>>> “wikileaks.org” domain. From a technical standpoint, understand that
>>> the .org TLD is not controlled by VeriSign; it is controlled by the
>>> Public Interest Registry. An interesting thing however: PIR has
>>> contracted out the technical operations to Afilias. So, if we were to
>>> see *torrent-finder.info* similarly seized, then this would mean that
>>> Afilias is also in cahoots with DHS, which could imply the .org TLD
>>> could be subject to the same type of “domain seizures.” As of now,
>>> there is no evidence of that. And, it should be clear, these type of
>>> domain seizures are completely different than the 2008 attempted
>>> shutdown of wikileaks.org by the US government. In that case, a U.S.
>>> District Court issued an injunction ordering Dynadot, which was the
>>> registrar for the domain, to remove all traces of Wikileaks from its
>>> records. That didn’t hold up.
>>>
>

-- 
Sent from my mobile device

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 dogwallah at gmail.com  Mon Nov 29 08:53:38 2010
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 16:53:38 +0300
Subject: [governance] US gov's Domain seizing activities
In-Reply-To: <4CF370BC.8040201@itforchange.net>
References: <4CD130FE.8080104@ITforChange.net> <4CF2418F.4050602@ITforChange.net>
 <5B5C2B17-D288-489B-B8E2-5F44AB796373@ciroap.org> <AANLkTinUY1Jg5au3K7M0mqJ882uupeVBje_Lb=M2GVsq@mail.gmail.com>
 <4CF370BC.8040201@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <AANLkTiniD4h6nsyyOdBpz+S4=2ztRyqmTKSY_aQNn=tp@mail.gmail.com>

Parminder,

On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 12:22 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
> (For some reason, domain seizing activities of governments of developing
> countries, done for IP enforcement, receives so much less attention that
> that of developing countries done for political and cultural reasons.  See
> below.)

Well, this one must be the exception that proves the rule, as it is
getting a lot of attention!!

Are you still in favor of giving governments MORE control over things
after this?

-- 
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 dogwallah at gmail.com  Mon Nov 29 09:56:49 2010
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 17:56:49 +0300
Subject: [governance] NRO response to CSTD questions
Message-ID: <AANLkTindAmBJN7HQ8t72uVdziXDuVYzGHpGTWA-JB4q1@mail.gmail.com>

I've just seen this one, which meshes with our responses in many ways.

http://nro.net/documents/pdf/QuestionnaireNRO2011-11-18.pdf

-- 
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 katitza at eff.org  Mon Nov 29 15:59:55 2010
From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez)
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 12:59:55 -0800
Subject: [governance] Nominet plans to take down domains suspected of
In-Reply-To: <EF731DB2-6351-4895-8FAA-16F1CB9C0BF7@st-kilda.org>
References: <4CF008FC.8090305@eff.org> <EF731DB2-6351-4895-8FAA-16F1CB9C0BF7@st-kilda.org>
Message-ID: <4CF4144B.9020400@eff.org>

Thank you. Do you know about other similar cases in other parts of the 
world? or if this is a recommendation that has been discussed in any 
global / regional setting?


On 11/26/10 1:06 PM, Fearghas McKay wrote:
> [snip]
>
> This article may be of use for background.
>
> http://blog.alex.org.uk/2010/11/26/domain-names-and-criminals/
>
> Written by one of the Nominet founders and a director till 2007.
>
>      F
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>       governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>       governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>       http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


-- 
Katitza Rodriguez
International Rights Director
Electronic Frontier Foundation
katitza at eff.org
katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email)

Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From lmcknigh at syr.edu  Mon Nov 29 19:38:49 2010
From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight)
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 19:38:49 -0500
Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] Level 3 Communications Issues Statement
 Concerning Comcast
In-Reply-To: <15808AFE-7B1C-42DB-B2B8-CA432E9868E7@me.com>
References: <BFA90B822F56B44BB0BDD0F9B6BF1FCE85BEACD697@HRM22.US.House.gov>,<15808AFE-7B1C-42DB-B2B8-CA432E9868E7@me.com>
Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006EAF@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>

FYI,

All you fans of net neutrality can say 'I told you so'...except sounds easily dealt with as matter of abuse of a dominant position. 

Meaning no new laws or regs required to deal with this...my instant interpretation of the Level 3 v Comcast case, coming to a congressional hearing or regulatory body soon.

Lee
________________________________________
From: Dave Farber [dave at farber.net]
Sent: Monday, November 29, 2010 5:24 PM
To: ip
Subject: [IP] Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast

Begin forwarded message:

<http://www.marketwatch.com/story/level-3-communications-issues-statement-concerning-comcasts-actions-2010-11-29?reflink=MW_news_stmp>http://www.marketwatch.com/story/level-3-communications-issues-statement-concerning-comcasts-actions-2010-11-29?reflink=MW_news_stmp

Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast’s

2010-11-29 21:38:00.326 GMT

  Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast’s Actions

Business Wire

BROOMFIELD, Colo. -- November 29, 2010

Level 3 Communications, Inc. (NASDAQ: LVLT) today issued the following

statement, which can be attributed to Thomas Stortz, Chief Legal Officer of

Level 3:

“On November 19, 2010, Comcast informed Level 3 that, for the first time, it

will demand a recurring fee from Level 3 to transmit Internet online movies

and other content to Comcast’s customers who request such content. By taking

this action, Comcast is effectively putting up a toll booth at the borders of

its broadband Internet access network, enabling it to unilaterally decide how

much to charge for content which competes with its own cable TV and Xfinity

delivered content. This action by Comcast threatens the open Internet and is a

clear abuse of the dominant control that Comcast exerts in broadband access

markets as the nation’s largest cable provider.

“On November 22, after being informed by Comcast that its demand for payment

was ‘take it or leave it,’ Level 3 agreed to the terms, under protest, in

order to ensure customers did not experience any disruptions.

“Level 3 operates one of several broadband backbone networks, which are part

of the Internet and which independent providers of online content use to

transmit movies, sports, games and other entertainment to consumers. When a

Comcast customer requests such content, for example an online movie or game,

Level 3 transmits the content to Comcast for delivery to consumers.

“Level 3 believes Comcast’s current position violates the spirit and letter of

the FCC’s proposed Internet Policy principles and other regulations and

statutes, as well as Comcast’s previous public statements about favoring an

open Internet.

“While the network neutrality debate in Washington has focused on what actions

a broadband access provider might take to filter, prioritize or manage content

requested by its subscribers, Comcast’s decision goes well beyond this. With

this action, Comcast is preventing competing content from ever being delivered

to Comcast’s subscribers at all, unless Comcast’s unilaterally-determined toll

is paid – even though Comcast’s subscribers requested the content. With this

action, Comcast demonstrates the risk of a ‘closed’ Internet, where a retail

broadband Internet access provider decides whether and how their subscribers

interact with content.

“It is our hope that Comcast’s senior management, for whom we have great

respect, will closely consider their position on this issue and adopt an

approach that will better serve Comcast and Comcast’s customers.

“While Comcast’s position is regrettable, Level 3 remains open and willing to

work through these issues with Comcast. However, Level 3 does not seek any

‘special deals’ or arrangements not generally available to other Internet

backbone companies.

“Given Comcast’s currently stated position, we are approaching regulators and

policy makers and asking them to take quick action to ensure that a fair, open

and innovative Internet does not become a closed network controlled by a few

institutions with dominant market power that have the means, motive and

opportunity to economically discriminate between favored and disfavored

content.“

Archives<https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now> [https://www.listbox.com/images/feed-icon-10x10.jpg] <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/8923115-8446eb07>  | Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8923115&id_secret=8923115-86ed04cc> Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now<https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=8923115&id_secret=8923115-e899f1f0&post_id=20101129172617:AFA56FD8-FC07-11DF-B280-8D41F57247DA>     [https://www.listbox.com/images/listbox-logo-small.png] <http://www.listbox.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 lmcknigh at syr.edu  Mon Nov 29 21:49:55 2010
From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight)
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 21:49:55 -0500
Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] Comcast Comments on Level 3 : Comcast Voices
 | The Official Comcast Blog
In-Reply-To: <2E8C887E-F5E0-40F4-8E8A-2F22C79C6C42@me.com>
References: <C919C5DA.4140%jww@comcast.com>,<2E8C887E-F5E0-40F4-8E8A-2F22C79C6C42@me.com>
Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006EB0@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>

FYI,

Comcast's reply - now my on second thought interpretation is this is Level3 is looking to take advantage FCC's leverage over Comcast on the verge of its merger with NBC Universal, to get special treatment...anyway looks like this may well become more than a commercial dispute pretty quickly.

Lee 
________________________________________
From: Dave Farber [dave at farber.net]
Sent: Monday, November 29, 2010 9:20 PM
To: ip
Subject: [IP] Comcast Comments on Level 3 : Comcast Voices | The Official Comcast Blog

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Waz, Joe" <Joe_Waz at comcast.com<mailto:Joe_Waz at comcast.com>>
Date: November 29, 2010 9:04:27 PM EST
To: David Farber <dave at farber.net<mailto:dave at farber.net>>
Subject: Comcast Comments on Level 3 : Comcast Voices | The Official Comcast Blog

Dave:  This may also be of interest.  <http://blog.comcast.com/2010/11/comcast-comments-on-level-3.html> http://blog.comcast.com/2010/11/comcast-comments-on-level-3.html
Archives<https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now> [https://www.listbox.com/images/feed-icon-10x10.jpg] <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/8923115-8446eb07>  | Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8923115&id_secret=8923115-86ed04cc> Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now<https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=8923115&id_secret=8923115-e899f1f0&post_id=20101129212212:9B098A3E-FC28-11DF-B23F-C89063CA501D>     [https://www.listbox.com/images/listbox-logo-small.png] <http://www.listbox.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 parminder at itforchange.net  Tue Nov 30 00:10:58 2010
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 10:40:58 +0530
Subject: [governance] MAG meeting on the 24th  - the issue of self
 improvements
Message-ID: <4CF48762.2010001@itforchange.net>

Hi All

About the MAG meeting on the 24th, I find two interesting elements to 
report.

The first is about the specific mandate given to the MAG by UN SG 
earlier this year to "make proposals with regard to its own future, 
should the mandate be renewed". The meeting on the 24th was supposed to 
have this as its main agenda apart from reviewing Vilnius IGF.

However, apart from discussing the way MAG members should be selected 
(to which I will come in another email), the meeting unfortunately did 
not really get into looking into any substantive aspects in which it 
could change/ improve its working methods and outputs etc. The problem 
was that right at the onset it was decided that the meeting will try to 
formulate a possible terms of references for itself, which further 
largely turned into an exercise for developing TOR or expectations for 
aspiring new MAG members.

The discussion therefore got a lot 'technicalised' towards discussing 
details of what MAG members have been doing over the years, rather than 
address the political question of how MAG can improve itself to still 
better serve the IGF mandate and its impact, especially in the areas of 
perceived lack.

Obviously, if we just look at 'what did MAG members do' for the sake of 
developing a list of expectations from new MAG members, the discussions 
take quite a different direction from what can be expected to happen if 
we specifically focus on possible improvements. I am quite sure that a  
'what MAG members did'  kind of documents could easily be developed by 
the secretariat and possibly passed around for inputs if necessary. 
There cannot be much debate over such directly observable facts.

The real issue of possible improvements of the MAG got almost completely 
ignored. I do not understand why developed country govs, technical 
community, private sector and many in the CS do not appreciate that most 
actors from developing countries - esp CS and govs - really really want 
substantive improvements in the IGF for it to begin to contributing to 
global Internet policy making, which is the primary purpose for which it 
was set up.

Interestingly, whenever, there is a move from within the UN to discuss 
IGF improvements - whether in form of CSTD WG or UN Gen Assembly 
discussions, there is a loud clamour from the groups that I mention 
above that IGF should self-evolve, and self-improve. Why then when the 
primary driving body of the IGF - the MAG - is specifically asked to 
suggest 'proposals regarding its own future' which in my view should 
specifically contain proposals for improvements, it simply refuses to 
even take up a good discussion on the subject?

Can any IGF self-improvement enthusiast explain this paradox to me?

Contrary to what any outsider may expect from a meeting of a Body ( with 
a political role and mandate) called for the purpose of considering its 
future form and activities, and giving specific suggestions in this 
regard, there were almost no animated discussions. The meeting almost 
fizzled out post lunch when people seemed eager to just be done with it 
and leave. Thats the MAG and the IGF for you. They dont want any real 
outcomes, and they dont want others to tell them to change.

Parminder







open consultations





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101130/dd3d7a78/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From parminder at itforchange.net  Tue Nov 30 00:40:03 2010
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 11:10:03 +0530
Subject: [governance] MAG meeting - proposal for a non gov screening body
 for non gov MAG members
Message-ID: <4CF48E33.7080001@itforchange.net>



The second important element to report from the MAG meeting has to do 
with the process of selection of MAG members.

It was agreed early in the meeting that governments have their 
established ways to select members to UN kind of bodies, and thus the 
discussion here is only about selection of non-gov members.

The MAG did discuss the need for more openness, transparency etc. The 
general discontent with what is called the 'blackbox' approach was 
discussed. While general observations were made about increasing 
openness, transparency etc, which are all very welcome, the main 
'possible' operational improvement that got discussed, and I understand 
will be recorded in the outcomes from the MAG meeting that will be 
conveyed to the UN SG, is as follows:

It relates to a body of non gov stakeholder persons, including ex MAG 
members (the intention seems to be that it will largely if not 
exclusively be ex MAG members), who will 'look at' recommendations from 
various stakeholder groups, and apparently finalize the list, which then 
(apparently) will be rubber stamped by the concerned UN authority, with 
a possible last check by the concerned authority.

On the surface it look all very good, but I have a great problem - in 
fact a non-negotiable one - with CS nominations being checked and 
decided on by private sector and technical community. We all know what 
will happen. I kept opposing this proposal as being completely 
unacceptable to most in civil society. Though I was 'assured' that this 
will not operate as a possible veto by private sector and technical 
community on possible CS members, and that the 'finalisation' of the 
list will 'only' be as per express criteria, chiefly, geographic 
balance, I am quite sure that this will operate in a manner that will 
systematically exclude CS nominees that are 'perceived' as 'extreme' (I 
can give examples of how such systematic exclusions already work in IGF 
space when such "MS" bodies  make 'persons' related decisions). We have 
enough people in CS outside IG realm wondering about the degree of 
co-optation of CS in this area for us to submit to processes that will 
further round us up nicely into.... well, i wont use the adjectives that 
come to my mind fearing people may take things personally :)

Most CS members in the MAG list joined me in opposing this proposal. 
However it is still there as the only new proposal for selecting non-gov 
MAG members and it worries me a lot. Those supporting the proposal did 
go to great lengths to try to convince us that it was not at all what we 
take it to be, but I really could not understand the difference. (Others 
at the MAG meeting can help me here, if they could make out the 
difference.) And of course a lot got mentioned about mutual trust among 
(nongov) multistakeholders etc which seemed to make those of us opposed 
to the new  proposal look so morally weak and perhaps of a loathsome 
suspicious nature.

If the new improvement is really in that the stakeholder lists coming 
bottom-up will not be 'interfered' with except for transparent 
application of clear criteria - chiefly geographic balance - I would 
prefer this is done by the secretariat, in active consultation with the 
concerned stakeholder group, whereby any change necessitated by the 
application of the 'express criteria' is referred back to the group 
making the recommendation for making necessary changes, including if 
necessary new names. I would not want a group dominated by private 
sector and technical community reps doing this.

We did suggest let a CS rep group do the work of getting the balance 
right (the term 'triage' was used in the text for this process) and 
other stakeholders do it respectively for their respective groups, and 
the response was that three parallel process will simply not be able to 
do a 'collective' or ' across the groups' balancing, which may be a 
valid point.

(BTW, while the proposal of this MS group doing the selection or triage 
is still there, we were able to add something to the effect that they 
will work 'in active consultation with concerned stakeholder group' to 
the text. But as mentioned above I do not agree with the proposed MS 
body doing this activity.)

IGC may want to take a specific position on this issue.

Parminder




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101130/02d70ac8/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From parminder at itforchange.net  Tue Nov 30 01:46:55 2010
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 12:16:55 +0530
Subject: [governance] enhanced cooperation consultations
Message-ID: <4CF49DDF.3020303@itforchange.net>

I am not sure if IGC members are aware that the enhanced consultations 
in New York on the 14th December are now 'really' open to all CS 
entities accredited to WSIS process apart from those with ECOSOC status 
and the list of speakers is open to be registered for. Pl see 
http://www.unpan.org/dpadm/wsisfollowup/ .

I think our communication to the UN system in this regard has had good 
effect. Parminder
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101130/c616d6d4/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From parminder at itforchange.net  Tue Nov 30 01:53:25 2010
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 12:23:25 +0530
Subject: [governance] enhanced cooperation consultations
In-Reply-To: <4CF49DDF.3020303@itforchange.net>
References: <4CF49DDF.3020303@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <4CF49F65.3070203@itforchange.net>



On Tuesday 30 November 2010 12:16 PM, parminder wrote:
> I am not sure if IGC members are aware that the enhanced consultations 
> in New York on the 14th December are now 'really' open to all CS 
> entities accredited to WSIS process apart from those with ECOSOC 
> status and the list of speakers is open to be registered for. Pl see 
> http://www.unpan.org/dpadm/wsisfollowup/ .
>
> I think our communication to the UN system in this regard has had good 
> effect. Parminder

Sorry, not true. I jumped to conclusions too soon on a superficial reading.

It is still only one slot for CS and one for the private sector.

"The International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) will speak on behalf of the 
private sector. The Conference of NGOs in Consultative Status with the 
United Nations (CoNGO) will speak on behalf of civil society organizations."

parminder
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101130/0554d61d/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From ajp at glocom.ac.jp  Tue Nov 30 01:58:46 2010
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 15:58:46 +0900
Subject: [governance] enhanced cooperation consultations
In-Reply-To: <4CF49F65.3070203@itforchange.net>
References: <4CF49DDF.3020303@itforchange.net>
	<4CF49F65.3070203@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=2Obr0gXDXzdCdjv94t-7z_MTVmd0oZbK8C2Rt@mail.gmail.com>

Parminder, thanks.

Wouldn't it be nice to know what CONGO was planning to say (I know
they should be speaking on behalf of CS.) Have they participated in
any IG discussions since Renate retired?

Adam


On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 3:53 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>
>
> On Tuesday 30 November 2010 12:16 PM, parminder wrote:
>
> I am not sure if IGC members are aware that the enhanced consultations in
> New York on the 14th December are now 'really' open to all CS entities
> accredited to WSIS process apart from those with ECOSOC status and the list
> of speakers is open to be registered for. Pl see
> http://www.unpan.org/dpadm/wsisfollowup/ .
>
> I think our communication to the UN system in this regard has had good
> effect. Parminder
>
> Sorry, not true. I jumped to conclusions too soon on a superficial reading.
>
> It is still only one slot for CS and one for the private sector.
>
> "The International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) will speak on behalf of the
> private sector. The Conference of NGOs in Consultative Status with the
> United Nations (CoNGO) will speak on behalf of civil society organizations."
>
> 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 anriette at apc.org  Tue Nov 30 02:15:19 2010
From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen)
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 09:15:19 +0200
Subject: [governance] enhanced cooperation consultations
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=2Obr0gXDXzdCdjv94t-7z_MTVmd0oZbK8C2Rt@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4CF49DDF.3020303@itforchange.net>	<4CF49F65.3070203@itforchange.net> <AANLkTi=2Obr0gXDXzdCdjv94t-7z_MTVmd0oZbK8C2Rt@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4CF4A487.3060603@apc.org>

Dear all

Should those of us with ECOSOC accreditation try to get a slot as well?  
Or is it too late?

Anriette


On 30/11/10 08:58, Adam Peake wrote:
> Parminder, thanks.
>
> Wouldn't it be nice to know what CONGO was planning to say (I know
> they should be speaking on behalf of CS.) Have they participated in
> any IG discussions since Renate retired?
>
> Adam
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 3:53 PM, parminder<parminder at itforchange.net>  wrote:
>    
>>
>> On Tuesday 30 November 2010 12:16 PM, parminder wrote:
>>
>> I am not sure if IGC members are aware that the enhanced consultations in
>> New York on the 14th December are now 'really' open to all CS entities
>> accredited to WSIS process apart from those with ECOSOC status and the list
>> of speakers is open to be registered for. Pl see
>> http://www.unpan.org/dpadm/wsisfollowup/ .
>>
>> I think our communication to the UN system in this regard has had good
>> effect. Parminder
>>
>> Sorry, not true. I jumped to conclusions too soon on a superficial reading.
>>
>> It is still only one slot for CS and one for the private sector.
>>
>> "The International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) will speak on behalf of the
>> private sector. The Conference of NGOs in Consultative Status with the
>> United Nations (CoNGO) will speak on behalf of civil society organizations."
>>
>> 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
>    

-- 
------------------------------------------------------
anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org
executive director
association for progressive communications
www.apc.org

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From iza at anr.org  Tue Nov 30 02:42:51 2010
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 16:42:51 +0900
Subject: [governance] enhanced cooperation consultations
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=2Obr0gXDXzdCdjv94t-7z_MTVmd0oZbK8C2Rt@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4CF49DDF.3020303@itforchange.net> <4CF49F65.3070203@itforchange.net>
 <AANLkTi=2Obr0gXDXzdCdjv94t-7z_MTVmd0oZbK8C2Rt@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=Cpd4ZBHEUSiT1EFdoGF4PodFPOiaPavpFv+2p@mail.gmail.com>

Jeremy has contacted CONGO already via Secretariat.
Let's see what he finds out.

izumi

2010/11/30 Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp>:
> Parminder, thanks.
>
> Wouldn't it be nice to know what CONGO was planning to say (I know
> they should be speaking on behalf of CS.) Have they participated in
> any IG discussions since Renate retired?
>
> Adam
>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From aizu at anr.org  Tue Nov 30 03:09:09 2010
From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 17:09:09 +0900
Subject: [governance] enhanced cooperation consultations
In-Reply-To: <4CF4A487.3060603@apc.org>
References: <4CF49DDF.3020303@itforchange.net> <4CF49F65.3070203@itforchange.net>
 <AANLkTi=2Obr0gXDXzdCdjv94t-7z_MTVmd0oZbK8C2Rt@mail.gmail.com> <4CF4A487.3060603@apc.org>
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=uxbyafUS5C5MDcaHmvwFoXvrg0njRJqsdfvSm@mail.gmail.com>

I think it is not too late at all, as there is no indication to the deadline for
request. The only reason they might bring is the remaining time etc.

izumi


2010/11/30 Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org>:
> Dear all
>
> Should those of us with ECOSOC accreditation try to get a slot as well?  Or
> is it too late?
>
> Anriette
>
>
> On 30/11/10 08:58, Adam Peake wrote:
>>
>> Parminder, thanks.
>>
>> Wouldn't it be nice to know what CONGO was planning to say (I know
>> they should be speaking on behalf of CS.) Have they participated in
>> any IG discussions since Renate retired?
>>
>> Adam
>>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From iza at anr.org  Tue Nov 30 03:16:25 2010
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 17:16:25 +0900
Subject: [governance] enhanced cooperation consultations
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=2Obr0gXDXzdCdjv94t-7z_MTVmd0oZbK8C2Rt@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4CF49DDF.3020303@itforchange.net> <4CF49F65.3070203@itforchange.net>
 <AANLkTi=2Obr0gXDXzdCdjv94t-7z_MTVmd0oZbK8C2Rt@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTinm9=t1Ju4ecFfpcwhKkKbeGwo=ptBuw4fUfs8W@mail.gmail.com>

I also asked the secretariat if we really need WSIS or ECOSOC accreditation
to attend, and requested the following, as well as more logistical information
as to the venue etc.

"As many of our members are new after WSIS and IGFdoes not require
such accreditation , we like to see it open, not limited to these entities with
accreditation,  just like the IGF and CSTD consultation meetings in Geneva."

The thing is that I asked CSTD secretariat if we need WSIS accreditation and
the reply was NO, the only reason that time was they used the standard UN form
but there was no intention to apply that status. As this time the host
is DESA/ECOSOC
in NYC and on EC not IGF, they may apply the rule more strictly, but
we should not take it automatically granted.

Let's see how they will reply.

izumi
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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 Nov 30 03:58:09 2010
From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 09:58:09 +0100
Subject: [governance] MAG meeting on the 24th  - the issue of self
 improvements
In-Reply-To: <4CF48762.2010001@itforchange.net>
References: <4CF48762.2010001@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <4CF4BCA1.8020001@wzb.eu>

Hi,

my understanding was that the MAG interpreted the mandate to make 
"proposals with regard to its own future" in a modest way to avoid any 
presumption in face of the upcoming CSTD working group. While it would 
be odd for the MAG itself to discuss its authority or political weight 
within the overall process, it made sense to reflect on the 
institutional setting of its operation. This concerns, for example, the 
relationship to the UN SG and the black box approach. Several MAG 
members (me included) pointed out that the informal interaction between 
the chair and New York should be replaced by more robust and formal 
procedures so that we would rely less on the integrity of the 
"messengers" involved. It was felt that we were fortunate to have Nitin 
Desai and Markus Kummer most if not all people fully trusted and that, 
in the face of a complete renewal, of individuals involved in this 
process, it would be about time to document how the MAG worked, how it 
cooperated with stakeholder groups and the UN SG, and how this process 
could be improved. The role of the MAG as such should be discussed not 
by the MAG itself but by the CSTD working group.

Regardless of whether or not one shares this approach, I think it is 
worth explaining why the MAG chose this focus.

jeanette


On 30.11.2010 06:10, parminder wrote:
> Hi All
>
> About the MAG meeting on the 24th, I find two interesting elements to
> report.
>
> The first is about the specific mandate given to the MAG by UN SG
> earlier this year to "make proposals with regard to its own future,
> should the mandate be renewed". The meeting on the 24th was supposed to
> have this as its main agenda apart from reviewing Vilnius IGF.
>
> However, apart from discussing the way MAG members should be selected
> (to which I will come in another email), the meeting unfortunately did
> not really get into looking into any substantive aspects in which it
> could change/ improve its working methods and outputs etc. The problem
> was that right at the onset it was decided that the meeting will try to
> formulate a possible terms of references for itself, which further
> largely turned into an exercise for developing TOR or expectations for
> aspiring new MAG members.
>
> The discussion therefore got a lot 'technicalised' towards discussing
> details of what MAG members have been doing over the years, rather than
> address the political question of how MAG can improve itself to still
> better serve the IGF mandate and its impact, especially in the areas of
> perceived lack.
>
> Obviously, if we just look at 'what did MAG members do' for the sake of
> developing a list of expectations from new MAG members, the discussions
> take quite a different direction from what can be expected to happen if
> we specifically focus on possible improvements. I am quite sure that a
> 'what MAG members did'  kind of documents could easily be developed by
> the secretariat and possibly passed around for inputs if necessary.
> There cannot be much debate over such directly observable facts.
>
> The real issue of possible improvements of the MAG got almost completely
> ignored. I do not understand why developed country govs, technical
> community, private sector and many in the CS do not appreciate that most
> actors from developing countries - esp CS and govs - really really want
> substantive improvements in the IGF for it to begin to contributing to
> global Internet policy making, which is the primary purpose for which it
> was set up.
>
> Interestingly, whenever, there is a move from within the UN to discuss
> IGF improvements - whether in form of CSTD WG or UN Gen Assembly
> discussions, there is a loud clamour from the groups that I mention
> above that IGF should self-evolve, and self-improve. Why then when the
> primary driving body of the IGF - the MAG - is specifically asked to
> suggest 'proposals regarding its own future' which in my view should
> specifically contain proposals for improvements, it simply refuses to
> even take up a good discussion on the subject?
>
> Can any IGF self-improvement enthusiast explain this paradox to me?
>
> Contrary to what any outsider may expect from a meeting of a Body ( with
> a political role and mandate) called for the purpose of considering its
> future form and activities, and giving specific suggestions in this
> regard, there were almost no animated discussions. The meeting almost
> fizzled out post lunch when people seemed eager to just be done with it
> and leave. Thats the MAG and the IGF for you. They dont want any real
> outcomes, and they dont want others to tell them to change.
>
> Parminder
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> open consultations
>
>
>
>
>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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 Nov 30 07:51:43 2010
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 20:51:43 +0800
Subject: [governance] enhanced cooperation consultations
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=Cpd4ZBHEUSiT1EFdoGF4PodFPOiaPavpFv+2p@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4CF49DDF.3020303@itforchange.net> <4CF49F65.3070203@itforchange.net> <AANLkTi=2Obr0gXDXzdCdjv94t-7z_MTVmd0oZbK8C2Rt@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTi=Cpd4ZBHEUSiT1EFdoGF4PodFPOiaPavpFv+2p@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AC4F4974-7EE9-469A-AB54-6EBC166C7878@ciroap.org>

On 30/11/2010, at 3:42 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote:

> Jeremy has contacted CONGO already via Secretariat.
> Let's see what he finds out.

That was ten days ago, and I haven't heard back.  I think as a contingency, we need to plan to have someone from the IGC to meet with the CONGO representative in person in New York ahead of the consultation itself, as well as to give an IGC statement directly in case there is time available.  Who will be in or near New York on 14 December, and able to attend the consultation?

-- 
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 --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101130/5acd67de/attachment.bin>

From lmcknigh at syr.edu  Tue Nov 30 09:38:59 2010
From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight)
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 09:38:59 -0500
Subject: [governance] enhanced cooperation consultations
In-Reply-To: <AC4F4974-7EE9-469A-AB54-6EBC166C7878@ciroap.org>
References: <4CF49DDF.3020303@itforchange.net>
 <4CF49F65.3070203@itforchange.net>
 <AANLkTi=2Obr0gXDXzdCdjv94t-7z_MTVmd0oZbK8C2Rt@mail.gmail.com>
 <AANLkTi=Cpd4ZBHEUSiT1EFdoGF4PodFPOiaPavpFv+2p@mail.gmail.com>,<AC4F4974-7EE9-469A-AB54-6EBC166C7878@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006EB3@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>

One Syracusan or another - Derrick, Milton, Brenden, Mawaki, John - could maybe help if needed.
________________________________________
From: Jeremy Malcolm [jeremy at ciroap.org]
Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2010 7:51 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Izumi AIZU
Subject: Re: [governance] enhanced cooperation consultations

On 30/11/2010, at 3:42 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote:

> Jeremy has contacted CONGO already via Secretariat.
> Let's see what he finds out.

That was ten days ago, and I haven't heard back.  I think as a contingency, we need to plan to have someone from the IGC to meet with the CONGO representative in person in New York ahead of the consultation itself, as well as to give an IGC statement directly in case there is time available.  Who will be in or near New York on 14 December, and able to attend the consultation?

--
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 george_todoroff at imap.cc  Tue Nov 30 10:41:05 2010
From: george_todoroff at imap.cc (George Todoroff)
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 07:41:05 -0800
Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?Is_really_Bulgarian_Cyrillic_.=D0=B1?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?=D0=B3_(.bg)_similar_to=0A_other_Latin_ccTLDs=3F?=
Message-ID: <1291131665.20152.1407897083@webmail.messagingengine.com>

Is really Bulgarian Cyrillic .бг (.bg) similar to other Latin ccTLDs?

	Bulgaria has proposed for an IDN ccTLD the string .бг (Cyrillic
	for .bg, or U+0431 U+0433), but the proposal was turned down by
	the ICANN DNS Stability panel in May 2010 without any arguments
	or an option for appeal.

The proposed string is composed of two characters:
U+0431 CYRILLIC SMALL LETTER BE (б) and
U+0433 CYRILLIC SMALL LETTER GHE (г)

	Reading the tables, provided with Unicode Technical Standard
	#39,
	(http://www.unicode.org/Public/security/revision-04/confusables.txt)
	I see that confusable characters are only:

0431 ;  0036 ;  SL      # ( б → 6 ) CYRILLIC SMALL LETTER BE → DIGIT SIX
    # 

0433 ;  0072 ;  ML      # ( г → r ) CYRILLIC SMALL LETTER GHE → LATIN
SMALL LETTER R # 

	As a result, we see that the applied string .бг could be
	confused only with the string .6r, which does not exist.

The Russian case

	Opponents to the Bulgarian proposal say that Russia first wanted
	to apply for .ру (Cyrillic for .ru), but then selected another
	one, because .ру was found to be confusingly similar with the
	Paraguayan ccTLD .py , and because of this, Bulgaria must be
	obedient and select another IDN string.

	Looking again at Unicode Technical Standard #39, I see that:

0440 ;  0070 ;  ML      # ( р → p ) CYRILLIC SMALL LETTER ER → LATIN
SMALL LETTER P  # 

0443 ;  0079 ;  ML      # ( у → y ) CYRILLIC SMALL LETTER U → LATIN
SMALL LETTER Y   # 

	We have absolute similarity here! Very different than the
	Bulgarian case with 50% similarity.

	Russia selected and received the .рф (Cyrillic for .rf) string.
	Looking for a third time at Unicode Technical Standard #39, I
	see that:

0440 ;  0070 ;  MA      # ( р → p ) CYRILLIC SMALL LETTER ER → LATIN
SMALL LETTER P  # 

0444 ;  0278 ;  ML      # ( ф → ɸ ) CYRILLIC SMALL LETTER EF → LATIN
SMALL LETTER PHI# 

	What do we have here? One similar character, and one not similar
	to a Latin basic character. So, how is this different from the
	Bulgarian case? Its the same! How the Russian string was
	approved, and the Bulgarian – not???


The DNS Stability panel rankings

[6]  Both characters are visually identical to an ISO 646 Basic Version
(ISO 646-BV) character.
[5]  One character is visually identical to, and one character is
visually confusable with, an ISO 646-BV character.
[4]  Both characters are visually confusable with, but neither character
is visually identical to, an ISO 646-BV character.
[3]  One character is visually distinct from, and one character is
visually identical to, an ISO 646-BV character.
[2]  One character is visually distinct from, and one character is
visually confusable with, an ISO 646-BV character.
[1]  Both characters are visually distinct from an ISO 646-BV character.
	
	The panel said that Bulgaria fails under [4] or [5], so the
	string is not accepted, because rank [4] or more is not good.

	But, from my findings here, the Bulgarian (as the Russian)
	strings fail under [2] or [3], and its perfectly fine to be
	approved.

Security proposals

	As another participant in the public comment forum said, two
	security proposals must be implemented:

	“1. All names in the .бг (.bg) IDN ccTLD must be registered only
	with Cyrillic letters.”
	“2. All names in the .бг (.bg) IDN ccTLD must contain at least
	one letter, which can be visually distinguished from the Latin
	alphabet (one of the letters: б, г, д, ж, и, й, л, п, ф, ц, ч,
	ш, щ, ъ, ь, ю, я).” (“г“ may fail off this list, because of my
	findings.)

Examples

	There must be really conservative people in the DNS Stability
	panel, who don`t like seeing domains like:
- раурал.бг because people would confuse it with paypal.br
	Come on, раурал.бг and paypal.br ? Compare with paypal.it and
	paypal.lt ? 

	Others are afraid of seeing:
- руса.бг and pyca.br (whatever this means in Brazilian Portuguese) -
check the second security proposal. The first domain can`t exist.

- - - - -

	Dear DNS Stability panel members, what is wrong here?
	Dear ICANN Board members, Bulgaria needs an appeal procedure!

Cheers,
George Todoroff
-- 
  george_todoroff at imap.cc

-- 
http://www.fastmail.fm - Send your email first class

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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 Nov 30 11:33:03 2010
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 19:33:03 +0300
Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?Is_really_Bulgarian_Cyrillic_.=D0=B1?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?=D0=B3_(.bg)_similar_to_other_Latin_ccTLDs=3F?=
In-Reply-To: <1291131665.20152.1407897083@webmail.messagingengine.com>
References: <1291131665.20152.1407897083@webmail.messagingengine.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTikgPie+wr7VBeA-d=4ni1yC=rwYFK3sP9ha9D4G@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 6:41 PM, George Todoroff
<george_todoroff at imap.cc> wrote:
> Is really Bulgarian Cyrillic .бг (.bg) similar to other Latin ccTLDs?

yes

>
>        Bulgaria has proposed for an IDN ccTLD the string .бг (Cyrillic
>        for .bg, or U+0431 U+0433), but the proposal was turned down by
>        the ICANN DNS Stability panel in May 2010 without any arguments
>        or an option for appeal.

Sorry for that, but we don't always get what we want on Internet
governance issues.  Try the GAC, maybe they will take up your cause.
I don't think this mailing list is interested judging by the responses
so far.  In any case, we, as a group play no role in ICANN.  Whether
we should or not is a different matter.

There are indeed conservative folk who deal with Security and
Stability, and I am glad for that.

-- 
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 dogwallah at gmail.com  Tue Nov 30 12:25:51 2010
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 20:25:51 +0300
Subject: [governance] MAG meeting - proposal for a non gov screening body
In-Reply-To: <4CF48E33.7080001@itforchange.net>
References: <4CF48E33.7080001@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <AANLkTim19gHxkNtvfTXF4UKW-g=emevHMd01vwoaANbi@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 8:40 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>
>
> The second important element to report from the MAG meeting  has to do with
> the process of selection of MAG members.
>
> It was agreed early in the meeting that governments have their established
> ways to select members to UN kind of bodies, and thus the discussion here is
> only about selection of non-gov members.
>
> The MAG did discuss the need for more openness, transparency etc. The
> general discontent with what is called the 'blackbox' approach was
> discussed. While general observations were made about increasing openness,
> transparency etc, which are all very welcome, the main 'possible'
> operational improvement that got discussed, and I understand will be
> recorded in the outcomes from the MAG meeting that will be conveyed to the
> UN SG, is as follows:
>
> It relates to a body of non gov stakeholder persons, including ex MAG
> members (the intention seems to be that it will largely if not exclusively
> be ex MAG members), who will 'look at' recommendations from various
> stakeholder groups, and apparently finalize the list, which then
> (apparently) will be rubber stamped by the concerned UN authority, with a
> possible last check by the concerned authority.

Is this documented anywhere?

>
> On the surface it look all very good, but I have a great problem - in fact a
> non-negotiable one - with CS nominations being checked and decided on by
> private sector and technical community.

Wouldn't the inverse be true as well?  Do biz folk have an issue if CS
vets/decides on them?


We all know what will happen.
I kept
> opposing this proposal as being completely unacceptable to most in civil
> society. Though I was 'assured' that this will not operate as a possible
> veto by private sector and technical community on possible CS members, and
> that the 'finalisation' of the list will 'only' be as per express criteria,
> chiefly, geographic balance, I am quite sure that this will operate in a
> manner that will systematically exclude CS nominees that are 'perceived' as
> 'extreme' (I can give examples of how such systematic exclusions already
> work in IGF space when such "MS" bodies  make 'persons' related decisions).


Please do, as I am not aware of any.


-- 
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 mueller at syr.edu  Tue Nov 30 13:06:59 2010
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 13:06:59 -0500
Subject: [governance] MAG meeting - proposal for a non gov screening
In-Reply-To: <4CF48E33.7080001@itforchange.net>
References: <4CF48E33.7080001@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC108DDE3@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>

I agree with your concerns, Parminder. What they appear to be setting up is the kind of self-selecting network of insiders that characterizes many internet technical community institutions, such as ICANN’s Nominating Committee. In this kind of a system, existing representatives play a big role in vetting and selecting proposed incoming representatives. This happens in secret, in a completely nontransparent way. It is a small step away from the “black box,” because there is some diversity among the existing CS/MAG representatives and some (very weak) lines of accountability to civil society, but the overall effect of such a selection system can only be to minimize change in the composition of the MAG. The main purpose is to preserve the continuity and control of the people who are already in control. Whoever is selected must be “acceptable” to the group as a whole. People who are outspoken or controversial are automatically eliminated by such a system.

As for geographic and gender diversity, I would assert that diversity of viewpoints and ideas is more important than any other form of diversity, and that geography and gender are at best proxies for differing viewpoints and ideologies.



From: parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net]
Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2010 12:40 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: [governance] MAG meeting - proposal for a non gov screening body for non gov MAG members



The second important element to report from the MAG meeting  has to do with the process of selection of MAG members.

It was agreed early in the meeting that governments have their established ways to select members to UN kind of bodies, and thus the discussion here is only about selection of non-gov members.

The MAG did discuss the need for more openness, transparency etc. The general discontent with what is called the 'blackbox' approach was discussed. While general observations were made about increasing openness, transparency etc, which are all very welcome, the main 'possible' operational improvement that got discussed, and I understand will be recorded in the outcomes from the MAG meeting that will be conveyed to the UN SG, is as follows:

It relates to a body of non gov stakeholder persons, including ex MAG members (the intention seems to be that it will largely if not exclusively be ex MAG members), who will 'look at' recommendations from various stakeholder groups, and apparently finalize the list, which then (apparently) will be rubber stamped by the concerned UN authority, with a possible last check by the concerned authority.

On the surface it look all very good, but I have a great problem - in fact a non-negotiable one - with CS nominations being checked and decided on by private sector and technical community. We all know what will happen. I kept opposing this proposal as being completely unacceptable to most in civil society. Though I was 'assured' that this will not operate as a possible veto by private sector and technical community on possible CS members, and that the 'finalisation' of the list will 'only' be as per express criteria, chiefly, geographic balance, I am quite sure that this will operate in a manner that will systematically exclude CS nominees that are 'perceived' as 'extreme' (I can give examples of how such systematic exclusions already work in IGF space when such "MS" bodies  make 'persons' related decisions). We have enough people in CS outside IG realm wondering about the degree of co-optation of CS in this area for us to submit to processes that will further round us up nicely into.... well, i wont use the adjectives that come to my mind fearing people may take things personally :)

Most CS members in the MAG list joined me in opposing this proposal. However it is still there as the only new proposal for selecting non-gov MAG members and it worries me a lot. Those supporting the proposal did go to great lengths to try to convince us that it was not at all what we take it to be, but I really could not understand the difference. (Others at the MAG meeting can help me here, if they could make out the difference.) And of course a lot got mentioned about mutual trust among (nongov) multistakeholders etc which seemed to make those of us opposed to the new  proposal look so morally weak and perhaps of a loathsome suspicious nature.

If the new improvement is really in that the stakeholder lists coming bottom-up will not be 'interfered' with except for transparent application of clear criteria - chiefly geographic balance - I would prefer this is done by the secretariat, in active consultation with the concerned stakeholder group, whereby any change necessitated by the application of the 'express criteria' is referred back to the group making the recommendation for making necessary changes, including if necessary new names. I would not want a group dominated by private sector and technical community reps doing this.

We did suggest let a CS rep group do the work of getting the balance right (the term 'triage' was used in the text for this process) and other stakeholders do it respectively for their respective groups, and the response was that three parallel process will simply not be able to do a 'collective' or ' across the groups' balancing, which may be a valid point.

(BTW, while the proposal of this MS group doing the selection or triage is still there, we were able to add something to the effect that they will work 'in active consultation with concerned stakeholder group' to the text. But as mentioned above I do not agree with the proposed MS body doing this activity.)

IGC may want to take a specific position on this issue.

Parminder



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101130/82367f83/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From mueller at syr.edu  Tue Nov 30 13:08:24 2010
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 13:08:24 -0500
Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?Is_really_Bulgarian_Cyrillic_.=D0=B1?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?=D0=B3_(.bg)_similar_to_other_Latin_ccTLDs=3F?=
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikgPie+wr7VBeA-d=4ni1yC=rwYFK3sP9ha9D4G@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1291131665.20152.1407897083@webmail.messagingengine.com>
 <AANLkTikgPie+wr7VBeA-d=4ni1yC=rwYFK3sP9ha9D4G@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC108DDE4@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>

George: 
McTim doesn't speak for anyone but himself, so don't take his opinion as authoritative. 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2010 11:33 AM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; George Todoroff
> Subject: Re: [governance] Is really Bulgarian Cyrillic .бг (.bg) similar
> to other Latin ccTLDs?
> 
> Hi,
> 
> On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 6:41 PM, George Todoroff
> <george_todoroff at imap.cc> wrote:
> > Is really Bulgarian Cyrillic .бг (.bg) similar to other Latin ccTLDs?
> 
> yes
> 
> >
> >        Bulgaria has proposed for an IDN ccTLD the string .бг (Cyrillic
> >        for .bg, or U+0431 U+0433), but the proposal was turned down by
> >        the ICANN DNS Stability panel in May 2010 without any arguments
> >        or an option for appeal.
> 
> Sorry for that, but we don't always get what we want on Internet
> governance issues.  Try the GAC, maybe they will take up your cause.
> I don't think this mailing list is interested judging by the responses
> so far.  In any case, we, as a group play no role in ICANN.  Whether
> we should or not is a different matter.
> 
> There are indeed conservative folk who deal with Security and
> Stability, and I am glad for that.
> 
> --
> 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 dogwallah at gmail.com  Tue Nov 30 13:39:28 2010
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 21:39:28 +0300
Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?Is_really_Bulgarian_Cyrillic_.=D0=B1?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?=D0=B3_(.bg)_similar_to_other_Latin_ccTLDs=3F?=
In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC108DDE4@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
References: <1291131665.20152.1407897083@webmail.messagingengine.com>
 <AANLkTikgPie+wr7VBeA-d=4ni1yC=rwYFK3sP9ha9D4G@mail.gmail.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC108DDE4@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <AANLkTimoePpYEP06FMrSV+pOVTmJ=jcmYrnQREsa2KMt@mail.gmail.com>

Milton,

On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 9:08 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
> George:
> McTim doesn't speak for anyone but himself, so don't take his opinion as authoritative.

I suspect that is true for all of us.  I was merely pointing out that
despite numerous posts on the topic, there is little positive reply.

What advice would you give?

-- 
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 Nov 30 13:57:09 2010
From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 19:57:09 +0100
Subject: [governance] MAG meeting - proposal for a non gov screening
In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC108DDE3@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
References: <4CF48E33.7080001@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC108DDE3@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <4CF54905.8010502@wzb.eu>




> As for geographic and gender diversity, I would assert that diversity of
> viewpoints and ideas is more important than any other form of diversity,
> and that geography and gender are at best proxies for differing
> viewpoints and ideologies.

Gender as a proxy. Aren't we surprised.

jeanette
>
> *From:*parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, November 30, 2010 12:40 AM
> *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org
> *Subject:* [governance] MAG meeting - proposal for a non gov screening
> body for non gov MAG members
>
>
>
> The second important element to report from the MAG meeting has to do
> with the process of selection of MAG members.
>
> It was agreed early in the meeting that governments have their
> established ways to select members to UN kind of bodies, and thus the
> discussion here is only about selection of non-gov members.
>
> The MAG did discuss the need for more openness, transparency etc. The
> general discontent with what is called the 'blackbox' approach was
> discussed. While general observations were made about increasing
> openness, transparency etc, which are all very welcome, the main
> 'possible' operational improvement that got discussed, and I understand
> will be recorded in the outcomes from the MAG meeting that will be
> conveyed to the UN SG, is as follows:
>
> It relates to a body of non gov stakeholder persons, including ex MAG
> members (the intention seems to be that it will largely if not
> exclusively be ex MAG members), who will 'look at' recommendations from
> various stakeholder groups, and apparently finalize the list, which then
> (apparently) will be rubber stamped by the concerned UN authority, with
> a possible last check by the concerned authority.
>
> On the surface it look all very good, but I have a great problem - in
> fact a non-negotiable one - with CS nominations being checked and
> decided on by private sector and technical community. We all know what
> will happen. I kept opposing this proposal as being completely
> unacceptable to most in civil society. Though I was 'assured' that this
> will not operate as a possible veto by private sector and technical
> community on possible CS members, and that the 'finalisation' of the
> list will 'only' be as per express criteria, chiefly, geographic
> balance, I am quite sure that this will operate in a manner that will
> systematically exclude CS nominees that are 'perceived' as 'extreme' (I
> can give examples of how such systematic exclusions already work in IGF
> space when such "MS" bodies make 'persons' related decisions). We have
> enough people in CS outside IG realm wondering about the degree of
> co-optation of CS in this area for us to submit to processes that will
> further round us up nicely into.... well, i wont use the adjectives that
> come to my mind fearing people may take things personally :)
>
> Most CS members in the MAG list joined me in opposing this proposal.
> However it is still there as the only new proposal for selecting non-gov
> MAG members and it worries me a lot. Those supporting the proposal did
> go to great lengths to try to convince us that it was not at all what we
> take it to be, but I really could not understand the difference. (Others
> at the MAG meeting can help me here, if they could make out the
> difference.) And of course a lot got mentioned about mutual trust among
> (nongov) multistakeholders etc which seemed to make those of us opposed
> to the new proposal look so morally weak and perhaps of a loathsome
> suspicious nature.
>
> If the new improvement is really in that the stakeholder lists coming
> bottom-up will not be 'interfered' with except for transparent
> application of clear criteria - chiefly geographic balance - I would
> prefer this is done by the secretariat, in active consultation with the
> concerned stakeholder group, whereby any change necessitated by the
> application of the 'express criteria' is referred back to the group
> making the recommendation for making necessary changes, including if
> necessary new names. I would not want a group dominated by private
> sector and technical community reps doing this.
>
> We did suggest let a CS rep group do the work of getting the balance
> right (the term 'triage' was used in the text for this process) and
> other stakeholders do it respectively for their respective groups, and
> the response was that three parallel process will simply not be able to
> do a 'collective' or ' across the groups' balancing, which may be a
> valid point.
>
> (BTW, while the proposal of this MS group doing the selection or triage
> is still there, we were able to add something to the effect that they
> will work 'in active consultation with concerned stakeholder group' to
> the text. But as mentioned above I do not agree with the proposed MS
> body doing this activity.)
>
> IGC may want to take a specific position on this issue.
>
> 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 lmcknigh at syr.edu  Tue Nov 30 14:02:58 2010
From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight)
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 14:02:58 -0500
Subject: [governance] =?KOI8-R?B?SXMgcmVhbGx5IEJ1bGdhcmlhbiBDeXJpbGxp?=
 =?KOI8-R?B?YyAuwscgKC5iZykgc2ltaWxhciB0byBvdGhlciBMYXRpbiBjY1RMRHM/?=
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimoePpYEP06FMrSV+pOVTmJ=jcmYrnQREsa2KMt@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1291131665.20152.1407897083@webmail.messagingengine.com>
 <AANLkTikgPie+wr7VBeA-d=4ni1yC=rwYFK3sP9ha9D4G@mail.gmail.com>
 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC108DDE4@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>,<AANLkTimoePpYEP06FMrSV+pOVTmJ=jcmYrnQREsa2KMt@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006EBB@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>

My advice to George is that some of us are always interested in ICANN's 'transparent and objective' procedures, or lack of same.

As in the apparent lack of an appeals process highlights in this case.

Complaining to GAC may eventually have an impact.

But drawing attention to issue with an occasional post here is also fine by me.

Lee


________________________________________
From: McTim [dogwallah at gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2010 1:39 PM
To: Milton L Mueller
Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; George Todoroff
Subject: Re: [governance] Is really Bulgarian Cyrillic .бг (.bg) similar to other Latin ccTLDs?

Milton,

On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 9:08 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
> George:
> McTim doesn't speak for anyone but himself, so don't take his opinion as authoritative.

I suspect that is true for all of us.  I was merely pointing out that
despite numerous posts on the topic, there is little positive reply.

What advice would you give?

--
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 ajp at glocom.ac.jp  Tue Nov 30 14:12:25 2010
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2010 04:12:25 +0900
Subject: [governance] =?KOI8-R?B?SXMgcmVhbGx5IEJ1bGdhcmlhbiBDeXJpbGxp?=
 =?KOI8-R?B?YyAuwscgKC5iZykgc2ltaWxhciB0byBvdGhlciBMYXRpbiBjY1RMRHM/?=
In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006EBB@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
References: <1291131665.20152.1407897083@webmail.messagingengine.com>
	<AANLkTikgPie+wr7VBeA-d=4ni1yC=rwYFK3sP9ha9D4G@mail.gmail.com>
	<75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC108DDE4@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
	<AANLkTimoePpYEP06FMrSV+pOVTmJ=jcmYrnQREsa2KMt@mail.gmail.com>
	<93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006EBB@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <AANLkTimmkmVmP2bQXgCeDTQX-Qq2iCBxJSBp3uus9uvF@mail.gmail.com>

An appeal to the Accountability and Transparency Review team might be
useful <http://www.icann.org/en/reviews/affirmation/review-1-en.htm>

Comment process for them
<http://www.icann.org/en/reviews/affirmation/atrt-public-comment-en.htm>

Adam



2010/12/1 Lee W McKnight <lmcknigh at syr.edu>:
> My advice to George is that some of us are always interested in ICANN's 'transparent and objective' procedures, or lack of same.
>
> As in the apparent lack of an appeals process highlights in this case.
>
> Complaining to GAC may eventually have an impact.
>
> But drawing attention to issue with an occasional post here is also fine by me.
>
> Lee
>
>
> ________________________________________
> From: McTim [dogwallah at gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2010 1:39 PM
> To: Milton L Mueller
> Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; George Todoroff
> Subject: Re: [governance] Is really Bulgarian Cyrillic .бг (.bg) similar to other Latin ccTLDs?
>
> Milton,
>
> On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 9:08 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
>> George:
>> McTim doesn't speak for anyone but himself, so don't take his opinion as authoritative.
>
> I suspect that is true for all of us.  I was merely pointing out that
> despite numerous posts on the topic, there is little positive reply.
>
> What advice would you give?
>
> --
> 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 avri at acm.org  Tue Nov 30 14:20:22 2010
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 14:20:22 -0500
Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?Is_really_Bulgarian_Cyrillic_.=D0=B1?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?=D0=B3_(.bg)_similar_to_other_Latin_ccTLDs=3F?=
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimoePpYEP06FMrSV+pOVTmJ=jcmYrnQREsa2KMt@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1291131665.20152.1407897083@webmail.messagingengine.com> <AANLkTikgPie+wr7VBeA-d=4ni1yC=rwYFK3sP9ha9D4G@mail.gmail.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC108DDE4@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <AANLkTimoePpYEP06FMrSV+pOVTmJ=jcmYrnQREsa2KMt@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <500941AB-8ACA-4A6E-A681-E0B3CB6E9EB0@acm.org>

hi,

Actually I never got around to responding because I do not really see it as an issue IGC gets into. 

I do not think it rises to the level of detrimental confusion, which is the criteria. The criteria is not that someone somewhere might confuse them someday but that it causes detrimental confusion.  If there ware a .6r then maybe, but since TLDs with leading digits are already prohibited, I don't see the issue.

Unfortunately this is area where ICANN powers that be reigns supreme. And if the StaffBoard says it doesn't go, the only way to actually challenge this is to use one of the reconsideration methods.


a.




On 30 Nov 2010, at 13:39, McTim wrote:

> Milton,
> 
> On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 9:08 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
>> George:
>> McTim doesn't speak for anyone but himself, so don't take his opinion as authoritative.
> 
> I suspect that is true for all of us.  I was merely pointing out that
> despite numerous posts on the topic, there is little positive reply.
> 
> What advice would you give?
> 
> -- 
> 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 george_todoroff at imap.cc  Tue Nov 30 16:16:21 2010
From: george_todoroff at imap.cc (George Todoroff)
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 13:16:21 -0800
Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?Is_really_Bulgarian_Cyrillic_.=D0=B1?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?=D0=B3?=
In-Reply-To: <500941AB-8ACA-4A6E-A681-E0B3CB6E9EB0@acm.org>
References: <1291131665.20152.1407897083@webmail.messagingengine.com>
 <AANLkTikgPie+wr7VBeA-d=4ni1yC=rwYFK3sP9ha9D4G@mail.gmail.com>
 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC108DDE4@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
 <AANLkTimoePpYEP06FMrSV+pOVTmJ=jcmYrnQREsa2KMt@mail.gmail.com>
 <500941AB-8ACA-4A6E-A681-E0B3CB6E9EB0@acm.org>
Message-ID: <1291151781.24225.1407957667@webmail.messagingengine.com>

Thanks to everybody for the replies.

According to article IV, section 2 of the ICANN Bylaws, the
"Reconsideration Request" is only for ICANN board or staff action /
inaction. As far as I know, the DNS Stability panel is neither part of
the ICANN board, nor a part of the staff.

The "Independent Review" is also for any board decisions.

I see no way how to trigger those procedures now. Maybe only if the
ICANN board reviews the comments from the fast-track review public
comment period, and does nothing - then Bulgaria will be able to start
the reconsideration request for "inaction". 


-- 
  Cheers,
  George Todoroff
  george_todoroff at imap.cc


On Tue, 30 Nov 2010 14:20 -0500, "Avri Doria" <avri at acm.org> wrote:
> hi,
> 
> Actually I never got around to responding because I do not really see it
> as an issue IGC gets into. 
> 
> I do not think it rises to the level of detrimental confusion, which is
> the criteria. The criteria is not that someone somewhere might confuse
> them someday but that it causes detrimental confusion.  If there ware a
> .6r then maybe, but since TLDs with leading digits are already
> prohibited, I don't see the issue.
> 
> Unfortunately this is area where ICANN powers that be reigns supreme. And
> if the StaffBoard says it doesn't go, the only way to actually challenge
> this is to use one of the reconsideration methods.
> 
> 
> a.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 30 Nov 2010, at 13:39, McTim wrote:
> 
> > Milton,
> > 
> > On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 9:08 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
> >> George:
> >> McTim doesn't speak for anyone but himself, so don't take his opinion as authoritative.
> > 
> > I suspect that is true for all of us.  I was merely pointing out that
> > despite numerous posts on the topic, there is little positive reply.
> > 
> > What advice would you give?
> > 
> > -- 
> > 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

-- 
http://www.fastmail.fm - Access your email from home and the web

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t